Jeff Rubard
2010-01-31 22:35:37 UTC
From *Democratic Carpentry: What Would a Soviet be?
That is because the soviets are intended to be the vehicle of
proletarian political representation, and voluntary associations of
private persons have their effect on politics indirectly, through
purchasing power and other kinds of "clout" rather than direct
intervention in political affairs: in the language of US politics,
the
range of "soft money" extends much further than nearly anyone is
willing
to admit. And further objections to superfluity for such
organizations
may be tempered by the consideration of the logical connectives
developed by Sheffer and Nicod, which allow one to develop the
full range of Boolean operators from one single operation
("neither-nor"); that is perfectly legitimate from the standpoint of
thought, very perverse from one standpoint of usage, and limited in
extent from every other standpoint.
In other words, the soviet resembles this stroke of the pen in being
a
symbol of the *unitary* character of the working class, and that the
emancipation of individual members can only be effected through
democratic proletarian institutions (since they are clearly
under-represented by existing democratic institutions). Whether this
is
still an appealing prospect is an open question, but I should hope
that
these brief remarks indicate that the term "communism" need not
represent sky-high ideals or sordid realities; if the will is there,
it
can easily stand for a politics of liberation "practical" both in the
sense of aiming for concrete results and in awareness of the
limitations, material and ethical, of each tactical step. But
whether
this sounds good to you might depend on what you would do with a
hammer. |
-----
The logical function of the "DeMorganite" or 'multaneous' (or
*structurating*) logical operator is to /induce logical structure at
all/: the contributions of Jean Nicod and Henry M. Sheffer to logic
were *modest* -- but /no acceptable logic/, even of a 'deviant'
variety, can lack operations mapping onto their connectives. Claude
Lévi-Strauss /incepit/? Sort-of, and Quine *Auch*: but the works of
the Ancients were not wholly unknown to Clinton *fils*, and we Might
Well Question [symbolized thusly: ???] why 'practitions' are supposed
to induce a discursive structure /at all/ in the Discursive Republic.
Hack.and.slash. is the "merest tool" of the logician's trade; and,
'chillens' -- work, work it does.
↑
Jeffrey Rubard
That is because the soviets are intended to be the vehicle of
proletarian political representation, and voluntary associations of
private persons have their effect on politics indirectly, through
purchasing power and other kinds of "clout" rather than direct
intervention in political affairs: in the language of US politics,
the
range of "soft money" extends much further than nearly anyone is
willing
to admit. And further objections to superfluity for such
organizations
may be tempered by the consideration of the logical connectives
developed by Sheffer and Nicod, which allow one to develop the
full range of Boolean operators from one single operation
("neither-nor"); that is perfectly legitimate from the standpoint of
thought, very perverse from one standpoint of usage, and limited in
extent from every other standpoint.
In other words, the soviet resembles this stroke of the pen in being
a
symbol of the *unitary* character of the working class, and that the
emancipation of individual members can only be effected through
democratic proletarian institutions (since they are clearly
under-represented by existing democratic institutions). Whether this
is
still an appealing prospect is an open question, but I should hope
that
these brief remarks indicate that the term "communism" need not
represent sky-high ideals or sordid realities; if the will is there,
it
can easily stand for a politics of liberation "practical" both in the
sense of aiming for concrete results and in awareness of the
limitations, material and ethical, of each tactical step. But
whether
this sounds good to you might depend on what you would do with a
hammer. |
-----
The logical function of the "DeMorganite" or 'multaneous' (or
*structurating*) logical operator is to /induce logical structure at
all/: the contributions of Jean Nicod and Henry M. Sheffer to logic
were *modest* -- but /no acceptable logic/, even of a 'deviant'
variety, can lack operations mapping onto their connectives. Claude
Lévi-Strauss /incepit/? Sort-of, and Quine *Auch*: but the works of
the Ancients were not wholly unknown to Clinton *fils*, and we Might
Well Question [symbolized thusly: ???] why 'practitions' are supposed
to induce a discursive structure /at all/ in the Discursive Republic.
Hack.and.slash. is the "merest tool" of the logician's trade; and,
'chillens' -- work, work it does.
↑
Jeffrey Rubard