Posted by LDF on December 18, 2008 at 11:38:09:
In Reply to: SIU to TOTALLY supplant state? posted by David Searles on December 15, 2008 at 07:38:38:
In response to the general thrust of the post, here's my 'take':
A couple of issues arise from the commentary- but they all ultimately fall into two categories we 21st C socialists must constantly deal with, and for which there is no easy or clear-cut solution. One is a matter of terminlogy and who has controlled (that is, defined)language in most discussions about society and governance. The second is the historical baggage that we bear as socialists.
As regards the issue of what Searles refers to as "the political State"...which is such a loaded pistol that before we even begin, lets start peeling off at least the worst part of what he brings together: namely, the 'neutral' term 'political' with the heavy-weaponry term: "State".....State of course implies dark, heavy-handed, top-down, authoritarian control. Or well-disguised & sophisticated control just as damning to freedom, such as we have under Capitalism. So lets dispense with the term "State'-WHICH WE at PFANS NEVER USE IN ANY OF OUR WRITINGS,CORRESPONDENCE, DISCUSSIONS or CONVERSATIONS because of its very nature being in complete OPPOSITION to everything we support- namely real democracy in all social, economic and cultural affairs.
To that end, I suggest here we just deal with the more 'neutral' and useful term: governance or government. We at PFANS usually use the currently accepted terms (such as 'government', 'political',etc) that best fit our needs and is most familiar to folks- but we make certain we clarify what we mean in our usage. For example, 'governance', 'governmental
structure' or 'government' when detached from Capitalism, simply means a way to organize and manage society; under Capitalism, obviously, it has come
to mean coersion from the top, but should we then hand it over to the manipulators or feel obliged to come up with a new language out of thin air? PS: Intellectuals love that (I personally think of so many smart conceptualists, including Parecon, who are great wordsmiths but who leave many newcomers & seekers, possibly not so 'theory & language-inclined' in the dust just trying to get thru it all!)
So my suggestion is we keep what works, but use terms with clarity. Not easy or fool-proof, but no worse than explaining a new lexicon on top of a new paradigm!
Think of how 'Democracy' has become synonymous with CAPITALISM! If we were, therefore, to stop using that term we would be limiting ourselves, confusing newcomers, and only making a more complicated process out of what, in reality, is pretty straightforward. Democracy:from the Greek,Demos-People..Cracy-Power.
The other problem of what our 'socialist forebears' wrote-or left out- or didn't think about. Lets not make that a cross we must bear and discuss it ad infinitum. Bad enough, others load it on us. For us, let's try to deal with what we have in front of us and see where we can go from here.
The PFANS concept is pretty simple, IF the baggage can be off-loaded. In our own model, we use a "bi-cameral" Congress (wow, now there's a heavy trip! But 'bi-cameral' while familiar because following from the present structure, really only means 'two-eyes' or two elements, two bodies. In present Capitalism, both 'bodies' (House & Senate) are owned, controlled & managed lock, stock & barrel by Capitalist interests. But our 'two bodies' would simply carry the decisions & concerns from two seperate but linked concerns: the work-site & work-related input.....and the community-related (home, family, personal,neighborhood)input.
They are co-equal parts of the societal whole and represent votes, discussions and concerns, desires, needs. The co-ordination (thru technology, computers, etc)of this input, together with elected representa- tives to interact & facilitate where helpful, would make up the "Coordinating Councils". The idea of
"political'(from the Greek again, right? Poli:People)
therefore,is a natural outgrowth of any social entity
and we need not shy away from it simply because it may require explanation. Lack of credibility with any of these 'societal terms' will need to be overcome by any cynacised 'citizens', but that's true of any term we come up with.
In any event, our model is only ONE IDEA! The basic notions: Democracy where we live, where we work...Cooperation rather than competition...
Rationality And Need rather than profit, these might develope in many ways,. We leave that for future peoples to design & define; our 'work' is just in getting people to accept the notion that there ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES we can come up with, that this present capitalist model is no longer functioning and can /should be replaced by a humane, rational & innovative one.
Now, if folks don't believe any government is really needed, that democracy is a fiction that can never work, of course we can't even have a discussion.
But if we think envisioning a better society is WORTH it, then I don't see any way around utilizing familiar and certainly positive -or at least 'neutral'- terms,
it seems to me, shouldn't be avoided. As for the retrograde or at least unevolved, anachronistic think- ing of past "socialists", all that I suggest is to admit their failures when true...and move on to our new, more fully-developed concepts that can absolutely work in the technologically and culturally more sophisticated and demanding society we have begun to create, even now!
LDF, member, Editorial Committee