A 'Big Picture' Blog
There are many serious and controversial ideas within these wide-ranging blog posts and frank discussion is encouraged. We ask that you keep the discussion relevant to the post at hand. The idea is to keep the commenting real.
Comments are moderated for spam, personal attacks, baiting language and sloganeering. No comment will be denied for its point of view.
Thank you for reading and sharing your views.
Please use the social media bar at the bottom of your browser to spread the word.
It is inevitable there will be both reactionary pro-capitalist critiques of Paul Mason's theory of PostCapitalism, along with anti-capitalist views frothing in his support. There are too many beneficiaries of the system in the first case, and too few articulate anti-capitalists around, after all, in the second.
To me his theories are devoid of specifics for mid-wiving an otherwise laudable post-capitalist vision, and therefore, more resembles dreaming, not to say fantasy, than prescription. I have real concern over his giddy optimism, and facing the daily capitalist grind of body and soul, I am tempted to say distracting optimism, bordering on 'laissez-faire' delusion—the revolution is already in progress, ye workers of the world, he seems to be saying, techno-determinism has replaced.dialectical materialism, just sit back and enjoy the ride. I'm afraid throwing in a few 'we must do this' and 'the state must do that' hardly mitigates this giddy obfuscation of class war and the more sanguine approaches to overthrowing capitalism. Hoping nicely, what dear Mason seems to be doing, albeit emphatically, doesn't bring about change any more successfully than anything else that has previously failed.
Ask the capitalist machine if they are ready to give up property, monopoly, and extractive profit for a network of peers and a 'project zero' transformation. Ask the governments they own, their wholly or partially owned subsidiaries pretending to act for 'the people,' whether they will not shoot you dead in the street rather than allow the dissolution of capitalism, bloodless or otherwise. As for his 'new man' notion, this seems to me the self-serving 'be the change you want to see in the world,' (something Gandhi never said, by the way), which egotistically and vainly supposes that personal lifestyle choices somehow mysteriously aggregate into social determinism, a fantasy to be sure.
Confronting Climate Change: Insights from the Nuclear Disarmament Movement
Having attended this talk, authentic and concrete as it was, I can tell you that it personifies, painfully, the liberal delusion that industrial capitalism can somehow be scaled back to a well-regulated, sustainable version of same and still call itself 'capitalism,' all that via the extant political parties, process and private industries, and within the 20-50 years before climate change starts to get ugly.
It is perhaps a moot argument whether radically transforming or otherwise overthrowing capitalism, the _de facto_ driver of climate change, is any less delusional, given a similar set of highly improbable factors. And, it is worth noting that the me-too industrial consumption in any so-called 'socialist' regimes has always been dwarfed by consumption in real existing capitalist cultures. At least the anti-capitalist viewpoint is honestly confronting the real driver, not hiding the perpetual growth mantra of capitalism per se behind the blanket of global craving for industrialization as progress.
It is also worth noting that during the Q&A as Ms. Oreskes articulated her supercilious pro-capitalist liberal stance, many in the audience saw fit to get up and leave.
We should perhaps be discussing which perspective is the more dignified way for us individually and as a species, and for industrial civilization as we know it, to end. The fantasy of the market or that of political revolution?