Association
- This topic has 28 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi
I’ve just been reading through the socialist standard, in particular an article by Mike Schauerte, ‘A rose by any other name’. I really feel that the use of the term ‘association’ would be very helpful in combatting the ignorant ideas that some people have about Socialism. I’m tired of seeing comments about Russia, North Korea and ‘its been tried before’. There are members working tirelessly to counteract the negative ideas that some people have and spread about socialism. The word ‘association’, for me, is a positive word that communicates community and group action. Am I alone in this or could we find a way to use this word more often in literature? I imagine that a lot of young people would not be too familiar with this word and would be more willing to investigate its message.
In many blog posts I apply the description “cooperative commonwealth” for our post-capitalist society which was often used in early socialist literature and in some Socialist Standard articles
No matter what term we use – association or whatever – we still have to define it. And once we do that – our critics return to their customary dismissive disparaging remarks, from the Right that all we are is “a bunch of red commies” and from the Left “a bunch of utopian idealists” .
I think we will always have the need to use a qualifying adjective with the word socialism (majoritarian socialist, for instance)
We can’t win.
But we should in our literature use many more synonyms for socialism. Social Democracy – Industrial Democracy – Economic Democracy and the context they are used in should give their meaning more clarity.
We should also remember that our flagship video Kids Stuff, doesn’t even use the word “socialism” and some ex-members did the same – The Movement For Free Access, for instance.
Any name that we use is going to be the same problem.
Whatever was done by the Bolsheviks will always be blamed on socialism and the socialists, the ruling class hold on his hands the means of communication and propagation and will continue polluting the minds of the workers for many years, we are a minority.
Socialism/Communism was properly defined more than 100 years ago, and It is going to be the same for many years
I agree, I just saw a glimmer of hope and I thought maybe this would help. To most of us, socialism is the only Logical step forward, out of the current mess; we could change society overnight. It will come, maybe not in my lifetime, but one thing is for sure, we’ll either get socialism or barbarism! Thanks for your thoughts, guys.
I have been spending part of my time on home detention scanning the Socialist Standards of the 1920s. Most writers called our aim Socialism. Others used Socialist Commonwealth. There was also Socialist Cooperative Commonwealth and one Socialist Republic. Communism with a small c was also used in some contexts.
But in 1920 the word Socialism had yet to be sullied by its association with the Russian state capitalist dictatorship and failed Labour governments.
I have been spending part of my time on home detention scanning the Socialist Standards of the 1920s.
Not half he has. Between him and Darren O’Neil. You can see them all on here.
I’ve got a soft spot for the term ‘anarcho-socialism’ to differentiate our stance from others who use the word ‘socialism’, as it emphasises our rejection of the state. I think there was a Conference decision a while back agreeing that we don’t have a problem with the term. Some might find it confusing, though if we used it alongside ‘socialism’, as we would have to unless we became the ASPGB!
With those terms from the 1920s, ‘Commonwealth’ would be fine if it hadn’t been twisted round to mean a relic of the British Empire. And the word ‘republic’ doesn’t go far enough – you can have capitalist republics.
As ALB and I not so long ago found, there will be plenty of anarchists on Libcom who won’t be at all pleased if we used the term “anarcho-socialist.”
In America, anarchists lost the battle for the term “libertarian” where the free-enterprise capitalists openly admitted they stole the word from the anarchists.
In Scotland, left nationalists resurrected the archaic expression “commonweal” and had the “th” dropped.
As with Militant/CWI usurping our name, reclaiming words is extremely difficult. It can only be overcome in the general work of explaining our ideas and differentiating ourselves from others.
After an initial bounce, Zeitgeist and their “Resource Based Economy” have stalled (or am i wrong)
Isn’t it the same with Parecon (participatory economics), a spurt to growth then stagnation?
We can’t be all things to all people, unfortunately, but it doesn’t mean we cannot express our aims to be seen as inclusive. SOCIAL is the important part of the word socialism.
“As ALB and I not so long ago found, there will be plenty of anarchists on Libcom who won’t be at all pleased if we used the term “anarcho-socialist.”
Funnily enough there are quite a few socialists on this forum who also won’t be pleased at all if we used the term “anarcho-socialist”
There is of course the option of calling ourselves, libertarian socialists, BD.
Words and language are fluid and they change. Etymology is a whole school that records the origins of words and how they evolved into other meanings. Even in our own lifetimes we see that happening.
I really cannot see a solution to the situation except to keep qualifying and describing what we mean when we put our case by using a variety of synonyms and different phrases which helps to clarify.
As an aside, my bugbear is how in 99% of our articles we always define the working class as those who labour for a wage or a salary.
It’s invariably used and I always think it is unnecessary, a relic from when there were those who were monthly paid and those who received it weekly in cash. People know what we mean and it is simply superfluous to add a further explanation. (Don’t some of us work for a fee for our services or on commission?)
how about Stateless Socialists ?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/soc-anar.htm
see if links still don’t work
Here’s an idea what about doing as we have always done and describe ourselves as either Socialists or Communists.We don’t want to get ourselves mistaken for the so called and mysterious “fellow travellers” some comrades keep banging on about, as being the most important source of new recruits (although I can think of very few occasions in the 38 years I’ve been in the party when one of these “fellow travellers” have ever joined the party)
In my experience the fact that others have a misconception of what is meant by those terms is actually a good starting point ot engaging them, rather than a hinderance to discussion.
In the 1920s the comrades weren’t too keen on saying that our aim was Anarchy or on describing themselves as Anarchists !
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.