12 June, 2018

True Emergence




Dialectics not Mathematics


In a recent YouTube video out of California, the Quantum Loop Gravity tendency in Modern Physics claims its own Theory of Emergence, in a slick, but totally uninformative video presented by a pretty girl. As the author of the 2010 The Theory of Emergence, and also a physicist myself, I am of course, bound to comment.



You can watch it here, if you must!


I will not go through the details of that video, for they are both insulting to their overtly intended audience - "the layman", and packed-full of unestablished assumptions - all restricted to a multi-dimensional Mathematics, and "caused" or "selected-from Random Chaos by a Universal Consciousness"(?). 

Good Lord.

Frankly, this is not worthy of a detailed criticism, but it does use the same rhetorical methods as Trump uses in the political sphere, which indicates the methods to be used to convince the uninformed, without ever actually informing them!

But, its claim to a "theory of emergence" must be torpedoed by someone, such as myself, who has been involved, all his adult life, in revealing the damaging errors both in Formal Reasoning, Politics and even Science, due almost-wholly to the inadequacies of Mathematics in explaining Reality. Indeed, to even limit it, temporally, in that way, reduces its major significance over the last 2,500 years.

Ever since the creation of Mathematics by the Ancient Greeks, its enabling distortions in representing Reality, not only greatly expanded its pragmatic use, but also revealed a means of relating individual "discoveries" into an extendable and consistent intellectual discipline. And, these were very quickly carried over into Reasoning to produce Formal Logic. And later, became similarly built-into the new discipline of Science.

Yet, almost immediately, after the initial gains were achieved, the Greek, Zeno of Elea, had revealed major errors in Reasoning, when addressing Movement, in his work on Paradoxes. And, these were never properly addressed, for over two millennia, until Hegel, the German idealist Philosopher stumbled upon the major flaw - Formal Logic did NOT ever address Qualitative Change!




Indeed, to construct the founding discipline of Mathematics to actually work, all Qualitative Changes were prohibited, and, in addition, all Forms were changed into only perfect versions. Mathematics was never a description of Reality-as-is!

And, in its changed state, it had been made to conform to The Principle of Plurality - where those assumed features were mandatory: they alone, in fact, gave Mathematics its consistency and extendibility! But, in carrying over the properties of Mathematics into defining Formal Logic, they also implanted these same restrictions into it too. And, later the same disabling features were delivered to Science as well, as Formal Logic was the required reasoning tool.

Consequently, Science could only make any progress at all if the situations to be investigated were constrained to only deliver such features. It would only work within Stable Situations.

It was The Science of Stability!

Now, let's be crystal clear: "What is an Emergence?"






In my book, as the author of The Theory of Emergence, it is when something qualitatively different emerges out of a seemingly persisting stable situation, changing things permanently. But, for all those who depend upon Mathematics as the unifying "consistent" basis of their studies and determinations, such Qualitative Changes are summarily banned! Their pluralist basis (Mathematics) always requires Stable situations: so what must they mean by their claims to deliver Emergences?

Well, in spite of deliberate obfuscation, the designers and deliverers of this video use the oldest trick in the book. They first allow such a mess of complication, that almost any outcome seems to be possible, and they put down what selects from this enormous menu of possibilities, to a "Universal Consciousness" (which they insist is not God), but a product of the overall entire-causing-system, that can then choose the actual outcome.

Now, what is my alternative?

All pluralistic Laws, as dealt with as above, have limits to their applicability. We call them Singularities, and if delivered of the appropriate values of the involved parameters. which take the situation to those terminations, then the equations give meaningless results - like infinity for example.

Clearly, to a Holist, such as myself, the domain of applicability of their strictly-pluralist-equation has been exceeded, so it no longer describes the situation. The boundaries of the required Stability have been exceeded, and the Stability dissociated!

Close to that boundary, in non linear cases, the limited region of Mathematical Chaos, can be encountered, but not for long, for the situation quickly descends into what seems to be Total Chaos..... but, then coalesces into a new relation in a different Stability.

And, "How does that occur?", you will quite rightly ask!

It occurs because in Reality-as-is, there are many simultaneous relations all-acting together, but they DO NOT just sum, as the pluralists insist - but both affect and change one another, some co-operating, while some are opposing.

Indeed, for a time these always changing mutual modifications do deliver something like "chaos" - but only until they form a new self-maintaining system, when seemingly damaging changes in one, are compensated for by consequent opposing changes in another.

Indeed, Hegel's simplification of this was his Interpenetration of Opposites, the simplest examples of which are the Dichotomous Pairs, discovered by Zeno, and explained in terms of mistaken or absent premises, by Hegel.





In place of the idealistic and pluralist conception of an Emergence, may I offer The Trajectory of an Emergence, shown above. It is clearly no magical conversion, but a complex transition, involving a dynamic change between two Stabilities.       
    

Special Issue: Iteration





This special issue explores the idea of iteration in Mathematics and Philosophy. 

In Mathematics it is a way of trying to find answers through repetition, but it certainly isn’t the usual way of using equations. Originally an invention of pragmatic engineers it then became an extension of Mathematics, giving birth to all manner of wonderous inventions, from fractals to Chaos Theory. It is a fascinating area for sure, but it isn’t what the mathematicians like to pretend it is.

Iteration is a descrete way of approaching the continuous - and a static way of dealing with movement and change. It embodies all the chaos, paradoxes and infinite blow-ups you’d expect from such internal contradiction.

The papers in this short collection are presented in a different way from the usual updates. For it is such a difficult, and yet crucial, area that “the latest” seems both too esoteric and too abstract, and its relevance not immediately apparent.

It certainly wasn’t obvious to me! It has taken about 30 years for me to finally begin to understand iteration’s importance, in providing a very different approach to both Reasoning and Science. So, clearly, delivering the latest developments, without some idea of how it was finally achieved, would also leave most areas unexplained and unaquainted readers cold. So, this collection spans, one way or another, all the significant steps in that ascending trajectory.

First of all, these papers are not part of a complete and final narrative. They, instead, each and every one, come out of an only partly referred-to past, which had certainly left the necessary traces-and-questions in my head, but not yet upon the written page. Nevertheless, the fact that each poses as yet unanswered questions, does ultimately connect up with later papers, and, as it does so, begins to light-up a wholly new path towards Truth, inaccessible from the usual approaches.

As a whole, it brings together the inadequacies of disciplines that cannot deal with real Qualitative Change, such as Mathematics, with the finding of evidence for possible solutions actually within the very tricks and extensions that infer something beyond those steadfast limits, and which become attempts to solve the inherent problems of that discipline’s usual and in fact essential approach.

Indeed, as Hegel had always insisted, progress only resides in what appear to be untenable contradictions.

Read more

11 June, 2018

No Future


Abandoned mall in the USA


No Future Under Capitalism

....for Anyone


The Economic System of Capitalism must have a Market for what it produces. So, primarily, that means people to buy its products.

But, just as important in determining its imperatives, is how it works economically, based upon both the Financial Requirements side and on the Necessary Results side: it must attract the necessary investment to finance both the Means of Production, their regular updating to stay competitive, and have enough overall Profits to pay the required Dividends to its Investors.

But, it must also have Labour to carry out its productive operations: and that must be as cheap as possible.

Now, the main problem since its inception has never changed!

Most of the customers (ultimately) will also be those producing the products. It, therefore, presents the major unavoidable contradiction in Capitalism. For, keeping wages as low as possible, while having enough customers with money to buy the products are, ultimately, diametrically opposed requirements.

Do you require a proof?

For, the whole 300 years of its History, Capitalism has hit this contradiction every few years, when it inevitably suffers a Recession, Depression or even a Slump - and when it does large numbers of workers are sacked, and find new jobs almost impossible to find.

The corner was often turned by taking on the unemployed at much lower wages, so a new balance could be achieved, and these would be at different companies to those from which they had been sacked. Indeed, these "Down-Turns" were frequent enough, for an ever present Pool of the Unemployed to be regularly used in this way!

Now, a purely single area Capitalism, could never grow enough for the new Employing Class and their investors, so they extended their reach to ever new areas, both in their own Country, and then abroad. And, as those exterior countries had been conquered by the so-called Metropolitan Capitalist Hubs, both cheap raw materials and low-wage workers could be easily maintained there.


Abandoned mall in China

This is the Imperialist Development of Capitalism, as very successfully employed by England (and later by the following United Kingdom).

And, interestingly, this was significantly modified by the United States of America, by constantly extending its boundaries to the West and South, disposing of the indigenous populations, as it did so, and distributing of the taken land cheaply to the torrent of poor workers from the East of the USA, and to similar immigrant people from Europe.

But, in addition, both of these nations largely solved their most pressing problem, by resorting to wholesale slavery, to provide "owned labour" both in America in their Southern States, and by Britain in its Caribbean Colonies.

Of course, such "solutions" were always only temporary! For the imperatives of the system, necessarily re-asserted themselves all the time. And, with the end of Imperialism after the Second World War, those means were also curtailed - to be replaced by the installing-and-supporting of corrupt regimes in the ex-colonies to act as well-paid intermediaries.

Indeed, for both the colonial owners and the USA there was also the threat of Socialism, following the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, and the forced "socialisation" of Eastern Europe. For then, America, in particular, embarked upon an almost constant set of wars to prevent any further extensions, and set up militarily-supported Capitalist alternatives instead.

But, the underlying drive of Capitalism always-and-inevitably re-asserts itself, and whatever modifications are instituted, nothing can replace the need for Profit!

Equally the essential contradictions can also never be resolved within Capitalism: for even in War, the usually resorted to "final solution", the soldiers required are once again the ordinary Working People - and to fight they have to be armed!

It was just such "people-in-arms" that carried through the Russian Revolution.

Think about it! 

Why were Nuclear weapons invented?


The promise of war without soldiers

Why are wealthy Americans armed to the teeth, and increasingly live in effectively "gated communities"?

Why must there always be an Enemy, threatening the status quo?

Why has America got by far the mightiest Military in the World?

Who is really threatening America?

It is you!

What the capitalist rulers fear most is the mass of ordinary workers finally rebelling!

So, how about a future without Capitalism?


Abandoned mall in Austin Texas has been transformed into a community college

Re-using dying malls

04 June, 2018

Penrose and Ideality





Why Cosmology is Irretrievably Broken


As a serious and active theoretical physicist and mathematician, I have been inevitably driven to Philosophy, in order to try to explain the many apparently unavoidable contradictions encountered literally everywhere in both of these disciplines. And, it was there, within Philosophy, that I had been irrefutably presented with a damning indictment of both the bases, and of the assumptions, underlying these disciplines, which are also present, in the usual Basic Formal Logic type of reasoning used there too.

Such an extreme realisation was, itself, of course, a very long way from being an immediately-arrived-at conclusion. For, on the contrary, those very same now-rejected beliefs had been, without any doubt, a tremendously empowering past achievement by Mankind, and had led to significant progress in their attempts to make sense of their finally coming-to-be-thought-about World.

Indeed, to this day, most people, even including most professionals, and in these very same fields, do not, as yet, even doubt their crucial underlying premises, and have stuck, consistently, to them, ever since their major revelation by the ancient Greeks. For, they were, and still are, neessary-simplifications of Reality, and still retaining a true-if-limited measure of Objective Content within them.

They are often true-for-now, and hence wholly dependable in the short term. Indeed, in some cases they even appeared to be true-for-ever, such as in Number, for example! But in reality it depends on what you are counting - for, if your 1 + 1 is a Man and a Woman, it could, in time, equal 3, or 4 or even more. Then, as the parents die, it can decline, maybe even to 0! Yet, who would give up Number as a truly valuable concept, because of this clear time-dependence: it still has true value in many relatively unchanging scenarios.

Indeed, the key-misleading-assumption involved, when applied generally, has a name: it is termed Plurality. Put simply, Plurality asserts the permanence of certain things, ideas or beliefs, and their independence of other simultaneously-present entities or happenings. It was intuitively arrived at by the Greeks, in their first major revelation - that of Mathematics, originally concerned with perfect shapes in Euclidian Geometry, but soon extended to the whole discipline involving all Pure Forms.

And, let us be crystal clear, with Mathematics, within its well-defined bases, Plurality is, indeed, always valid! Its very power depends upon its definition of perfect shapes, or more generally, Perfect Forms, for this enabled the whole discipline to be built into a relatively consistent and developable system.

But, this was only at all possible by limiting study to Pure Forms alone, which, as a consequence, also made it necessarily conform to Plurality too. But, consequently, Mathematics does NOT apply to Reality, as such, but only to this reflection of its Pure Forms and nothing else - basically, it is true only of a parallel and restricted World, which we term Ideality.


Roger Penrose and some Ideality


Now, the problems with my chosen disciplines arose, when situations unavoidably involved Qualitative Changes. For, Mathematics, as originally defined, excluded this possibility entirely, but also for the very same reason could still be developed into a remarkably informing descriptive discipline, when restricted to things conforming to Plurality - that is to only quantitative changes, usually only within what are termed Stabilities.
But, my consequent turn to Physics (from my first love, Mathematics) didn't help, for the benefits of Mathematics in staying with Plurality, had also been exported illegitimately, first, to Formal Logic, and thereafter to the Sciences too.

Though Physics, for example, was temporarily rescued by a form of Positivism which allowed the co-existence of various contradictory stances which could be switched-between with the long-standing pragmatic excuse of, "If it works, it is right!" So, an amalgam of stances were simultaneously-allowed, including Materialism (from Reality), Idealism (from Mathematics), Pragmatism (from his Hunter/Gatherer past), Plurality (from Formal Reasoning), and even Holism (from attempts, in spite of all the above, to physically-explain real phenomena).

The major crisis, was finally unavoidably precipitated, in the 20th century, by the increasingly-emerging failure of the above amalgam, which led to the dropping of Physical Explanation totally, and the whole-hearted embracing of Mathematics as the "sole-saviour", particularly in Sub-Atomic Physics, but also with a devastating carry-over into Cosmology too.

Now, this particular essay was precipitated by a video on the internet by Professor Roger Penrose upon the assumed-cause - the Big Bang, and inevitable final-demise, of our Universe! Penrose started by mentioning his resolute faith in Mathematics, and, in particular, of Einstein's Relativity Equation, and though he didn't question the Equation, he felt that certain prior assumptions, upon which it was erected, might well be erroneous.

Interestingly, he located the difficulties within the Singularities seemingly occurring at either end of that existence - the Big Bang beginning, and the Zero ending, indicated within the equation by its effective blowing-up at those singularities.

His problems were with the (indisputable-for-him) Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicated that the trajectory of that whole History was -

from a High-Energy, Random-movement, Minimum Entropy Start

onto a Low-Energy, Random-movement, Maximum Entropy End

It didn't make sense in Penrose's conception for it seemingly went from Chaos to Chaos via Structured Foms and even Life? But, his doubts weren't because of Penrose's "rich and wide" experience of Reality: for he, on the contrary, only "dwells" exclusively in a pluralist world determined-and-describable only by Mathematics!

Indeed, if you expected any Explanatory Physics, from his then-emerging Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, you will be sadly disappointed.

Both in the Universe's Origin (as in a Big Bang)

and in the Universe's Demise (as in a Terminal End)

they are described as being in an identical Conformal featureless "Flatness".

You have to remember his total dedication to pluralist Mathematics: in "explaining" anything, he actually says, "The equations deliver all these outcomes"! No references are made to any actual Substances and their properties. Absolutely everything comes from the Abstract Equations alone, and, ultimately, all his descriptions will be shown as the consequences of Formal Equations - they, we are told, determine-everything!





Yet, such means not only do not, but also cannot, deliver Qualitative Change, so all adherents to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, with their Maths-only stance, can never ever explain such changes: they can only, in the old pragmatic way, switch between equations because - "If it works, it is right!" That is NOT Science. It is Idealism as embodied in purely Formal Equations. It can only ever be descriptive, but never explanatory, so it actually terminates Science to be replaced by a dry and dead formalism.

Now, with justice, the response to all of this might well be to demand that this critic must deliver the alternative to this Dead End, and that is certainly a legitimate position to take. Yet, the routes taken in the whole of Mankind's various intellectual disciplines, over millennia, have unavoidably brought us to this significant current Impasse. The contradictions have been built into the Amalgam of such Premises, which were all retained, in order, pragmatically, to be able to achieve the many required particular outcomes, in a variety of areas.

And, that Amalgam must now be dismantled, via a route admitting of, and dealing comprehensively with, Qualitative Change.

But, in spite of several heroic attempts to do this, particularly since the Dialectics of Friedrich Hegel, some 200 years ago, this has not been achieved, primarily, because such an undertaking has never been systematically-and-comprehensively applied to Science, and, crucially, to Physics.

And, the usual restriction is, invariably, to only ever do Studies of Stability, either natural or arranged-for, which is now required to be extended beyond the point where formalist equations FAIL - where each-and-every essential Stability dissociates, and where the Real World processes, which alonedeliver the Qualitative Changes, termed Emergences,or even Revolutions,must now be the New Focus.

This is not new, descriptively, of course - for in Biology, Evolution is both totally accepted and well described. And, Geology has revealed the 4 billion-year-long History of the Earth, and even the time of the Origin of Life, and the Tempo of its consequent stages of subsequent development - its Evolution!

But, what are rarely, if ever, investigated, are the relatively short Interludes of Emergent Change, which are totally unavailable by current scientific methods, which ONLY EVER investigate Stability! It has been shown that an interlude of Qualitative Change is a cataclysmic transformation, requiring, initially, repeated Crises within the current Stability, which turns out to be a self-maintaining balance of multiple-opposing-factors, and which finally totally collapses - seemingly heading for a Nadir of Dissociation - that is, in fact, a complete dissolution of the prior System-Stability involved.

Yet, consequently, this then allows the still-existing individual processes, from the prior Stability, along with co-existing others, to find new "partners", in both conducive-cooperating and opposing relationships, which ultimately achieve a wholly new self-maintaining balance, in a new Stability, at a new and different level!

We currently recognise the Stabilities, upon either side of such a Transforming Interlude, but know nothing of the process which brought-about The Change. We use the passing of Threshold values, in certain Key Parameters, to signal when to switch getween the alternatives, but we can never explainthe conyent of that transition!

Now, such an absolutely necessary inclusion of these changes into Science is not just a dream! It is already underway, with a major Holistic attack upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and its many consequences. The ill-famed Double Slit Experiments have been fully explained, purely physically. And the quantization of Electron orbits in Atoms has also succumbed to the new approach. Of course, the very heart of this endeavour has been to produce a coherent, consistent and comprehensive Holist, Materialist Philosophic Stance. And, the demotion of Mathematics from its current primary position to that of a flawed but useful Handmaiden in both Science and Technology has been necessary.


How can Science become Holist rather than Pluralist?



This undertaking, almost exclusively by a single individual (the writer of this paper), has amounted to over 1,000 papers, published at a rate of approximately 9 per month over the last 9 years, but based upon a lifetime's involvement, at a professional level, in all the disciplines addressed.

Postscript: The obvious question that may be considered important, about this philosopher/scientist, must be, "to what tradition or milieu does this researcher belong?" He has been a aspiring Dialectical Materialist since early adulthood, but only began to make significant philosophical contributions in the last 20 years.

30 May, 2018

Countering "Give up now you'll never do it!"


London 2003 saw the largest protest in its history. Over a million people took to the streets to show their opposition to the invasion of Iraq. The war went ahead anyway...


Outflanking the Wealth-Dominated Authority and Opinion


In my professional life I have often had to succeed in spite of seemingly unconquerable odds ranged against what I knew to be necessary. What I wanted to do was dismissed by all the authoritive voices, and even by literally all those who actually agreed with me! The informed consensus was:-

"Give up now, you'll never do it!"

Indeed, all alternative actions, suggested from bothsides, but for obviously very different reasons, was to, "Do what you can, and where you can!", and be satisfied that: you had, at least, made a justified, if token, effort.

Not good enough!

For, while you are making minor changes for a handful of recipients, the powers that be are changing things for thousands and then millions. I'm afraid that such tokens amount to letting the wealth-organised authorities do it their way, and in doing so, turn your well-intensioned tokens into betrayals.

For, those tokens promise great possibilities, which are not only never delivered, but just persuade those who had temporarily benefited from them that, more generally, "Absolutely nothing could be done!"

But, on two crucial occasions, a way was found to implement changes beyond a temporary token contribution.

An appeal, via the man whose name was attached to the institution in which I was working, managed to acquire two obsolescent Mainframe Computers from a local major firm, who were upgrading, and these were identical to the one on which I had been doing extended research at a local University. And, all this also came at a time when the Government were suggesting Link Courses between Further Education Colleges and Local Schools - to give pupils experience of what they would need in their future workplaces. Clearly, I was in a position to connect these "token, costless" ventures into something very different!

Within a short period we had built a Computing Section doing several quality courses both in-house and via Links with local Schools. It was on a shoestring, but we knew what we were doing, and backed it up with an independent organisation for doing the same for other Colleges across the Country, as well as getting more equipment for our own institution and maintaining a sufficient standard.




Now, I did mention two cases!

Years later I was working with a Researcher in Dance Performance and Choreography, who had major problems using exemplar materials on video, for use in teaching the principles involved in both of these disciplines. We got together and solved her problems using computer controlled Laser Discs, and within a year had won a British Interactive Video Award for Excellence, with our first product "The Dance Disc".

But, our revolutionary methods were still rejected by the Dance Education Authorities, and for a whole decade we were unable to proceed further. But, this was the 1990s and the internet was looming!

We decided to sell over the internet, via, initially, giving away free Demo Discs (usable upon the then numerous desktop computers), which we had taken from our first product, or were cut-down versions of potential new products. We managed to totally by-pass the Dance Establishment, and, via the Internet, and, in the end, produced a dozen titles, including one translated into Dutch, and with both known-contacts and supplied-users in over 100 countries, worldwide.

Clearly, the Authorities are dominated by people with very different priorities to the majority of people working in that given area.

So, the policy must be to outflank them, when they hinder necessary progress!

Now, admittedly, this isn't as easy as it sounds, because things-move-on, and a possible outflanking, at one time, can be impossible later-on!

For example, the increasing interventions by Governments and their agencies into the Internet, which, let's be crystal clear, is no longer run by enthusiastic, principled and committed amateurs, but by multi-billion dollar Corporations, whose interests are allying, ever-more-closely, with pro-wealth Governments. The bypassing solutions of the future will have to be different from those of the past!




And, of course, for those of the Left with a political agenda, these arguments are even more crucial. Are the methods of the past up to the problems emerging daily as World Capitalism repeatedly fails to counter the devastating effects of the 2008 slump? Of course not! For, with the newspaper and communications media in their pockets, Capitalist Governments are finding scapegoats, everywhere, to hide the real causes of the continuing crisis.

As happened with the 1929-1941 slump, the same methods led to Fascist Governments in Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Japan and even Finland: and similar Right-Wing movements are now growing literally everywhere. And, to up the ante still further, War is now endemic for the USA, as they intervene all over the Globe in attempts to maintain their prior dominance, but now, more and more, by Force!

But, the biggest demonstration ever, in the UK, as was marshalled against the War of Intervention in Iraq, still achieved nothing!

The resources were there, but not the necessary Organisation!

The past strength of the Unions has been drastically diminished by Capitalist Governments; and the nature of the new jobs to "replace" those lost in the 2008 Slump are "zero-hours", self-employed, or part-time, with neither security, protection or the organisations to fight for such things, for the workers involved. But, the only real weapon of the Working Class is, and always has been, Organisation: it is all they can have!

So, what new forms must this take in the current period to provide that crucial and deciding power to WIN?

We are, after all, the Many, and with joint steadfast action we can (and must) defeat the Few!

To answer these questions constructively, we must define exactly what is lacking, and change our current activism into a questing, seeking, informing and empowering agitation, primarily supplying what the Working Class "both need, and need-to-know!", and, "to effectively organise!". And, such information should no longer be a ready-made series of policies - arrived at only by distant leaders and handed down to be used by activists, everywhere, and in the same way. Instead, they must be finding out what is, locally, both required and demanded.

And formulating demands and arguments to be used with other, as yet, unconvinced workers - and in so doing constantly empowering the theorists too!

And, as always, the necessary forces will be found within the Youth! Primarily, because it is they who are the hardest hit, yet unencumbered by the old, now useless, methods of the past. It was the youth who literally "did everything" after the Grenfell Disaster, to help and organise for those affected - Did you notice how young, committed. intelligent and energetic they were?

Those must be the forces to be won!

And, in addition, all those, who are qualified, should be communicating their expertise to such workers: Not as it is done on the Radio, Television and Films as "Entertainment", but as enabling-possibilities for our Class! Teachers and experts in particular areas should be explaining what they do to workers as exciting, valuable and worthwhile occupations.

For, Education as it is usually inflicted upon the children of workers - "to fit them for work when they leave", must be given a vastly wider remit, and introduce them to the excitement of all aspects of human activities. The polar opposite of what is currently happening in education under the Tories.

Now, one more personal experience of the writer, must be related to negate the Nay-Sayers for such an approach. Years ago, I was working in Glasgow, where we started a "Youth Training" initiative in Bridgeton (a poor-Working Class area). At that time, there seemed to be only myself, who could offer anything both useful and exciting - I was an established Computer Programmer, so I taught unemployed Working Class Youth to program computers. They loved it, and wanted more, but the next level-up required more expensive equipment, and we didn't have the resources to supply one-each! I contacted my old comrades from one of my previous posts, which was carrying on with what I had started over a decade previously, and asked them to get me a redundant Mainframe Computer, which they did, and we installed it in a warehouse in Bridgeton.

Sadly, soon after, I terminally fell-out with my employers, and had to get another job in England, so I personally was unable to carry that project to completion. But, it again showed what could be done! Who could gainsay such outflanking! It had bypassed both all the usual provision of such facilities, and their usual intentions

Notice though, I was the only academic I knew who was doing such things!

Clearly, there are many such provisions that committed and competent professionals could make, as well as other services that are vanishing from situations such as we are suffering at present.

Communal services like Libraries are closing down everywhere!

What can you do?


Abandoned library in Blackpool


Postscript:

Years ago, the city I was then working in were due to demolish a row of ancient shops, but there was a delay! They agreed to allow a temporary use, rent-free, if those taking one on looked after it. Myself and my partner, applied and got one of these shops, and turned it into an Art Gallery. It lasted for a whole year! People who care can rally communities to run such things themselves if needs be...

15 May, 2018

The Fractal Myth



The Fractal Myth of Scale Invariance

and the conclusions it reveals for Natural Law



Look carefully at the following animation and extract what you think it demonstrates.






It is in fact a movie based upon a Fractal Form resolutely chased, level-below-level, as far as you might want, which, in this delivered world, can be repeated literally forever. Can we draw any conclusions from this demonstration? Does it make us think differently about our World?

Yet, it is certainly NOT about our real World!

It is, instead, an exploration of another physically-non-existing and, indeed, a wholly non-exist-able World, which we can artificially construct, and even display dynamically, entirely from formal elements selectively extracted from our World, but, absolutely-crucially, under a set of majorly affecting constraints, and extensively carried through a range of formal changes (totally unobtainable in our world, but achievable here) to deliver this video.

It is possible in that World, allowed by such a construction - the World that we term Ideality- the World of Pure Forms alone, which is, of course, the realm of all of Mathematics!

Now, the viewer may well be wondering why I am delivering this piece: what on earth is my purpose? Surely no-one would consider that the above clip, in any way reflects Reality-as-is: it is clearly an entertaining infinite construct - a journey into a constructed world!

But, it is, nevertheless, based upon a formal equation.

And, in our world we depend, all the time, upon such formal equations as the valid embodiments of eternal Natural Laws, extracted from our world in highly constrained and controlled situations.

There can be no doubt that these too exist-as-such only in that World of Ideality. And, Reality and Ideality are very different Worlds! Though Ideality contains Forms, and Forms alone, Reality also contains Everything Else, including all the physically existing Causes for how things behave within it. So, can formal equations from Ideality alone be sufficient to predict real world developments?

The answer surely has to be a resounding ,"NO!" Yet technologists, using such equations, can make it happen!

Do they just go into the real world, get the required stuff, and apply their equations to it? Of course not - for it would always fail!

Embedded in any production process is a great deal more than a formal equation - everything else, in a series of separate processes all with the correct substances, conditions, processes and their requisite equations, must be involved in each tightly controlled stage, to finally produce something like the proginal intension.

YET, what do theorists use to extend their theories? They stand at their blackboards, or scribble on paper, using Formal Equations alone!



Benoit Mandelbrot at the blackboard

To explain it to you, they just give you their equations - as the Laws-determining-what-will-happen! They manipulate their Laws to predict new possible outcomes, which they could never achieve without the technicians discovering all the concrete requirements absolutely essential to RESTRICT the real world outcome to that "required theoretical objective".

But, and here is the crucial difficulty, in Sub Atomic Physics and Cosmology, the theorists have abandoned physical explanations as self-kid, and now rely solely upon their Formal Equations alone.

So, what has this done to their "Science"?

Now, these words are not those of some uninformed outsider, indulging in his profound ignorance of what the fully qualified experts can do. On the contrary. I am, primarily, a qualified physicist and mathematician. I can do all this stuff, and have been doing so for many decades.

But, my many involvements extend greatly wider than these currently severely-restricted areas, and, crucially, include significant work, in many other disciplines, where I contributed expert understanding and skills in Computer Science and Systems Analysis - finally ending up as an expert in Computers-in-Control.

To pull all this together I have spent the last decade studying and contributing to Philosophy, so rather than an uninformed outsider, I am a very well-informed insider. And, have also been involved in a trenchant, philosophical evaluation, and, indeed, criticism of my professionally qualified areas of Physics and Mathematics. And, to cap all of this I spent a very profitable time assisting the excellent mathematician Jagan Gomatam with his investigations of iterative forms of specially adapted versions of Van der Pol's Equations applied to the beating of the Human Heart, and involving the Mathematical Chaos - closely related to the Fractals at the beginning of this essay.


Van der Pol style oscillator

So, my purpose is to accurately-position scientific investigations, AND their claimed-to-be eternal Natural Laws, in their true relation to actual Reality-as-is, and how we get them to both deliver our objectives, and allow us to interpret what they deliver.

Surprisingly, we neither investigate Reality-as-is, 
nor use our extracted Laws in Reality-as-is!

For, our objective is to somehow extract, from a Complex and Real World, individual, separated-out and entirely formal (i.e. quantitative) relations, and then apply them to some desired end.

And, neither of these are possible in Reality-as-is!

The relation only actually exists, as such, in Ideality- the World of Pure Form alone! So, it is clear that a location in Reality will have to be significantly transformed to become as close as possible to Ideality.

And, this is achieved by:-

  • the isolation of that location, 

  • and the removal of as many factors as possible,

  • along with the holding of certain others constant,

  • while leaving only the relevant variable savailable,

  • for the variation of one, and the measurement of the other.


This approximates that purposely-farmed-locationto what normally only occurs in Ideality, which we term - a forced conformity to the Principle of Plurality.

And, in such a situation, the relation, between the two remaining variables, is usually immediately evident, and can have a purely formal ideal relation, acquired from Mathematics, fitted-up to the obtained data set, to deliver a formal equation, designated as an eternal Natural Law!

But, there is a problem. It will never work in Reality-as-is! It can be made to work, but only if the exact conditions of its extraction are replicated for its use.

So, Fractals, and all that jazz, do not, as such, extend our reach in Reality, but only in Ideality: what they do is extend what we have in Mathematics, and are therefore merely extensions to that discipline alone. They have nothing to tell us about reality.

Issue 59: Meta Forces





The problems addressed by this theorist are many and varied, all arising primarily out of the inadequacies and contradictions which have arisen as consequences of the now dominant Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. But, in addition, the problems are also due to much longer-standing compromises and alternative stances, that have plagued Science, and existed for millennia.

So, let us start with the problem of communications throughout vast regions of totally “Empty Space”, and fields of truly colossal size existing within there too.

Now, the reasons why such anomaly have been accepted as O.K. in spite of the inability to detect any sort of means for supporting such features, is simply because the Formal Equations describing such phenomena seem to work very well.

First, the fact that we cannot explain why things occur as they do is ignored, because we have those useful equations. And, second, it is because Modern Science has finally switched to the totally idealist position that assumes formal relations actually drive concrete Reality.

Such an idealist/pragmatist stance is anathema to this physicist, and led to an attack upon that position, via a purely physical attempt to explain the whole range of phenomena abandoned by this approach.

Effectively, it was soon clear that the task had to be a wholesale assault upon the Copenhagen stance, at the very heart of which, were the conclusions drawn from that cornerstone of the Theory - the Double Slit Experiments!

Now, as it turned out, every single one the anomalies of that set of Experiments, could all be totally removed, solely by the presence of a currently undetectable Universal Substrate, acting as an intermediary, and providing the Waves, while the missiles aimed at the Slits, actually provided the Particles.

The only conclusion one could draw from that success, was that such a Substrate must indeed exist, and, this theorist began the task of defining appropriate Substrate Units to deliver all the involved phenomena.

The research was primarily determined by the essential undetectability of such a Substrate, and inexorably led to the idea of the units being entirely composed of mutually-orbiting-pairs of Leptons - especially chosen to deliver all the phenomena when active, but to be totally undetectable when inactive (see above).

Slowly-but-surely, such effective units began to be devised, but turned out to have to be very different ones, for each type of phenomena:

The Double Slit, EM propagation and Wave/Particle duality were solved using: Neutritrons

Electrical & Magnetic Fields in empty space with: Magnetons

But the substrate for Gravitation Fields was with Gravitons; and this proved to be the most difficult of all!

The overall ambition was to explain everything via this multi-layered and undetectable Substrate, and it was finally achieved by assuming a Meta-Gravity Dipole Effect in Gravitons, similar to the Magnetic Dipole Effect in Magnetons. But what could this new meta force mean for physics - and how could we possibly detect it?

What Happens in Interstellar Space?




Certain questions just have to be asked, in response to the current total absence of any physical means of communication in so-called Empty Space.

Of course, Einstein's Space-Time continuum provided a non-physical, yet somehow effectible, Reference-System, as a means of formally fitting patterns to what occurs there, but only by taking that basis completely out of physical explanation and endowing the "stage" itself with the necessary formal wherewithal, entirely independent of any physical causes.





So, for gravitational forces elicited directly by Matter, we have the contradictory explanation of a non-material context both being affected-by, while itself affecting, what happens within its aegis.

We, in the past, used to term such inferred intermediaries to be physical Substrates, but as none were ever detected, the substitution of that non-material-framework, justified the purely formal definitions that were already-and-everywhere else erected as parallel alternatives, to the previously always-required physical Explanations.

It fitted-in, directly, if not perfectly, with the positivist stance of Poincaré and Mach, and what soon after became the dominant position of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

Purely formal pattern-fitting was rapidly ousting all Physical Theories, as the true bases of Science, and of the Concrete Reality, which it previously purported to explain in purely physical terms. Truly, a purely idealist-and-pluralist mathematical form of "Theory", along with various, frigged-up "philosophical" justifications, cheek-by-jowl with isolated physical tokens, has totally replaced Science as it used to be considered.

And, the fact that there were many things wrong with the old conceptions, doesn't make this transformation anything other than a major, and ultimately debilitating Retreat! At least, the old contradictory amalgam of stances did enable alternative routes to be taken, with difficult problems, while maintaining Physical Explanations as paramount.

But now, that absolutely crucial banker-component had been jettisoned, and replaced by a totally idealist-and-pluralist discipline, not only as a means of describing Reality, but also as the means of driving it too!

And, this purely form-based approach was highly attractive for several reasons.

First and foremost was the fact that increasing knowledge allowed to-be-investigated situations to be farmed and controlled to such an extent, that formal relations could be fairly easily extracted, and then matched to fitted-up general forms from Mathematics. And these, in turn, allowed achievable predictions to be made, and then successfully implemented - as long as the conditions used in extraction were replicated exactly for use in productions.

In addition, these equations were legitimately pluralist (while the Reality-as-is that they were supposed to represent, most certainly wasn't). And, this allowed the pluralistic rules of Pure Form to be used in developing further, more extensive "formal theories". as if they were Real World generalities.

But, of course, the clearest gains were achieved by the Technologists, whose main motto was still, "If it works, It is right!". and whose extensive Knowledge and pragmatic skills enabled them to always construct the appropriate contexts for effective use!




And, finally, "Space", itself, never ever available under such farmed and controlled conditions, was not only seemingly much closer to the ideal pluralist conditions, but also was beyond our experimental investigation: it could only be passively observed, so the earth-based means of confirmations were unavailable.

The situation was tailor-made for formal equation-fitting PLUS speculation!

Now, an early assumption, attempting to explain phenomena that evidently occurred in "Space", was that it was filled with some invisible Substrate, usually termed The Ether (or luminiferous aether), which both allowed the Propagation of Electromagnetic Radiation, and communicated evident Actions-at-a-Distance, such as Gravitation.

But when it was discounted by the Michelson-Morley Experiment, it was replaced by absolutely Nothing - the ubiquitous Natural Vacuum of Space.

The phenomena still occurred, and have mathematical formulae. which they obey, but as to why they were possible - that was left unaddressed.




Now, it very soon became an untenable stance, so while maintaining the total absence of anything resembling a substrate, there was one kind of interloper that it was considered could be relied upon to deliver everything! It was energetic particles fired into the emptiness of Space, and capable of carrying on as such until they hit something.

Even Electromagnetic Radiation was conceived as coming in quanta - individual gobbets of energy, so they too would also fit the bill: no longer would a propagating substrate be deemed necessary.

But, how do you expand Nothingness?

With the deemed-to-be-essential, faster than the Speed of Light, Inflation, early in the Universe, what exactly was expanded, and how? Forgive me, but this isn't Physics: it is crystal-clear, as a purely mathematical process applied to a Form! It is a purely formal, non-physical solution to problems, which the Universe, as we conceive it, sets for us.

And, how about the Red Shift in light from distant objects?

We infer a Doppler Shift as occurs in sound on Earth, but that effect assumes a physical spatial-or-time dilation or contraction, so how would that occur in Light Quanta? What indeed is the physical form of a Quantum?

How can you stretch a wave without a medium!?


It is conceivable when an electron orbit in an atom is promoted to a higher level by a descrete amount of energy, embodied in an electron going around the atom at a particular radius and speed: that embodies the future quantum = produced when the orbit is demoted again releasing a precise quantum of Energy.

But as what?

I can conceive of a transfer to another receptacle, similar in form to an atom, with and internal orbit. But neither of these seem susceptible to Doppler Shift modifications! And data recorded from observations by the astronomer Halton Arp seem to directly confound the usual interpretation.

And, yet another problem is in the transit of Birkeland Plasma Currents between, say, the Sun and the Earth actually find their targets through supposedly entirely Empty Space? For these have two strands, in close intrinsic proximity to each other going in opposite directions to one another.

How do these actually occur?

Now space rockets and powerful space located Telescopes have revealed Boundaries of the Solar System in supposedly Empty Space causing the Kuiper Belt and the Ort Cloud to take very different forms. And, the Voyager Spacecraft has actually measured these boundaries - begging the question - boundaries in what?


What is the Interstellar "Medium"?
It sounds suspiciously like a Substrate!


This is not by any means a fully worked up answer to the problems posed above: but this theorist has elsewhere developed a definition of an undetectable Universal Substrate - existing in so-called Empty Space which not only addresses the above problems but also all those appearing in the famed Double Slit Experiments credited with delivering the Foundation for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory - the current consensus in Modern Sub Atomic Physics!

The latest developments in this new Substrate Theory of Physics can be found in the latest issue of Shape, which looks at the possibility of a medium of Neutrino-based Gravitons, pervading all space.



Issue 59 of the SHAPE Journal

Meta Forces

24 April, 2018

Special Issue: The New Science








The New Science



Having finally buried The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, both philosophically and physically, the time has come for establishing the Revolutionary Alternative, namely Holist Science.

It is not entirely new, but does need to be firmly established among the wreckage of the Copenhagen defeat, to re-orientate the Scientific Experimental Method on Holist rather than Pluralist grounds, to re-construct the most basic of the sciences, Sub Atomic Physics, beyond the limits imposed upon it by Copenhagen, and to begin the reunion of all-the-sciences upon a common, coherent, consistent and comprehensive ground - always promised but never delivered, throughout the millennia of Pluralist Science, and its ever-increasing dominance of Form over Content.

There have been isolated interludes in the past within other, assumed-to-be-secondary sciences, such as Biology, Geology, and even Astrophysics, but the concreted-in Pluralist Foundations of the majority of sciences and specialisms, have always turned attention away from Explanation to Effective Production - from True Science to Technology - with an all-embracing emphasis upon usable Mathematics and Equations, rather than the building of Real and General Understanding.

23 April, 2018

Reality & Truth


Art by Anselm Kiefer


The Lost Paths 

in

Philosophy & Science



On reading various current papers about the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory both in Sub Atomic Physics and in present-day Philosophy it is becoming absolutely clear that literally nobody actually knows what Science is really about, and also they do not understand the basis of Mathematics - they have no evident programme for the pursuit of Truth!

So, with such an empty toolbox it should not surprise anyone what a mess the current intellectual climate is in. Of course, all the participants in this chaos, do regularly find their ways home, put all the right keys in all the right holes, and manage to eat with efficiency. But as to the problems listed above they seem totally bereft of the means to address them.

For a collection of telling reasons, they find NO way to concretely address their difficulties, and it is evident that it is precisely what they have been told to ignore or reject in their Education that so completely disarms their Thinking from finding the necessary solutions.

So, I must start at the bottom, and attempt to give them some appropriate ground and here are a few premises and early steps:-

  • Absolute Truth is always unobtainable!

  • Homo sapiens were never evolved to be able to reveal it!

  • Man was evolved to survive and to reproduce, and, certainly very differently to how he does it now!

  • Man is, as you know, a Great Ape!

  • But, being a social animal, is hence more intelligent than any loner species. His intelligence is social

  • And, he did evolve into becoming a bipedal, ground-dweller!

  • And, this released his branch-grasping hands to do more interesting things than mere locomotion through the trees.

  • Man's initial, crude vocalisations gradually became Speech.

  • And, his adaptable hands soon did many wholly new things.

  • He began to find and use flints with a sharp edge.

  • And, gradually learned how to knap those flints into effective tools.

  • Most of what he began to communicate via his speech was obviously to do with the above primary functions and activities.


Only with the comparatively recent Neolithic Revolution did Man's life change radically - for he stayed in one place along with others, communicated and co-operated much more, and began to develop new means of life, such as farming the land and domesticating animals.






Now, I hope you will forgive this snail-slow initial progress, but it was to make clear just how very late Mankind's use of Language was in an at all sophisticated way. So much so, indeed, that many of his necessarily-invented words are not always helpful, and, indeed, were often as much a hindrance as a help. In other words, Man had to learn how to initially abstract from Reality, and thereafter refine, or even correct, that language as best he could: and has necessarily been doing so ever since.

Yet, the emergence of intellectual disciplines occurred very late in that long process (circa 500 BC and ever since), and when such did happen, it both simultaneously and vastly extended his verbal reach, while often and unavoidably also setting-into-stone extremely important conceptual mistakes, some of which have persisted to the present day.

Meanwhile, the earliest, pre-Greek tenet of all, embodied in "If it works, it is right!" - basic Pragmatism, is even today daily claimed as being more important than literally all the other generalist conclusions, whatever the debate.

Now, that important intellectual revolution, achieved by the ancient Greeks, was established, perhaps surprisingly, upon an unusual basis - Geometry - the Study of Shapes, in which the unavoidable simplification of things, was in addition, extended to the perfecting or idealisation of those shapes into "Study-able Forms" - because once in such Forms, they were found to be both analysable and easily juxtaposed to deliver a vastly extended range, about which all sorts of rules could be derived and confirmed by Proof-via-suggested-Theorems!

Let us be clear, this wasn't about naturally-occurring Shapes, but about idealised versions of them, though Mankind soon learned that if one kept to such Forms in his construction and organisation of real world things, he could much more easily plan and calculate things to his advantage. But, and this is very important, the range of things, that could be carried out in this New Discipline, were NOT the same as those applicable in the real world! The new Mathematics, as it ultimately became known, was a discipline of Ideality- the World of Pure Forms alone. and NOT of the real concrete world - Reality!





And, the reason for this was that everything in this New World was permanently FIXED - they didn't qualitatively change or develop at all - And, this greatly simplified what could be done with them!

Much later, this was embodied into the Principle of Plurality, in which all things were assumed to be eternal qualitatively.

Interestingly, at almost the same time in India, The Buddha, a major spiritual leader, was saying the exact opposite - All Things Change, and Everything Affects Everything Else, which was later embodied in the opposite Principle of Holism.

Nevertheless, the power endowed by idealisation in Mathematics was so useful that the same sort of discipline was then established in Reasoning, where it was called Formal Logic, and somewhat later it was also similarly applied to Descriptive Science. 

Absolutely all of them conformed to the Principle of Plurality - which isn't actually True in anything other than Mathematics!

Perhaps surprisingly, apart from a brief criticism by Zeno of Elea, soon after the Greek Revolution, no general criticism of Formal Logic was mounted for about 2,500 years, so we can only draw the conclusion that even mistaken principles and consequent intellectual methods were very unlikely to be changed, and particularly when the bottom-line of "If it works, it is right!"continued to validate new conceptions, discoveries and inventions.

Nevertheless Hegel, revisiting Zeno criticisms, finally realised several important mistakes!

First, he realised that Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts, which according to the long-agreed Rules of Formal Reasoning, were both equally applicable at certain points in a line of argument - yet, in fact, only one of the choice ever actually worked, and which one it was could only be discovered by trying them both out! Formal Logic, as such, was, indeed, failing, and Hegel had to find out why.

He not only re-assessed Zeno's cases involving Movement and the concepts of Continuity and Descreteness, but, in addition, sought out as many such Dichotomous Pairs as he could find, and then always looked for what should have distinguished between them in the premises-assumed.




He found that in every case the premises used were always insufficient, and if a new kind of premise was included the usual impasse in Logic could be transcended!

The new premises turned out to always be concerning Qualitative Changes, which were prohibited by the Principle of Plurality. Hegel decided that he had to install Qualitative Changes in a wholly new Science of Logic, but, to do such was much easier said than done, because when things didn't change, then the Old Logic was still sufficient, so careful investigations would have to be undertaken to assess all situations.

Hegel attempted to generalise all situations into a New Form, composed, at the extremes, with each of the concepts from a Dichotomous Pair, with varying premises actually positioning the situation, at one extreme or the other for "those prior singly-defined solution cases", or somewhere in between, where a sufficient change in circumstances could precipitate a flip from one extreme to the other.

He called his scheme Dialectics, but as it was clear that in certain conditions a single option could be ensured by Pragmatism, they did that instead!

NOTE: A similar trick is used throughout Science, for, if the experimental circumstances were suitably restricted, and then rigorously controlled, they too could count upon particular outcomes, so they only used such "extracted Laws" in the identical circumstances, as those under which the Law had been extracted.

Indeed, this theorist labels the usual incarnations as Pluralist Logic and Pluralist Science, and is currently in the process of erecting a Holist Alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.






Now, there is a great deal more to this story than has been addressed here, for the pluralist approach in Physics has other major flaws, the most important being the total trust in pluralist formal equations as against the holistic alternative of Causal Explanations: for apart from the control of circumstances necessary to get a relation both clearly displayed and extracted too, it was also the usual next step of fitting up a purely formal mathematical form to the extracted data by substituting sets of measured data into a given General Form, and thereby getting a set of simultaneous equations, in the so far Unknown Constants of that General Form.

Then, solving the simultaneous equations would give the values of those constants, which would then be inserted into the general form, to give the Equation of the Law - But, it, most certainly, isn't that at all! It is both a pluralist aberration AND also an idealistic version of the Law.

So, it will, therefore, have built-in inextricably-into-it the limited range of the ideal version, so that it blows up, in the real world, when that range is exceeded, along with whatever local features were also included due to its artificially-arranged-for pluralist context.

So, what do they cause to happen when fitted up with a causal Explanation based-solely upon such flawed formal results?

Those explanations will certainly fail!

BUT, is it the fault of making a Causal Explanation? NO! It is caused by the mangled formal representation used to determined that explanation.

Truth?

So, where is Truth in all this mess!





The Absolute Truth often demanded cannot exist in the above pluralist and idealist manipulations. Indeed, what is actually achieved frequently minimises any Explanatory Truth to be found there, and replaces it with Pure Form alone!

And, the methods used don't ever deliver any Aspects or Parts of the Truth, which can, indeed, be the case with a directly attempted causal explanations. Yet these can, and indeed do, exist with direct attempts to explain, in the old ,now discarded ways of Causal Explanation.

What real scientists seek is more Objective Content in their explanations, than were previously available. So, it is an infinitely better, if erratic, route towards Truth, because, as distinct from mere formal descriptive methods, it alone asks the vital question, "Why?" And, only a constantly-repeated insistence upon that question, can overcome prior inadequacies and refine our conceptions.

The alternative route, which can only answer the question, "Why?" with the answer, "Obeys this equation!", not only explains absolutely nothing concretely, but is clearly also totally idealist.

21 April, 2018

Mondragon: Cooperatives without Socialism?





After listening to a very interesting account of the splendid Mondragon System of Worker Cooperatives in Northern Spain, by an actual participant in that system of Worker Coop Enterprises, I was not only able to see the clear advantages over the alternative of privately owned Capitalist enterprises, but also got a clear idea of its limitations. For, in spite of its remarkable successes, such enterprises cannot change the World!

They have to survive, in the interstices, within a worldwide dominant system that is not only economic but actively political-and-belligerently-coercive, and has a frequently-used solution to challenging problems, via not only local, but indeed World Wars of devastating proportions. Indeed, that now-dominant, alternative economic approach too was once itself a challenger to a prior system, and only brought about the transfer, via a series of bloody Revolutions, resulting in the establishment of a very different political system - conducive to its preferred capitalist economics.

It wasn't merely a matter of choice! Every status quo is the result of the victory of one dominating Class over the rest: and to achieve Power politically they have always to have the resources and the alliances with other, also repressed Classes, to have any chance of bringing off the solution they require.

You can no longer find local solutions economically! For, production and consumption are now not only unavoidably social, but already global too, acting upon a truly world scale. And, how that is organised and controlled are unavoidable questions.

Indeed, several important revolutions have occurred to kick out the capitalist owners, and replace them with a Socialist State. After the Second World War, the whole World was dominated politically, by what has been termed the Cold War between the emerging Socialist States and the still dominant Capitalist States. And a series of hot, local wars have been undertaken by the Capitalist Powers to prevent further Socialist Revolutions. Clearly, despite the achievements of the Cooperatives, the building of such enterprises alone cannot change the World in this regard.


Abandoned: Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society Department Store

In the United Kingdom the Cooperative Wholesale Society (CWS) after being a dominant service to the Working Class has been defeated and dismantled by its capitalist competitors via undercutting prices by super exploitation in Third World countries.

It isn't a "level playing field" at all!

So, I'm afraid all the purely non-political routes are certain to fail. For, once the "powers-that-be" decide that they present a real challenge to their dominance and wealth, they will be dealt with.

So, the nettle must be grasped!

But what kind of Socialism is actually required? Is it like Russia used to be, or China is now, or even North Korea?

NO! For it hasn't worked! Three vital questions just have to be seriously addressed:-

ONE: What kinds of political parties must be built to fight for the Change?

TWO: What must be their objectives to achieve the necessary transformation?

THREE: What kind of State will be the desired result?

Mankind has been trying to address these questions for 200 years, and none of their means, from Democratic Socialist Parties, to even those fighting for violent Revolution have been effective.

Social Democratic Parties have achieved only very temporary gains, while Revolution, necessarily requiring nationwide organisations, and even armies, have inevitably produced powerful, self-maintaining and self-empowering Bureaucracies, while the lot of the mass of people has remained one of powerlessness!





Clearly, these Cooperatives are addressing powerlessness in the workplace, but not yet the other vital political questions.

The informing historical equivalent has to be the Failure of the Trades Union Movements, for in spite of growing to prodigious proportions (even in the USA) they did not address the vital political questions either, and they are now powerless to even do their admitted task of defending jobs or even working conditions.

The political tasks are vital! But do we agree what they are?