Paul Mason on Postcapitalism

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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 !!!

Don't forget the context of my discussions about 'democratic truth production', alan, when talking about the present vogue for the 'irrational'. The context is mass ignorance.We're talking about providing a 'theoretical approach' which can only be 'practised' given certain social conditions. They include complete openness with ideas, knowledge, data, etc (so that all information is openly published on the internet, for any interested workers to read), the provision of completely free education from kindergarten to post-PhD research to any worker on the planet who desires it, and a culture of democracy, as much in education as elsewhere, where the 'teacher' is subject to the control of the 'pupils' (the bourgeois world of 'experts' telling us 'The Truth' will be ended), and the world discussion would be the vernacular of those workers discussing (no so-called 'explanations' in Latin-maths – to allow that would be tantamount to publishing research only in Latin), and so much more.Underlying this would be a critical approach to 'knowledge', not just the ideological assumption that the bourgeoisie in the last 300 hundred years have been engaged in objective production of The Truth. They've had their reasons for their science, and we'll have ours.Finally, much of so-called 'physics' is magic – any reading of the history of science shows this. That's why many physicists, who I've quoted – Einstein, Bohr, Rovelli, Smolin, Cox – have made their doubts about 'physics' very clear.But… those still brainwashed by 'bourgeois science' at its height (19th century positivism) still cling to its so-called 'certainties'. Just like robbo and YMS. And those good comrades who, unfortunately, follow Engels.

[LBird]

For anyone who's interested, a link to a PDF of Marx's The Fragment on Machines, from the Grundrisse. As discussed by Mason in his article.http://thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

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.

As expected, our resident Leninist and ex SWPer , LBird, completely evades the question of how to organise a global democratic vote on the production of scientific truth or even explain why it is necessary , but relies instead entirely  on feeble ad hominens to cover his tracks.  It is this sort of thoughtless pie in the sky approach of his to what are actually seriously practical questions – though he sneers at the term  –  that gives Marxism a bad name and reinforces the false idea that socialism is an unobtainable and impractical objective. He  could not be a more effective stooge of the capitalist ruling class if he tried but then at bottom he is a Leninist after all. So that figures

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…or even explain why it is necessary…

I've just done this very thing, in my measured reply to SocialistPunk.If, If, If, [read it, for once], one is a Marxist and wants to see the democratic control of production by the producers, then control of all sources of 'power' is necessary.Now, read carefully, you */$£%, YOU ARE NEITHER a Marxist nor want "workers' democracy", so from YOUR IDEOLOGICAL perspective, you won't agree with me.This ideological disagreement of yours with me is entirely different to me supposedly not explaining.You just don't like my explanation.What can't your tiny mind grasp about this issue? You are not a democrat, nor a Communist. I am. That's the answer.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

ALB – alanjjohnstone wrote: I'm no doubt the Private Frazer of the party, full of doom and gloom,

 "A German study last month revealed that older adults who held a dim view of their futures lived longer and healthier lives than those who had rosy outlooks."  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/feeling-down-you-should-consider-the-benefits-of-pessimism/article10098340/

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…or even explain why it is necessary…

I've just done this very thing, in my measured reply to SocialistPunk.If, If, If, [read it, for once], one is a Marxist and wants to see the democratic control of production by the producers, then control of all sources of 'power' is necessary.Now, read carefully, you */$£%, YOU ARE NEITHER a Marxist nor want "workers' democracy", so from YOUR IDEOLOGICAL perspective, you won't agree with me.This ideological disagreement of yours with me is entirely different to me supposedly not explaining.You just don't like my explanation.What can't your tiny mind grasp about this issue? You are not a democrat, nor a Communist. I am. That's the answer.

 Bollocks.  You didn't explain at all why you considered it is necessary that  the truth of a scientific theory had to be subjected to a democratic vote by the global population and, in any case, that was not the question that Socialist Punk asked of you . He asked if 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?" .  You didn't answer that question either  – which is a "how" question rather than a "why" question  – but as usual completely evaded the point with your predictably boring waffle about nothing much in particular. You sneer at the very term "practical" believeing it to be some kind of bougeois prejudice I am more convinced than ever that it is people like you with your Leninistic take on a post capitalist society as some  totally centralised massified society in which all decisions on literally  everything flow through one single global centre , does more damage to the communist cause that any amount of overt capitalist propaganda.  It condemns communism to the status of being a totally impractical  and unrealisable utopia which is exactly what the capitalist propagandists want to achieve. Better that it comes from the mouths of useful idiots such as yourself who claim to be "Marxists" and "democrats" And though you lack the wit to realise this, LBird, the operational principles of  the kind  post capitalist  you want to put in place will spell the most complete and utter destruction of any kind of "workers democracy" and the certain and unstoppable rise of technocratic/political elite – whose world view and interests  you are unconsciously reflecting – in response to the complete social chaos  and social paralysis you are unwittingly wanting to bring down on our heads

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…totally impractical  and unrealisable utopia…complete and utter destruction…

So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'.I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.If you want 'physicists' to run 'physics', I don't. I want workers to run physics.If you think 'physics' is a activity outside of politics, I don't. I think physics is political.If you disagree with me, then you don't share my ideology. Whatever concepts of class, revolution, democracy, science, knowledge, truth and socialism you have, I don't share them.

[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

ALB – alanjjohnstone wrote: I'm no doubt the Private Frazer of the party, full of doom and gloom,

 "A German study last month revealed that older adults who held a dim view of their futures lived longer and healthier lives than those who had rosy outlooks."  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/feeling-down-you-should-consider-the-benefits-of-pessimism/article10098340/

1st Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…or even explain why it is necessary…

I've just done this very thing, in my measured reply to SocialistPunk.If, If, If, [read it, for once], one is a Marxist and wants to see the democratic control of production by the producers, then control of all sources of 'power' is necessary.Now, read carefully, you */$£%, YOU ARE NEITHER a Marxist nor want "workers' democracy", so from YOUR IDEOLOGICAL perspective, you won't agree with me.This ideological disagreement of yours with me is entirely different to me supposedly not explaining.You just don't like my explanation.What can't your tiny mind grasp about this issue? You are not a democrat, nor a Communist. I am. That's the answer.

 Bollocks.  You didn't explain at all why you considered it is necessary that  the truth of a scientific theory had to be subjected to a democratic vote by the global population and, in any case, that was not the question that Socialist Punk asked of you . He asked if 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?" .  You didn't answer that question either  – which is a "how" question rather than a "why" question  – but as usual completely evaded the point with your predictably boring waffle about nothing much in particular. You sneer at the very term "practical" believeing it to be some kind of bougeois prejudice I am more convinced than ever that it is people like you with your Leninistic take on a post capitalist society as some  totally centralised massified society in which all decisions on literally  everything flow through one single global centre , does more damage to the communist cause that any amount of overt capitalist propaganda.  It condemns communism to the status of being a totally impractical  and unrealisable utopia which is exactly what the capitalist propagandists want to achieve. Better that it comes from the mouths of useful idiots such as yourself who claim to be "Marxists" and "democrats" And though you lack the wit to realise this, LBird, the operational principles of  the kind  post capitalist  you want to put in place will spell the most complete and utter destruction of any kind of "workers democracy" and the certain and unstoppable rise of technocratic/political elite – whose world view and interests  you are unconsciously reflecting – in response to the complete social chaos  and social paralysis you are unwittingly wanting to bring down on our heads

1st Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…totally impractical  and unrealisable utopia…complete and utter destruction…

So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'.I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.If you want 'physicists' to run 'physics', I don't. I want workers to run physics.If you think 'physics' is a activity outside of politics, I don't. I think physics is political.If you disagree with me, then you don't share my ideology. Whatever concepts of class, revolution, democracy, science, knowledge, truth and socialism you have, I don't share them.

2nd Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.  6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?

 You already know what my take is but are feigning ignorence.  I obviously, as a revolutionary socialist, support "workers democracy" but I argue that there are clear structural limits to the process of democratic decision making in society.  You don't think so but that's because you are an impractical idealist who hasn't thought through this matter at all

LBird wrote:

Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.

I thought it would have been obvious even to you that I don't share your ideology!  I  am not a Leninist who holds a totally centralised vision of a post capitalist world in which all decision making flows through a single global centre.  That vision,  which you clearly hold, would iroincally completely destroy workers democracy and ensure the relentless rise of an all powerful elite though you don't seem to understand this argument at all 

LBird wrote:

You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).

 You are just being stupid now. Of course I have read Marx and have quoted him. Of course, I favour workers power but my differences with you is over how that power expresses itself. Of course I am not an "individualist"  (you have never understood this term) but that does not mean I don't think individuals don't exist.  I agree with Marx when he says the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all.” 

LBird wrote:

You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'

 Absolute rubbish.  I was arguing against the fact-value distinction long before you turned up on this forum trying to teach everyone's grandma how to suck eggs.  You seem to see yourself as some kind of guru on a mission to educate the great unwashed. You're an elitist through and through.  When have I  ever said "scientific knowledge must be true".  On the contrary, part of my objection to your ridiculous idea of democratically voting on scientific theories is precisely that what is true for one person may not be true for another so what is the point of voting on such a thing at all.  What are you going to do with this Truth as democratically established by a global vote?.  If anything, you are the one who is entertaining an absolutist idea of truth.  Its was democratically vote upon by an absolute majority therefore it must be absolutely true…

LBird wrote:

I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.

 Sigh . what can you say in the face of such rambling tosh?

LBird wrote:

Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.

 I repeat – I was arguing against the fact value distinction and for the ideological nature of human knowledge long  for you turned up like some Johnny come lately smart arse who thinks they and they alone are in possession of the "Truth"

LBird wrote:

You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.

Then you obviously haven't read a thing I've written

I have no objections to anyone whatsoever wanting to run physics although of course there wont be a working class in communism – just people who you prefer to call workers.  Nevertheless, in order to "run physics", whatever that means, you have to know something about physics ,right?  This is where you begin to loss the plot and go off the rails completely. If it is not possible for anyone to know everything about everything then in some areas of knowledge you have to defer to those who know something about the subject that you don't. Do you know anything about brain surgery LBird.? I freely admit I know nothing of it. and there is no shame in admitting it.  I wouldnt trust someone like me to operate on my brain when I'm laid out on the operating table. You have seems to have this utterly childish infantile idea that to say something like that is ..er.."elitist". What bollocks! Its  nothing of the sort. Its just being realistic.  There is such a thing as the social division of labour, you know.  It takes year and years of study and practice to become a competent brain surgeon and if we all attempted to become competent brain surgeons where would society be?  Where would our molecular biologists our mechanical engineers , our agronomists etc etc come from if all our time was taken up studying to become brain surgeons?Its high time you grew up, LBird, and snapped out this nonsensical dreamworld you seem to inhibit. I get tired of having to point out the plain obvious to you…

[LBird]

You give a bad name to diarrhoea.

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, that's your ideological take on "workers' democracy"?

 You already know what my take is but are feigning ignorence.  I obviously, as a revolutionary socialist, support "workers democracy" but I argue that there are clear structural limits to the process of democratic decision making in society.  You don't think so but that's because you are an impractical idealist who hasn't thought through this matter at all

LBird wrote:

Why you don't just say that you don't share my ideology, and have done with it, I don't know.

I thought it would have been obvious even to you that I don't share your ideology!  I  am not a Leninist who holds a totally centralised vision of a post capitalist world in which all decision making flows through a single global centre.  That vision,  which you clearly hold, would iroincally completely destroy workers democracy and ensure the relentless rise of an all powerful elite though you don't seem to understand this argument at all 

LBird wrote:

You don't want workers' power (you're an individualist), you don't want workers' democracy (you want elite expert control), you're not a Marxist (you haven't read, and certainly never quote, him), and you're not a Socialist (you're some sort of Liberal).

 You are just being stupid now. Of course I have read Marx and have quoted him. Of course, I favour workers power but my differences with you is over how that power expresses itself. Of course I am not an "individualist"  (you have never understood this term) but that does not mean I don't think individuals don't exist.  I agree with Marx when he says the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all.” 

LBird wrote:

You seem to think 'science' is an ahistoric and asocial activity, rather than regarding even physics as ideological, and you have faith that 'scientific knowledge' must be 'true'

 Absolute rubbish.  I was arguing against the fact-value distinction long before you turned up on this forum trying to teach everyone's grandma how to suck eggs.  You seem to see yourself as some kind of guru on a mission to educate the great unwashed. You're an elitist through and through.  When have I  ever said "scientific knowledge must be true".  On the contrary, part of my objection to your ridiculous idea of democratically voting on scientific theories is precisely that what is true for one person may not be true for another so what is the point of voting on such a thing at all.  What are you going to do with this Truth as democratically established by a global vote?.  If anything, you are the one who is entertaining an absolutist idea of truth.  Its was democratically vote upon by an absolute majority therefore it must be absolutely true…

LBird wrote:

I don't think you've even ever mentioned the bourgeoisie or proletariat, but then you don't recognise classes and exploitation, either.

 Sigh . what can you say in the face of such rambling tosh?

LBird wrote:

Like YMS, you seem to think physics, maths and logic are not human creations, with a social origin which changes over time, but passive reflections of 'reality'.

 I repeat – I was arguing against the fact value distinction and for the ideological nature of human knowledge long  for you turned up like some Johnny come lately smart arse who thinks they and they alone are in possession of the "Truth"

LBird wrote:

You don't seem to have a radical thought in your head, never mind a revolutionary one, and why you're arguing with me about these issues beats me.

Then you obviously haven't read a thing I've written

2nd Warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[moderator1]

Reminder:  7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Author]

Posts