Paul Mason on Postcapitalism
- This topic has 46 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A lot can happen in twenty four hours.LBird,The production of knowledge is a similar issue for a socialist society as that of producing widgets. It's about "whys and wherefores".The issue of democratic control of production and allocation of services in a socialist society has been discussed before and will no doubt be discussed again. It's a subject I've thought about quite a lot over recent years. One thing is clear from the start, it's an issue of immense complexity. It reaches into numerous areas of discussion regarding logistics and is something we on this forum could never seriously do justice to, as a whole. It is the reason, you will hear the phrase in various forms " we'll have to leave that up to the future socialist community to decide". It defers difficult issues to the future. While I often find it irritating, I understand the response. All we have here and now is a basic framework for socialism, common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by the community for the community.
LBird wrote: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.The reason I say the "deferral to the future" response annoys me, despite my understanding it, is because it shouldn't prevent individual socialists from adding their ideas, regarding practical matters, to the melting pot. It doesn't mean it must then compete to become a socialist policy. (Although some reluctance for SPGB members is the possibility that individual viewpoints may get taken for party policy.) It's just an idea and like any idea it has a chance to become a permanent fixture for future discussion, and possibly action.So when I ask for "meat on the bones", I'm simply asking for your ideas on practical approaches to democratically controlling knowledge. I'm sure you would agree that ideas are a prelude to action?As knowledge is a social product, it might be a good idea to look at how it is produced. That means taking a look at education and how it could look in socialism. That would need a new thread on education under socialism.
SocialistPunk wrote:A lot can happen in twenty four hours.LBird,The production of knowledge is a similar issue for a socialist society as that of producing widgets. It's about "whys and wherefores".The issue of democratic control of production and allocation of services in a socialist society has been discussed before and will no doubt be discussed again. It's a subject I've thought about quite a lot over recent years. One thing is clear from the start, it's an issue of immense complexity. It reaches into numerous areas of discussion regarding logistics and is something we on this forum could never seriously do justice to, as a whole. It is the reason, you will hear the phrase in various forms " we'll have to leave that up to the future socialist community to decide". It defers difficult issues to the future. While I often find it irritating, I understand the response. All we have here and now is a basic framework for socialism, common ownership and democratic control of the worlds resources by the community for the community.LBird wrote: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.The reason I say the "deferral to the future" response annoys me, despite my understanding it, is because it shouldn't prevent individual socialists from adding their ideas, regarding practical matters, to the melting pot. It doesn't mean it must then compete to become a socialist policy. (Although some reluctance for SPGB members is the possibility that individual viewpoints may get taken for party policy.) It's just an idea and like any idea it has a chance to become a permanent fixture for future discussion, and possibly action.So when I ask for "meat on the bones", I'm simply asking for your ideas on practical approaches to democratically controlling knowledge. I'm sure you would agree that ideas are a prelude to action?As knowledge is a social product, it might be a good idea to look at how it is produced. That means taking a look at education and how it could look in socialism. That would need a new thread on education under socialism.
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.
Yes, I thought that you would understand my Marx-inspired response, SP! If it's good enough for Charlie to prevaricate on details, it's good enough for me.But, like most workers discussing socialism, I too share your 'annoyance' (though I'd probably term it 'enthusiastic anticipation' to hear more details, to help inspire more workers).
SocialistPunk wrote:So when I ask for "meat on the bones", I'm simply asking for your ideas on practical approaches to democratically controlling knowledge. I'm sure you would agree that ideas are a prelude to action?As knowledge is a social product, it might be a good idea to look at how it is produced. That means taking a look at education and how it could look in socialism. That would need a new thread on education under socialism.If you start a new thread, on 'knowledge production and education', we can move over to that – I'm sure that the mod's toleration, of the diversity of this one, is stretching to breaking point, now.
BBC Daily Politics video with Paul Mason debates Peter Taffe. People will be partisan when watching this, so many points raised that we shout at the TV. But time for another letter to correct the BBC on the name of Militant.
Paul Mason and Militarism. A critical essay about Mason's nationalist policies on Libcomhttps://libcom.org/blog/paul-masons-workers-bombers-13102017It includes some points that are relevant to my other posted topic..Workers Control Lite
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 !!!All those technological advances can be a used in a socialist society without any problem at all. Our problem is not technology, it is the system of profits. We are beating again the same dead horse. Capitalism is not dead yet, we are still living under capitalism, there is not such thing as postcapitalism. Are we living in a socialist society ? Captialism is still kicking and exploiting the working class
Quote:All those technological advances can be a used in a socialist society without any problem at all. Our problem is not technology, it is the system of profits.I understand where you are coming from Marcos but to say that socialism will not encounter problems and require to make choices, particularly on environmental issues, i think is not quite right.These problems in socialism may be short-term and not long-term and existential problems as they are in capitalism and so will be resolved by the democratic decision and will of the people inside socialism. They will make the choice whether there exists a problem with the technology and whether to apply certain processes and procedures or not to. It will be a much more neutral objective debate without overwhelming vested interests swaying biasBut as you say, "we are still living under capitalism" and so, therefore, we are facing the consequences that the profit-system is making right now on technologies and practices.These in many areas and fields are very detrimental to our current well-being. It isn't simply a matter of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) opposition but things being implemented or advocated have a social and global effect on humanity.We simply cannot take a backseat and sit back and do nothing. But our potential of actually influencing things are minimal. But we can make a stand in our literature. We condemn many "isms" such as racism and sexism, aware that we can as an organisation do little about ending or even alleviating them, except to explain the causes and offer solidarity to those who are engaged in defending themselves against such oppression and repression.I suggest on other matters such as the environment we can do similar. Is condemning the corporate land-grabbing to protect the small-farmer a defence of private-property principle? I suggest that it is the same as supporting trade unions in demands for higher pay is not a defence of the wages-system.But my comment you quoted was not in this context but to say that we are not enthralled to a scientific elite. That rightly or wrongly we do challenge their conclusions and hold to independent ideas that match our intuitive perceptions of the issue and which sometimes does not make common sense. So i think there is a small element of truth in LBird's claim that we vote on what is truth…he simply doesn't recognise that we already do that now.
Quote:We are rejecting their consensus on the safety of GMO, on fracking and nuclear energy through parliamentary legislation.It is not entirely clear. Is this Paul Mason or Alan Johnstone talking, i.e who is the "we"? The Socialist Party has never rejected GMO, fracking or nuclear energy as such. Genetic engineering has huge potential benefits and nuclear energy may have to be retained to combat global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. And who, not even supporters of capitalism, believe that the safety issues involved in these (and other) productive methods can be addressed merely by "parliamentary legislation"? They will be overcome by technology which may indeed not be fully adopted under capitalism because of cost and profits considerations but which could be in socialism.
Again you are not readng the comment in the context of the thread. Or noting my elaboration spurred by Marcos.LBird claims that science should be decided by democratic vote and not permit a scientific elite to decide what is truth or not. I responded that "we" – and i mean people in general – do indeed "rebel" against science and its truth and that we vote as it were by our feet and actions. Many commonly held opinions on science are irrational and goes against the wisdom of science. Back to my OP which was specifically to answer SP
Quote:SP -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? MeDon'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.You may indeed defend the principles of technology as benefits to humanity but surely we can criticise the implementation of them by those who are exercising their political and economic power to impose them- not for the interests of mankind – but for their own enrichment.Nor do i think should we present a rosy ideal picture of a perfect socialism. We will inherit a legacy that will require to be cleaned up tout suite…as i said this will be probably short-term to remove the existential threat to the planet's people. How and what tools used to do this will be determined by those in socialism with the task of restoring the environment to a healthy sustainable harmonious balance. It may men the postponement or suspension of some technologies.But i do think as i said —- Today's technology is being used in a detrimental manner for undesirable purposes. GM is not being used for food production but for cash crops which is causing real food-producers to lose their land.Nuclear power does have a possibility of alleviating global warming but so has many other options which carry less risk and require little waste disposal processes. For sure socialism will ensure the safety of nuclear reactors with several safeguards but again even many capitalist nations understand that capitalism cannot offr that guarantee and are dismantling those nuclear power stations. (Again an example of what i said earlier…public through their legislation is going against scientific consensus. That we do exercise our democracy against scentific "truth")The article i linked to on Paul Mason discusses the Lucas Plan from the 70s. Indeed, present-day technology is not inflexible and can be bent to the advantage of society as a whole. But it will be far closer to the revolutionary phase than now when it is far-off.Today the purpose of technology is to make profit …even at a human cost…While we can condemn the cranks of the anti-vax, we cannot deny that Big Pharma is not acting in the best interests of humanity See a recent bloghttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/where-is-pharmaceutical-reearch.htmlAnd regards agriculture, seehttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-even-bigger-big-ag.htmland on a specific crophttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/greasing-palms-with-palm-oil.html Simply because something might be useful in socialism does not mean that we cannot resist it under capitalism. It is not a Luddite position (which, btw, is very misunderstood as this blog tries to point out.http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2013/01/blood-for-blood-says-general-lud.html )
I think, a voice in support of your position on fracking, ALBhttp://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41627213
Quote:Sillars said he thought opposition to unconventional methods of oil and gas extraction would cost jobs, and increase fuel poverty. "It's time to wake up. Trade unionists should wake up. You should be getting resolutions at the Scottish TUC demanding a rethink. Poverty groups in Scotland should be demanding a rethink by this government. We're in the ridiculous position of having about 900,000 people living in fuel poverty. At the same time, we are taking fracked gas from the United States across to Grangemouth."No, that is not my position. Not at all. I am not advocating fracking. My position is that we as Socialists should not be opposed to fracking on principle as, like with other technologies, it could in theory be made safe and, if need be, used in socialism. Trade unions support all sorts of things to maintain jobs, e.g. building submarines to carry nuclear weapons, just as Nimbys oppose all sorts of things.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:All those technological advances can be a used in a socialist society without any problem at all. Our problem is not technology, it is the system of profits.I understand where you are coming from Marcos but to say that socialism will not encounter problems and require to make choices, particularly on environmental issues, i think is not quite right.These problems in socialism may be short-term and not long-term and existential problems as they are in capitalism and so will be resolved by the democratic decision and will of the people inside socialism. They will make the choice whether there exists a problem with the technology and whether to apply certain processes and procedures or not to. It will be a much more neutral objective debate without overwhelming vested interests swaying biasBut as you say, "we are still living under capitalism" and so, therefore, we are facing the consequences that the profit-system is making right now on technologies and practices.These in many areas and fields are very detrimental to our current well-being. It isn't simply a matter of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) opposition but things being implemented or advocated have a social and global effect on humanity.We simply cannot take a backseat and sit back and do nothing. But our potential of actually influencing things are minimal. But we can make a stand in our literature. We condemn many "isms" such as racism and sexism, aware that we can as an organisation do little about ending or even alleviating them, except to explain the causes and offer solidarity to those who are engaged in defending themselves against such oppression and repression.I suggest on other matters such as the environment we can do similar. Is condemning the corporate land-grabbing to protect the small-farmer a defence of private-property principle? I suggest that it is the same as supporting trade unions in demands for higher pay is not a defence of the wages-system.But my comment you quoted was not in this context but to say that we are not enthralled to a scientific elite. That rightly or wrongly we do challenge their conclusions and hold to independent ideas that match our intuitive perceptions of the issue and which sometimes does not make common sense. So i think there is a small element of truth in LBird's claim that we vote on what is truth…he simply doesn't recognise that we already do that now.
I think you have not understood what I wrote. I have not said that we are not going to encounter any problem in a socialist society, it would not be perfect, but it would be better than capitalism, and I am not supporting fracking or polluting the atmosphere if I do that, it means that I am supporting capitalism. The point is that many of those technologies are used to produce profits in the capitalist world, and workers do not have control over how they used it. In a socialist society we are going to be controlling that type of technology, and the way that we are going to use, and we can also reject it if it is going to affect others human being. We are not going to have Monsanto, and Exxon, or Mobil in a socialist world.The later article that you have posted it does not apply to this situation either, that person that has been interviewed is defending the system of profits, and he is applying the same technology in the capitalist world. It is different point of view motivated by profitsIn regard to Postcapitalism, it is only an idea used by some innovators who want to reject Marx analysis of capitalism, it is similar to the trend known as post marxism like indicating that Marx ideas were tried but they did not work, and they must be reapplied again under a different approach. Capitalism does not longer exist, therefore we are not being exploited at the point of production, and the labour theory is totally wrong. We already had a similar discussion with our famous Anarchist of Structural Anarchism, and he was not able to prove that he was right. You place all of them inside of a blender and you will obtain the same juice
ALB wrote:No, that is not my position. Not at all. I am not advocating fracking. My position is that we as Socialists should not be opposed to fracking on principle as, like with other technologies, it could in theory be made safe and, if need be, used in socialism. Trade unions support all sorts of things to maintain jobs, e.g. building submarines to carry nuclear weapons, just as Nimbys oppose all sorts of things.Exactly. The Trade Unions voted to support the Vietnam war because It was producing a lot of jobs in the military industry. In a socialist society, we can use automation or robots, but it will not produce the same effects like in the capitalist world. We can safely use modified seeds to produce more foods for the whole world. In Argentina, they are using a seed that produces flooding, it eliminates soil draining to cut down irrigation expenses, we are not going to have that type of situation in a socialist society, it will not be a societyt based on profits
As i am reading it, you both say we can justify and support certain technologies but only inside a socialist society. Which is my position also. The real question people are asking is what is our position right now to the use and the spread of various technologies or industrial/manufacturing processes (albeit, not many are asking us anything at all).I recall several bitter strikes during my time as a postal worker against management's introduction of team-working. Who could be against such a thing as working as a team? Well, it was the motives and the manner it was going to be imposed with lots of friendly psychological jargon to sugar it up to be accepted.For sure, in socialism, we will have lots and lots of cooperative team-working. In principle, i have nothing against such harmonious methods of working together. But that is not the way capitalist management view things. Their plan was not a tool – it was a weapon.Likewise, when i see many of the applications of technology, i recognise the benefits of them when we achieve a fit society to use them in. Sadly, we don't have socialism, and despite their potential for good, it is how they are being put into effect and the consequences they are having which drives my approach and attitude and my concerns.I see no dilemma in contrasting the possible windfalls of technological development with condemnation of draconian operation of them and the deleterious effects they are having on people and communities within capitalism and offering our support and solidarity as they resist their introduction or growth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.