Paul Mason on Postcapitalism
- This topic has 46 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Paul Mason wrote:Given what Marxism was to become – a theory of exploitation based on the theft of labour time – this is a revolutionary statement. It suggests that, once knowledge becomes a productive force in its own right, outweighing the actual labour spent creating a machine, the big question becomes not one of “wages versus profits” but who controls what Marx called the “power of knowledge”.
In an economy where machines do most of the work, the nature of the knowledge locked inside the machines must, he writes, be “social”.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun
Very interesting article, which relates to some of our discussions about Marx's 'idealism-materialism', I think.
Mason refers to the 'Fragment on machines' from the Grundrisse, pp. 690-712Here is an extract:
Marx, Grundrisse, p. 706, wrote:Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it.[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch14.htm#p704Here we have it all: Marx's 'idealism-materialism', social knowledge and 'things' produced by humans, by 'theory and practice', in which human purpose and will determine the production (not passive reception of 'nature', as bourgeois science alleges) of 'organic nature', 'under the control of the general intellect' (which, if it doen't mean "democratic control of the production of 'truth' ", doesn't mean anything at all).
LBird wrote:Here we have it all: Marx's 'idealism-materialism', social knowledge and 'things' produced by humans, by 'theory and practice', in which human purpose and will determine the production (not passive reception of 'nature', as bourgeois science alleges) of 'organic nature', 'under the control of the general intellect' (which, if it doen't mean "democratic control of the production of 'truth' ", doesn't mean anything at all).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"
robbo, you're neither a Socialist/Communist, nor a democrat, nor a Marxist, so why don't you just ignore my posts?You're never going to agree with someone who has a social, historical, class-based, critical-of-bourgeois-ideology-and-science, approach to these political questions.If you dislike my views of workers' democracy as the basis of social production, why not just ignore them, and let the thread die a natural death?You're an individualist, elitist and a liberal, so we don't have any ideological basis for discussion, never mind agreement.Does anyone else have any comments to make, about Marx's views, or about how the democratically-organised proletariat should approach these issues?
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?
Look robbo, we inhabit totally different ideological worlds – I want to see "producers' democratic control of production", and you don't.I'm a Marxist, and you're not.I'm not even sure why you're on this site – of course, you have every right to be, as far as I'm concerned, because I'm not a party member – but… what's the point?Your ideological basis has nothing to do with collective ideals, or with anti-authoritarian science.I'm baffled as to why you bother visiting the site, because you're not trying to learn anything.You seem to have a completely negative purpose.
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?
Given the replies from you and YMS recently, and the absence of any other discussion from democrats, workers, socialists or Marxists, I too really am beginning to wonder.Certainly, critical thought, and indeed any socio-historical perspective on science or knowledge, seems to be notable by its absence.But, there you go.
LBird wrote:Does anyone else have any comments to make, about Marx's views, or about how the democratically-organised proletariat should approach these issues?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?
Don't we already do much of this democratic " truth" to the distaste of scientists, SP.We are rejecting their consensus on the safety of GMO, on fracking and nuclear energy through parliamentary legislation.We accept the truth of climate change but don't act upon it. We accept by majority decision the scientific position on other issues…vaccination and evidence based medicine …much to the distaste of some alternative health quacks.People vote with their feet, as often as not as irrationally as rational. Yes to a degree we choose what is scientific truth.Quantum theory is still basically little different from magic to me …And as one quantum physicists said …if you say you understand it, you don't — i apply that scientific principle to a lot of things !!!
alanjjohnstone wrote:We are rejecting their consensus on the safety of GMO, on fracking and nuclear energy through parliamentary legislation.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.
"We" meaning the working class as in LBird's democratic vote which was the topic i was trying to answer I did qualify that acceptance and rejection of scientific consensus can be either rational or irrational and that was going way back in the argument to the sun and earth revolving …The fact that food corporations are reluctant to label GMO food is i believe evidence that they know where public opinion lies and people will vote with their money (in reply to SP)…or as i said …vote with their feet.
Quote:Every scientific advance makes socialism all the more plausible. Genetic modification of crops in particular opens up immense possibilities.my emphasisHmmm…??The development of civilisation-destroying nuclear weapons i think make the possiblity of not achieving socialism a plausibility. We now also face the development of technology presenting the choice of climate change or system change. I'm not a proponent that capitalism is capable of regulation to counter the current prevailing trend. Perhaps some members believe that capitalism will be able to reverse it and save the planet. I have heard that it may as in the case of CFC legislation and the ozone. The expansion of GMO crops within capitalism is a very different proposition from the development and application of them in socialism, as you say.Our political position should be based on the effects of technology as used by capitalist institutions in the here and now, not wishful thinking of how it could be used in socialism. I am sure super-surveillance of the individual with implanted chips can have many benefits in a benign society eg monitoring health or searching for lost little children, but i don't think Cheltenham GCHQ should in capitalism be given that power of technology. It is not Luddism to desire restraint on certain technology because of the simple fact that we already have and have had for a long time the production capability of implementing socialism and ii am not talking about the bread and butter basics for it. But i do think some members want the icing on the cake too…
alanjjohnstone wrote:Our political position should be based on the effects of technology as used by capitalist institutions in the here and now, not wishful thinking of how it could be used in socialism. I am sure super-surveillance of the individual with implanted chips can have many benefits in a benign society eg monitoring health or searching for lost little children, but i don't think Cheltenham GCHQ should in capitalism be given that power of technology. It is not Luddism to desire restraint on certain technology because of the simple fact that we already have and have had for a long time the production capability of implementing socialism and ii am not talking about the bread and butter basics for it.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
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird wrote:Does anyone else have any comments to make, about Marx's views, or about how the democratically-organised proletariat should approach these issues?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?
As I've said before, SP, if we regard 'science' and 'the production of truth' to have 'power', and we espouse an ideology/philosophy which stresses 'democratic control of power', then the issue of workers' control of science and truth production is precisely the same as any other issue regarding workers' power (ie. Socialism).So, the same approach applies, if we look to Marx, that the provision of detailed accounts of 'how' workers' power will actually operate is best left for the consideration of the organised proletariat, as it develops its class consciousness.So, on your question about 'practicalities', all you need to do is outline (even just to yourself, rather than in a public post) how you think workers' democracy will control the production of a widget. Then, apply that 'practical' method to 'truth'. Put simply, both widgets and truths are social products, and their production processes have a history, and if we re-theorise what we mean by a 'widget' and then change the process of its production (theory and practice), we find the 'widget' will change.Now, to non-Marxists like robbo and YMS, this 'explanation' is entirely useless, because like the good bourgeois that they are, they are 'practical men', who demand 'practical answers', which can be implemented now, in this society.But, to anyone who, like me, looks to Marx for inspiration, then this explanation about 'practicalities' being an issue for the future class conscious proletariat, is usually acceptable.Finally, I suspect that the real issue going on here, is that bourgeois science has brainwashed this society into thinking 'truth' is different from a 'widget'. Now, that's a philosophical question about the production of 'knowledge', and the 'objectivity' of 'science', and frankly I've done that discussion to death.The point, however, is to change the world (not to 'discover' it, or unfold 'The Truth'). Changing widgets and truths must be in our power. The alternative is not disinterested, objective 'science' (the bourgeois myth), but control of production by an elite of so-called experts.I hope that this helps, SP!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.