From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 16:25:42 EDT
Hi Paul C. You object to "factors" Paul ---- Not the term factors, the term forces. > I think that one could be more precise though than using > the word forces, since that is a mechanical analogy > which may not be quite appropriate - connotations of > inertia, work done etc. It may be more appropriate to > focus on dynamic feedback mechanisms which increase > or reduce the probability of transitions. <snip, JL> but later write: > Some transitions can be induced by highly conjuncture > factors. A little slip, no? Well, no matter. I know what you mean (I think) and that's what is important. > Clearly in classical communist doctrine, the key factor > in the transition to socialism is war and the social disorder > brought about by war. "Classical" doctrine? A la Karl Liebknecht? ------------------- Commintern first few congresses > So I think that if we are to progress the discussion we > should focus on particular transitions arcs on the graph - > and in view of their conjunctural relevance - I suggest we > focus on the arcs below: > capitalism => socialism > socialism => capitalism > socialism => communism > communism => socialism > capitalism => communism > communism => capitalism Why not the following? capitalism => feudalism capitalism => slavery socialism => feudalism socialism => slavery While the arcs of probability would be lower, wouldn't they have a non-zero probability? --------------------- I agree that in principle they are possible and history might yet surprise us, I just wanted to focus it a bit. -------------------------- Aren't there other m of p's that haven't existed yet that could also be mapped and have non-zero probabilities? ------------------ Certainly. As I said I was just making a suggestion that we concentrate on the transitions that seem more likely in the 21st century.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 02 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT