Paul Mason on Postcapitalism

 Of course it doesnt mean that. Only a Leninist central planner with his head in the clouds could possibly arrive at such a daft and impractical suggestion that assimilates the "intellect" or knowledge of discrete concrete individuals  to the "general intellect" of everyone, of society itself.  I repeat what has been said many times before but incredibly  has to yet grasped by LBird.  No one,  not even the most brilliant scientific mind alive, can grasp anything more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge.  Democracy presupposes the activity and involvement of discrete individuals qua individuals deciding collectively, but as individuals, whether to support or oppose a specific proposal on the table.  It depends upon informed decision making.  But the growth of socialised knowledge – what Marx calls the general intellect – has vastly outgrown what the discrete individual is capable of comprehending and the gap is steadily widening with the passage of the time and with the increasing complexity of the social division of labour, something which LBird seems not to understand The thoughtless and knee jerk   mantra of his that is the "democratic control of the production" is becoming even more of a mirage and will o the wisp than  it ever was – not because anyone is forbidden from expressing an opinion on any of the countless thousands of new scientific theories that come into circulation each years but because this growth of socialist knowledge has vastly outstripped, and is more and more outstripping, our capacity as individuals to absorb it.   And if we cannot  absorb it as individuals how we can meaningfully make informed decisions and without which democratic decision making itself would be impossible Democratic decision making has therefore to be disaggregated as a concept and tailored to what is realistic and possible and where it is needed in a direct practical sense.  It should not be turned into some pie-in-the-sky dogma, the pursuit of which will actually bring democracy into disrepute and ironically bring about a collapse of those  democratic  strucutures in place when the Leninist central planers take over in the face of social paralysis brought about by the very futile  attempt to initiate society-wide decision making over literally everything,  including "truth production"

Your right in some respects  LBird.   I oppose what is effectively  your Leninist  totalitarian pespective on the future  (which probably  owes to your SWP background!) which, though you lack the wit to realise this, is a recipe for the emergence of an all powerful and utterly ruthless  elite out of the complete chaos and social paralysis brought about by the very utopian schema you propose to inflict on  us – notably,  7 billion deciding by means of  a "democratic vote" on all the nuts and bolts of  the entire vast machinery of globalised production , not to mention the veracity of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories churned out each and every year.  It is difficult to organise  something as fairly straightforward as, say,  a capitalist general election.  Yet what you are proposing in terms of the commitment and dedication of time  and resources is probably several trillion times greater and more complicated Only a  complete buffoon who has completely lost touch with reality could propose such a crackpot idea. And you know, LBird, for all your crass sociological naivete and your mindlessly ranting on about "individualism" (which you don't seem to have the foggiest notion about) the very "democracy" that you so brazenly flourish  as the touchstone of your belief system presupposes the very individuals who you want to submerge and obliterate in some kind of collectivist soup – the reflex thought of every elitist – which individuals  you would have us believe are  nevertheless expected (by you) to vote yes or no on the literally millions of plebiscites you want them to be – nay, insist that they be –  engaged in – that is, of course, if they have time to draw breath dashing from one voting booth to the next in your future utopia.  Now thats a rich peice of irony , innit?

Dont kid yourself, LBird. You not a Marxist at all. You are the political equivalent of a Jehovah Witness neophyte who refuses to answer any probing question whatsoever lest  that unsettles his dogmatic fixed  view of the world. Marx's  motto in life was to question everything.  You question nothing.  You are the epitome of the poltical dogmatist The real question is –  what are you doing on this site?

Hi LBird,I previously asked whether you could put some "meat on the bones" of how knowledge, scientific "truth" etc, can be democratically controlled by a global, socialist  population.I'd still be up for some ideas on the practicalities of your position? 

Who is "we" here? It can't be the Party since we've always taken the view that there is no reason in principle why techniques such as these and others couldn't be employed safely in a profit-free context. And it's certainly not me. We, the Party, have never been anti-technology. Just the opposite. Every scientific advance makes socialism all the more plausible.Genetic modification of crops in particular opens up immense possibilities.I know we shouldn't be discussing this here but this thread is not going anywhere anyway for obvious reasons.

AlanThere is a huge qualitative difference between the application of technology and the "production of scientific truth" which is what LBird is forever rabbiting on about.  I have never understood the point of subjecting the latter to a democratic vote; nor has he or, at any rate, he has never bothered to explain why. Democracy is about the practical real-world consequences of our actions where these significantly affect large numbers of people; its not about abstract ideas.  Yes, you can take a straw poll among a group to ascertain the level of support for a particular theory if you so wished if only out of curiosity. If then it is discovered that a 76% support the theory and 24% oppose  it, what then? What are you supposed to do with this poll result? LBird doesn't tell us. Is it intended that the minority ought now to relinquish their minority view and toe the line. I would maintain that would be bad for science and bad for democracy too , ironically. This  is to say nothing of the logistics of trying to implement "democratic control of the production of scientific truth".  Socialist Punk has asked LBird whether he could put some "meat on the bones" of how knowledge, scientific "truth" etc, can be democratically controlled by a global, socialist  population. He won't get an answer.  LBird has been asked this question on numerous occassions but has flatly refused to answer.  I would contend that even to organise a global vote on just one single issue alone is a mammoth undertaking in itself in terms of the registration of (approximately 7 billion) voters, the coordination and monitoring of the vote to prevent fraud etc, and counting the figures.   But the so called "democratic production of scientific truth" involves not just one single one-off global vote but multiple tens of thousands of them in every conceivable discipline of science. Its quite absurd. The pie in the sky approach of LBird is to just simply brush aside these issues as being of no consequence.  He is just not being serious, in my view