Waching daily Jan 27 2019

Under socialism all the means of production are the property of the community.

The community alone disposes of them and decides how to use them in production.

The community produces, the products accrue to the community,

and the community decides how those products are to be used.

The Marxian persuasion, lay great emphasis on designating the socialist community as Society,

and describing the transfer of the means of production to the control of the community as '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.

of which socialist propaganda was not thought to be able to do without.

The word 'society', with its corresponding adjective 'social', has three separate meanings.

It implies, first, the abstract idea of social interrelationships,

and secondly, the concrete conception of a union of the individuals themselves.

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'.

Now Marx uses the term with all these meanings.

This would not matter as long as he made the distinction quite clear.

But he does just the opposite.

He interchanges them with a conjurer's skill whenever it appears to suit him.

When he talks ofthe social character of capitalistic production he is using social in its abstract sense.

When he speaks of the society which suffers during crises

he means the personified society of mankind.

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.

And all the meanings are interchanged in the links of his argument whenever he has to prove the unprovable.

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.

A programme which would give the State the general responsibility and direction of all production

has no prospect of acceptance in these circles.

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.