Association
- This topic has 28 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the term ‘world socialism’. I think we should always put the two words together. It may well give some the impression that we’re after establishing a world government but it emphasizes the global element of our case, which is crucial.
I generally do a long-winded one, depending on where I am, as in an advanced, post-capitalist, production for use, free access, commonly owned global society run by us all, locally, regionally, globally in administration over resources and not governments over people. It gets a response and I can then elaborate further, how this is classical socialism/communism, as understood prior to the reformist and state capitalist usurpation of the name.
Just discovered two other descriptions used in the 1920s — “World Commonwealth” and “International Co-operative Commonwealth”. Nuisance that the old British Empire rebranded itself “The Commonwealth”, which is quite illogical and unjustified as there’s not even a remote suggestion in it about wealth being held in common. Quite the opposite in fact.
Also in the 1920s the CP was referred to as the “Communist” (in inverted commas) Party and its members as “Communists” (in inverted commas again). But to keep that word unsullied has proved an even greater task than for the word Socialism.
Don’t forget that a number of US states describe themselves as commonwealths.
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Two U.S. territories are also designated as commonwealths: Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Delaware and Vermont have also used the term commonwealth to refer to themselves
Either it adds to the confusion or we can make it resonate with a section of American audience if we explain socialism is a commonwealth as originally envisaged by the early settlers – communities for the common good administered by common consent.
And then there was in Canada, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, a reformist political party that attracted several members of the SPC
There was also a Commonwealth Party in Britain during the second world War of the last century.
I have seen a list of more than 300 types of socialism and definitions, all of them can be inserted into a blender and we get only one definition: Reformists trend
When I try and introduce the idea of world socialism into conversations I usually end up using a mouthful. There’s really no other way. E.g. ‘I think we need to abolish the entire capitalist system, world-wide, along with governments, money and national boundaries, and replace it with world-wide common ownership of all resources’.
Interestingly I said something similar to a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses who came ringing and asked me if I thought the world was getting better or worse. One of them said, ‘Well, I think we could go along with that’. But when I told them what I thought of religion they scuttled on their way.
With regard to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, if you get a text on your phone saying “knock, knock” don’t answer it, the cunning bastards are working from home.
From the right, probably Von Mises book title is the most prominent reference to socialism and commonwealth
“Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”
Actually of course Von Mises wrote it in German (in 1920) so the term “commonwealth” is that of the person who first translated it into English in 1935. The German word that Von Mises used was “Gemeinwesen” which doesn’t have to be translated as “commonwealth”. So maybe the translator had read up on genuine socialist literature. Anyway he kept the term “Socialist Commonwealth” in circulation.
“Anyway he kept the term “Socialist Commonwealth” in circulation.”
And that is the only thing we can aspire towards when it comes to words and definitions.
We may not succeed in determining meanings as understood by many people, but we can still act as a counter-tendency, even if the overwhelming weight of the media makes us a tiny voice in the wilderness.
In scientific and scholarly works, authors also persist with original explanations of their terms, regardless of the way they have been adopted by the general public.
Could we use the term Commonist, we are in favour of common ownership. Doesn’t seem to be poluted by leftist/leninists
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.