Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mad Paul Mason

it gives shilling for Starmer an ‘intellectual’ veneer I suppose...
The providing "intellectual’ veneer" thing has been on mind with him for a while now...
In Live Working or Die Fighting the structure of the book is to take an episode of historical workers struggle - say French garment works in London in the 1800s IIRC, and then follow it with a contemporary moment - Chinese sweatshop garment workers today.
That making history relevant and finding the continuity really worked on me - its an obvious point maybe, but he makes it well.

I get the feeling its something he keeps trying to do, but with each time its seems more and more absurd - i haven't got a concrete example to hand, but effectively talking about the Paris Commune in one breath and Starmer in the second....and hes doing it again now.

As he's someone clearly very well versed in left history - infinitely more knowledgeable than i am - I find it hard to dismiss out of hand, but it does have the air of a delusional attempt to find something in common with his more revolutionary pre-breakdown politics and post-breakdown electioneering politics.
I understand being drawn to a cynical realpolitik worldview, and trying to be realistic about forces of power, but even the reformist in me knows where the line is, and Mason has clearly crossed it.

ETA: I dont think he had a breakdown as such, but definitely got visibly erratic/incoherent/stressed/manic even
 
Last edited:
The providing "intellectual’ veneer" thing has been on mind with him for a while now...
In Live Working or Die Fighting the structure of the book is to take an episode of historical workers struggle - say French garment works in London in the 1800s IIRC, and then follow it with a contemporary moment - Chinese sweatshop garment workers today.
That making history relevant and finding the continuity really worked on me - its an obvious point maybe, but he makes it well.

I get the feeling its something he keeps trying to do, but with each time its seems more and more absurd - i haven't got a concrete example to hand, but effectively talking about the Paris Commune in one breath and Starmer in the second....and hes doing it again now.

As he's someone clearly very well versed in left history - infinitely more knowledgeable than i am - I find it hard to dismiss out of hand, but it does have the air of a delusional attempt to find something in common with his more revolutionary pre-breakdown politics and post-breakdown electioneering politics.
I understand being drawn to a cynical realpolitik worldview, and trying to be realistic about forces of power, but even the reformist in me knows where the line is, and Mason has clearly crossed it.

You are right about ‘Live working’. It’s a brilliant and vibrant read. It’s also a great concept - as a way of dealing with history and the present and the linkages. It’s also makes some really sharp and important observations.

As for latter period Mason my own view is that two things have happened. Firstly, he decided to leave his job as economic editor at Channel 4 (where I also thought he was doing interesting work) and decided to become a full time ‘public intellectual’/campaigner. The second was his closeness and ‘being in the room’ presence to the Corbyn project at its onset. The former decision led to him developing an over confidence in his own intellect and ability to predict the future development of capitalism, the latter events created a taste (which he clearly loved and craves)
for proximity to power/influence’. Fatal.

But let’s also remember that Mason was in Workers Power, which tells us something about his judgment...
 
The providing "intellectual’ veneer" thing has been on mind with him for a while now...
In Live Working or Die Fighting the structure of the book is to take an episode of historical workers struggle - say French garment works in London in the 1800s IIRC, and then follow it with a contemporary moment - Chinese sweatshop garment workers today.
That making history relevant and finding the continuity really worked on me - its an obvious point maybe, but he makes it well.

I get the feeling its something he keeps trying to do, but with each time its seems more and more absurd - i haven't got a concrete example to hand, but effectively talking about the Paris Commune in one breath and Starmer in the second....and hes doing it again now.

As he's someone clearly very well versed in left history - infinitely more knowledgeable than i am - I find it hard to dismiss out of hand, but it does have the air of a delusional attempt to find something in common with his more revolutionary pre-breakdown politics and post-breakdown electioneering politics.
I understand being drawn to a cynical realpolitik worldview, and trying to be realistic about forces of power, but even the reformist in me knows where the line is, and Mason has clearly crossed it.
Yeah, it feels almost Jekyll and Hyde in some ways - I just wish there was some way to extract out the nice Comrade Paul who likes the Paris Commune and the mass revolts that ended WWI from mad Mr Mason who wants Biden to build a stronger security state. As far as recent examples go, he's been boosting a Paris Commune anniversaries account:



While also coming out with stuff like:



I'm not really sure he's in much of a position to be telling everyone else to get their heads straight about the state, tbh.
 
" there is NO EXAMPLE IN HISTORY of the labour movement defeating mass fascism on its own... "
<<< any thoughts on that comment though?

Theres a distinction though between defeating existing fascism once its come to power, and defeating it/supressing it before it comes to power,
Mass fascism suggests once its come to power, which is slightly a different scenario

Im well out of my depth here, but i am vaguely aware of this moment though
 
" there is NO EXAMPLE IN HISTORY of the labour movement defeating mass fascism on its own... "
<<< any thoughts on that comment though?

Theres a distinction though between defeating existing fascism once its come to power, and defeating it/supressing it before it comes to power,
Mass fascism suggests once its come to power, which is slightly a different scenario

Im well out of my depth here, but i am vaguely aware of this moment though
Yeah, it feels a bit tautologous/no true scotsman-y: there are lots and lots of examples of fascist movements in history, probably the vast majority of them did not come to power, but for any of them that were defeated you could probably argue that a) they weren't truly mass enough to qualify, and b) people outside the labour movement also opposed them. I think there's a vast, vast amount of middle ground to explore in between "I think the labour movement as it currently stands is capable of defeating mass fascism all on its own with no help from anyone" and Mason's "let's do a popular front with Biden, the Lib Dems and the CIA", though.
 
" there is NO EXAMPLE IN HISTORY of the labour movement defeating mass fascism on its own... "
<<< any thoughts on that comment though?

It's self serving rhetoric just on the face of it. It's not as if there are any examples of the labour movement being defeated by fascism on its own either and that's because things are never that simple. Is there a context for this quote?

(Oh Gord - Alan Woods)
 
I think he's still rattled about all the criticism from the left he's been getting recently:



Apparently we're all tankies. What a wanker.
 
I think he's still rattled about all the criticism from the left he's been getting recently:
Apparently we're all tankies. What a wanker.

His analysis of the budget response was fascinating I thought. Mason abandoned the usual desperate ‘Marxist’ veneer he normally cobbles together to ‘analyse’ the latest piss and dribble from Starmerarma and has just turned into Philip Gould....
 
Johnson has made greed, white victimhood, corruption and xenophobia not only respectable but grimly fashionable in the ex-industrial small towns of England.

 

The usual Mason by numbers dribble:

1. Popular frontism
2. Gratuitously offensive to the section of the working class he claims to come from
3. Laughable characterisation of where he lives now
4. Free pass for Starmer
5. Some sprinkling of radical phrasing for those dense enough to buy it/his ego

What made you post it up?
 
The usual Mason by numbers dribble:

1. Popular frontism
2. Gratuitously offensive to the section of the working class he claims to come from
3. Laughable characterisation of where he lives now
4. Free pass for Starmer
5. Some sprinkling of radical phrasing for those dense enough to buy it/his ego

What made you post it up?

Because it's the mad Paul Mason thread.
 
I think there's a vast, vast amount of middle ground to explore in between "I think the labour movement as it currently stands is capable of defeating mass fascism all on its own with no help from anyone" and Mason's "let's do a popular front with Biden, the Lib Dems and the CIA", though.
In theory I'm sure you are right, but in practice, lets say taking the US as an example (since you mention Biden and the CIA), what would that constituency actually look like? Whats a half way measure?

*This is the theme of his forthcoming book by the way, how you cant stop fascism without a cross alliance with the middle class + lets call them centrists
 
In theory I'm sure you are right, but in practice, lets say taking the US as an example (since you mention Biden and the CIA), what would that constituency actually look like? Whats a half way measure?

*This is the theme of his forthcoming book by the way, how you cant stop fascism without a cross alliance with the middle class + lets call them centrists
I mean, that's a big question, but looking back over the past 4-5 years or so, I feel like the US has gone from having an emboldened, confident far-right that was on the march both figuratively and literally, to having pushed the far-right back a great deal. Cos life is complicated, I feel like there's probably enough evidence that I could cherry-pick examples to prove that it was the black bloc wotdunnit, or Mason could pick enough examples to show that it was actually all down to Biden, but... actually, going back to what Mason said above, his words leading up to that were "Finally the left needs to get its head straight about the state. Either you want state power through elections, in which case you support the state having a legal monopoly of armed force (not guns bcos 2nd Am). Or not... Either you want the state to do its job, under the rule of law, with legislative oversight, or you don't."
I think it's fair to say, that if you were going off what Mason says, about how you need to build a popular front with centrists that supports the state, the one thing you would advise Americans not to do would be to launch a big uprising fighting the police and burning down police stations and setting cop cars on fire, one that mostly takes place in Democrat-run cities and so clashes with Democrat-run administrations, because that is not a good way to build alliances with centrists. And yet, I don't think the events of last summer seriously undermined the fight against fascism in the US, so I reckon Mason's theses are flawed.
So basically BLM would be my short answer to that - the anti-racist/anti-police movements that have mostly operated under that banner can't really be reduced to the labour movement or even the radical left alone, but they also really don't look like the classical kind of Popular Front that Mason advocates either.
 
Back
Top Bottom