Engels and "socialist government"

[alanjjohnstone]

Is to use the term “self-government” for peoples’ power an oxymoron?

[robbo203]

Is to use the term “self-government” for peoples’ power an oxymoron?

 

Alan, self government usually refers to the devolution of power from some central state to some region under its jurisdiction.  So it implies the existence of a state and by extension class society.

 

If anarchists want anarchism – a stateless society – they should be joining the SPGB in their droves, not sniping at it from the side lines.  You cant have a stateless society without getting rid of class ownership and it is the state that stands in the way of that happening

 

So it makes complete sense to democratically capture the state precisely  in order to dismantle it along with capitalism at the same time.  Does any anarchist seriously imagine the state is going to disappear of its own accord?

[alanjjohnstone]

I know self-government can have different meanings – one being independence for a colonial state, for instance –  but I was more directing the question to this query

Dear Editors,
Does anyone agree with me that it is not just a Socialist World which we should be aiming for but one which is ‘Self-Governed’?
Of course, this More Advanced Society (in which there are no more wars) would still be run according to the Socialist principles of common ownership, democratic control and production for need – along with those of, from Ecology, respect for nature, sustainability and diversity and, from Anarchism, mutual aid, voluntary association and self-management – but it would be founded upon the spiritual understanding that there is ‘only one of us here’, i.e. One Self, and that, therefore, ‘Self-Government’ must be the next logical step forward in the cultural and political evolution of the human race. For is it not true that ‘The Social Revolution’ is more likely to be achieved not by force of argument and/or fear of the alternative but when the notion of ‘Unity/We Are All One/Everything Is Connected’ has entered ‘The Collective Consciousness’?
Yours for radical change,
Colin Millen, Sheringham, Norfolk

Reply: Yes, we suppose that, insofar as “self-government” means the same as democracy, socialism could be described as “self-government”, though “self-administration” might be better. However, “self” is not to be taken, as you seem to, too literally as referring to a single entity, linking all humans, which has its own consciousness. That would be mysticism, which we can’t accept. On the other hand, to recognise that all humans are socially interdependent and form part of a greater whole, whether the whole of humanity, all living things, or all nature, is to recognise reality and will no doubt be part of the consciousness of the people of world socialist society—Editors.

Letters

Another inference is from William Morris and the Hammersmith Socialist Society

“. . . it should be our special aim to make Socialists, by putting before people, and especially the working classes, the elementary truths of Socialism; since we feel sure, in the first place, that in spite of the stir in the ranks of labour there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is, or have had opportunities of arguing on the subject with those who have at least begun to understand it; and, in the second place, we are no less sure that before any definite Socialist action can be attempted, it must be backed up by a great body of intelligent opinion – the opinion of a great mass of people who are already Socialists, people who know what they want, and are prepared to accept the responsibilities of self-government, which must form a part of their claims.”

William Morris and the Hammersmith Socialist Society

Would it be amiss of a socialist to describe socialism as a system of self-government?

[robbo203]

Fair point Alan if you are defining self government in this specific way.  But in no way can this particular reading of the term be equated with the term “socialist government” which definitely implies the existence of a state in my view (and hence classes) and  as such is an oxymoron

[ALB]

As both Colin Millen and the reply bring out, it depends on what you mean by “self”. He means (I think) the whole biosphere. William Morris seems to mean the individual person (through taking responsibility for their actions.) I suppose it could mean the whole community.

The word also appears in “self-management” which the old Solidarity group introduced from the French autogestion (which I see has also become an English word itself.) Both refer to a way of managing a workplace (and so are attractive to the syndicalist-minded) generally within the context of a market economy (and so are not attractive to socialists — we have called it “self exploitation”).

I don’t see what’s wrong with “democracy”, or if you want to refine it more, “participatory democracy”, which can apply to all aspects of society and not just the workplace. That avoids having to define what is meant by “self”.

Actually our Object puts it well when it refers to “democratic control … by and in the interest of the whole community.”

The other thing to bear in mind of course  is that we have no control over the future evolution of language and it may be that in the future the words “state” and “government” will come to mean the unarmed central administration(s) that will exist in a socialist world. Who knows? But it will be the content not the name that will be important. Come to think of, that’s the case today too.

[Anonymous]

I do not support the term government in any sense, it means governor  over the peoples

[Author]

Posts