Paul Mason on Postcapitalism

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

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.  

This is one of the several articles that we have written in regards to Fracking and others energy resourceshttps://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1325-january-2015/material-world-price-oil-and-fracking

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

What this shows is the impossibility of a rational energy policy under capitalism as energy use under it reflects the relative prices of the various sources (coal, oil, gas, shale oil, etc) and changes as they vary. It highlights the utopianism of those environmentalists who think that shaping the market is a solution. There are just too many variables, most of them market-driven. Prices of fossil fuels collapse, demand for them then starts to rise and the market need for alternative sources such as renewables falls. But when prices for fossil fuels rise other fossil fuel sources then become profitable. Either way there is no significant reduction in the burning of fossil fuels and so no reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

And a recent blog post draws attention to the closure of coal power stations confirming that statement that prices rule production…neither the enviromentalists "Leave coal in the hole" or the pro-coal Trump legislation can determine market outcomeshttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/coal-no-more.htmlAnother post also confirms that the State subsidises certain forms of energy that increases their profitability rather than let the free-market price dominate. That is a political decision spurred by lobbyists not simply an economic one http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2017/10/dirty-energy.htmlBut if i remember ALB once worked in the fossil fuel industry both here and in Europe and perhaps possesses clearer insights than myself. I bow to his knowledge and expertise. 

[Author]

Posts