Nothing is better designed to avoid the mysticism which in this connection has been fostered by Marxian usages to the highest degree. When dealing with the concrete expression of the will of the State, the English language provides a more subtle distinction by permitting us to use the term government instead of the term state. What is important is the problem of the organization of this socialistic State or community. But there is no disadvantage in avoiding this term if we wish, since it arouses mixed feelings in many people, and in substituting the expression "community." The choice of terminology is purely a matter of style, and has no practical importance. If we use the word "State" we have a term in common use, except in the quite uncritical Marxian literature, an expression which is generally understood and which evokes the idea it is intended to evoke. Now it does not matter in the least what particular name is given to the coercive apparatus of the socialistic community. It is called "Society." In this way the Marxian social democracy could at one and the same time contemplate the destruction of the existing State machine, fiercely combat all anarchistic movements, and pursue a policy which led directly to an all powerful state. For the future organization to which they aspire the term is rejected indignantly as dishonourable and degrading. Only those states and forms of state organization are called the State which arouse the dislike of the socialist writers. But Marxism has arbitrarily limited the meaning of the word State, so that it does not include the Socialistic State. The modern doctrine of the state understands by the word "State" an authoritative unit, an apparatus of compulsion characterized not by its aims but by its form. It does not say much for the perception of men who lived in the decades immediately preceding the World War that they did not see through this sophistry. It follows that the Marxist must continually find a phraseology which disguises the essence of the programme, which succeeds in concealing the unbridgeable abyss dividing democracy and Socialism. A programme which would give the State the general responsibility and direction of all production has no prospect of acceptance in these circles. The reason for all this is in order to avoid using the term State or its equivalent, since this word has an unpleasant sound to all those lovers of freedom and democracy, whose support the Marxian does not wish to alienate at the outset. And all the meanings are interchanged in the links of his argument whenever he has to prove the unprovable. But when he speaks of the society which is to expropriate the expropriators and socialize the means of production he means an actual social union. When he speaks of the society which suffers during crises he means the personified society of mankind. When he talks of the social character of capitalistic production he is using social in its abstract sense. He interchanges them with a conjurer's skill whenever it appears to suit him. This would not matter as long as he made the distinction quite clear. Now Marx uses the term with all these meanings. Between these two sharply different meanings, a third has been interposed in ordinary speech: the abstract society is conceived as personified in such expressions as "human society," "civil society." It implies, first, the abstract idea of social interrelationships, and secondly, the concrete conception of a union of the individuals themselves. The word "society," with its corresponding adjective "social," has three separate meanings. Modern socialists, espcially those of the Marxian persuasion, lay great emphasis on designating the socialist community as Society, and therefore on describing the transfer of the means of production to the control of the community as the "Socialization of the means of production." In itself the expression is unobjectionable but in the connection in which it is used it is particularly designed to obscure one of the most important problems of Socialism. The community produces, the products accrue to the community, and the community decides how those products are to be used. The community alone disposes of them and decides how to use them in production. Under Socialism all the means of production are the property of the community. 1: The Socialization of the Means of Production
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |