--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "Andrea" ha scritto:
Una critica dal Pakistan al concetto di società civile...
What is 'Civil Society'?
A Marxist Critique of the NGO-Inspired Concept of "Civil Society"
CMKP - Communist Workers and Peasants Party of Pakistan
After the break up of the Soviet Union most 'left intellectuals' have been =
gripped with
the fever of Civil Society. From Non-Governmental Organisations and Human =
Rights
Groups to academics and activists, the so called 'democratic' opposition ha=
s taken
recourse to the concept of Civil Society to fight the evils of the modern w=
orld.
However, few have questioned, and others have deliberately not spoken about=
, what
the concept Civil Society actually means.
The French and American Revolutions are recognised as the corner stones of =
Democracy and Civil Society. The ideological framework developed during th=
ese
bourgeois democratic revolutions is the accepted foundation of Civil Societ=
y.
According to the constitutions formed during the French and American revolu=
tions,
Civil Society is based on six tenets: Property, Equality, Liberty, Security=
, Secularism,
and the Free Press. For example, in The Declaration of the Rights of Man, =
Article 2
defines natural inviolable rights as Equality, Liberty, Security, Property.=
At first glance
these concepts appear to be the embodiment of justice. Indeed, that is wha=
t is
incessantly preached by top journals to daily newspapers. However, a close=
r look
reveals that Civil Society goes no further than the rule of the capitalist =
class. In a
word, Civil Society is a euphemism for the dictatorship of the capitalist c=
lass.
Property
The central tenet of Civil Society is the inviolability of private property=
. For example,
Article 16, Constitution of 1793: "The right of property is the right which=
belongs to
all citizens to enjoy and dispose at will of their goods and revenues, the =
fruit of their
work and industry." This tenet is true of all constitutions premised on ci=
vil society.
Marx says: "Thus, the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his po=
ssessions
and dispose of the same arbitrarily, without regard for other men, independ=
ently
from society, the right of selfishness. It is the former individual freedom=
together
with its latter application that forms the basis of Civil Society. It lead=
s man to see in
other men not the realisation but the limitation of his own freedom."
Thus, the use of private property at will, in other words, in utter disrega=
rd for the rest
of mankind, is enshrined in the very constitutions of bourgeois democracy a=
nd civil
society. The selfish use of resources is a central tenet of civil society.=
We understand from a study of economics that private property obeys certain=
laws of
development. What interests us is the law of concentration of capital: the=
fact that
the richest 3 individuals have more money than 600,000,000 people in the wo=
rld. It
is clear that this type of growing inequality does not contradict the tenet=
of private
property.
Equality
Civil Society defines the concept of equality as (Article 3, Constitution o=
f 1795):
"Equality consists of the fact that the law is the same for all, whether it=
protects or
punishes."
In other words, 'equality' in Civil Society consists in 'equality before th=
e law' but not
equality of opportunity. In other words, it is equality in the purely lega=
l sense and not
in the economic or human sense. Equality within Civil Society, therefore, =
is entirely
compatible with vast and growing economic disparity, concentration of wealt=
h, power,
and privilege. In fact it would be more correct to say that the concept of=
'equality'
touted by Civil Society is premised on economic inequality since Civil Soci=
ety itself is
premised on private property. One must ask the question 'in what sense can=
we talk
about liberty in such a society?'
Liberty
The grand word 'Liberty' conveys a sense of freedom from exploitation. How=
ever, this
notion is entirely incorrect. According to Article 6: "Liberty is the powe=
r that belongs
to man to do anything that does not infringe on the right of someone else."=
Similarly
according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791 "Liberty consists=
in the
power of doing anything that does not harm others" defined by law.
Therefore, 'liberty' within Civil Society implies the right to do anything =
that does not
infringe on the property of others. The boundaries of 'liberty' within Civ=
il Society are
defined by law that upholds the inviolability of private property as the ce=
ntral tenet of
Civil Society. In other words, 'liberty' is premised upon the right to exp=
loit workers
via the institution of private property. Furthermore, the attempt on the p=
art of
workers to change social relations (which cannot be done without infringing=
upon
private property) is not the realisation of liberty but the infringement of=
'liberty'. In
conclusion, 'liberty' within Civil Society is nothing other than liberty fo=
r the capitalist
to exploit the workers.
Security
Civil Society is prevented from falling apart from the stress of economic i=
nequality by
the concept of security. Article 8 of the Constitution of 1793 says, "Secu=
rity consists
in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the conser=
vation of
his person, rights, and property."
Marx writes: "Security is the highest social concept of civil society, the =
concept of the
police. The whole of society is merely there to guarantee to each of its m=
embers the
preservation of his person, rights and property."
In other words, 'security' within Civil Society is not the security of peop=
le from
hunger, poverty, depravation. But merely the security of property and 'righ=
ts' defined
as the unimpeded individual use of that property. Therefore, security is n=
ot
understood as security of the people or the individual in general but speci=
fically
security of property and the utilisation of property.
Marx writes: "Thus, none of the so-called rights of man goes beyond egoisti=
c man,
man as he is in civil society, namely an individual withdrawn behind his pr=
ivate
interests and whims and separated from the community. … The only bond that =
holds
them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the conserva=
tion of their
property and egoistic person."
Civil Society is based on capitalist exploitation (property), formal 'equal=
ity' before the
law, 'liberty' to exploit workers, and a police force to guarantee 'securit=
y'. It is high
time that those who speak in the name of Civil Society should realise that =
they speak
only the name of capitalist exploitation.
Some might argue that while the above may be correct, nonetheless, seculari=
sm and
the free press are positive benefits of Civil Society.
Secularism
The common impression about secularism is that it is the anti-thesis of rel=
igion or of
religious intolerance. This view is supported by the religious right who ne=
ver tire of
inveighing against the secularists. As we find out this view is also not co=
rrect.
According to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1791,=
Article 10,
"No one should be molested because of his opinions, not even religious ones=
."
Furthermore, "the liberty of every man to practice the religion to which he=
adheres" is
guaranteed as human right. The Declaration of the Rights of Man 1793, Arti=
cle 7,
upholds "the free exercise of religious practice". The Constitution of 1795=
, Section
14, Article 354, argues that freedom of religion is so obvious that the 'ne=
cessity of
announcing these rights supposes either the present or the recent memory of=
despotism'. Similarly, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 9, Paragr=
aph 3 says,
"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God acco=
rding to
the dictates of their own consciences: no man can of right be compelled to =
attend,
erect or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against h=
is consent;
no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the=
rights of
conscience." The Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 5 & 6 says, "Among=
the
natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable … Of this kind ar=
e rights of
conscience."
In Pakistan the point of contention between the bourgeois secularists and t=
he
religious-right is not concerned with whether or not there should be religi=
on or
religious worship (both uphold the right of religious worship). The centra=
l issue
between these two parties is whether the state should be a theocracy or a s=
ecular
state.
The bourgeois secularists, who are 'highly educated' capitalists, wish to s=
ee the
capitalist economy run in accordance with the most modern notions of capita=
list
relations. Amongst other things, this includes the 'emancipation' of women=
but
obviously within the confines of a capitalist economy. Naturally, such an =
'emancipation' is unable to mobilise working class or peasant women because=
of the
limited nature of its class aims.
The religious-right, who are 'less well educated' small capitalists, wish f=
or a capitalist
economy with a more traditional superstructure. This traditional superstru=
cture, in
reality, is a better ideological defence against the rising working class m=
ovement than
pure bourgeois democracy. Therefore, they are the principle obstacle in th=
e path of
development of working class consciousness.
The conflict between these two social groups is over the particular form of=
capitalism
(modern or traditional). While the religious-right is a more obvious enemy=
, the
bourgeois secularists are the more devious and clever enemies of the workin=
g class
and women. Revolutionary forces must use the right hand to fight the influ=
ence of
the narrow minded right-wing forces, and the left hand to fight the influen=
ce of the
'left-wing' devious bourgeois secularists in the realm of ideology.
Free Press
According to the Constitution of 1793, Article 122, the 'unlimited freedom =
of the
press' is guaranteed as a consequence of the right of man to individual fre=
edom.
However, a deeper reading shows that the freedom of the press is limited by=
the
concept of public liberty. The same article says, 'the liberty of the pres=
s must not be
permitted when it compromises public liberty'. In other words, the freedom=
of the
press must not be permitted when it impinges on the right of the capitalist=
class to
exercise its liberty to exploit the workers through the institution of priv=
ate property.
It has become quite obvious that a tight censorship is maintained over all =
the media
of the world, despite the claim that we have entered an era of communicatio=
ns and
free information. But it is less obvious that such censorship is not contr=
adictory to
Civil Society. Civil Society is premised on the right of censorship in to =
protect 'liberty'
based on private property. This can be seen in the attitude that the US sta=
te has taken
towards the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan in the 'free press'.
Conclusion
The reader can see from the above exposition of the concept of Civil Societ=
y that it is
wholly tied to the class rule of the capitalists. Therefore, the conclusion=
that Civil
Society is merely a euphemism for the dictatorship of the capitalists is no=
t
unfounded. Furthermore, the argument that the use of the concept of Civil =
Society by
a particular group is different from the above exposition ignores the natur=
e of
politics. The subjective desires of individuals or groups are wholly irrel=
evant in
relation to the use of the concept Civil Society. In the political field, =
the concept is
intellectually and morally tied to the class rule of the capitalists. This=
link cannot be
changed and the concept cannot be 'appropriated' for revolutionary purposes=
.
Therefore, it is high time that activists realise that `Civil Society' is p=
remised on
exploitation, selfishness, oppression, inequality, and censorship. Those w=
ho are
genuine to the people must develop new theoretical premises upon which to c=
onduct
the struggle for the emancipation of people.
CMKP - Communist Workers and Peasants Party of Pakistan
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
Una critica dal Pakistan al concetto di società civile...
What is 'Civil Society'?
A Marxist Critique of the NGO-Inspired Concept of "Civil Society"
CMKP - Communist Workers and Peasants Party of Pakistan
After the break up of the Soviet Union most 'left intellectuals' have been =
gripped with
the fever of Civil Society. From Non-Governmental Organisations and Human =
Rights
Groups to academics and activists, the so called 'democratic' opposition ha=
s taken
recourse to the concept of Civil Society to fight the evils of the modern w=
orld.
However, few have questioned, and others have deliberately not spoken about=
, what
the concept Civil Society actually means.
The French and American Revolutions are recognised as the corner stones of =
Democracy and Civil Society. The ideological framework developed during th=
ese
bourgeois democratic revolutions is the accepted foundation of Civil Societ=
y.
According to the constitutions formed during the French and American revolu=
tions,
Civil Society is based on six tenets: Property, Equality, Liberty, Security=
, Secularism,
and the Free Press. For example, in The Declaration of the Rights of Man, =
Article 2
defines natural inviolable rights as Equality, Liberty, Security, Property.=
At first glance
these concepts appear to be the embodiment of justice. Indeed, that is wha=
t is
incessantly preached by top journals to daily newspapers. However, a close=
r look
reveals that Civil Society goes no further than the rule of the capitalist =
class. In a
word, Civil Society is a euphemism for the dictatorship of the capitalist c=
lass.
Property
The central tenet of Civil Society is the inviolability of private property=
. For example,
Article 16, Constitution of 1793: "The right of property is the right which=
belongs to
all citizens to enjoy and dispose at will of their goods and revenues, the =
fruit of their
work and industry." This tenet is true of all constitutions premised on ci=
vil society.
Marx says: "Thus, the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his po=
ssessions
and dispose of the same arbitrarily, without regard for other men, independ=
ently
from society, the right of selfishness. It is the former individual freedom=
together
with its latter application that forms the basis of Civil Society. It lead=
s man to see in
other men not the realisation but the limitation of his own freedom."
Thus, the use of private property at will, in other words, in utter disrega=
rd for the rest
of mankind, is enshrined in the very constitutions of bourgeois democracy a=
nd civil
society. The selfish use of resources is a central tenet of civil society.=
We understand from a study of economics that private property obeys certain=
laws of
development. What interests us is the law of concentration of capital: the=
fact that
the richest 3 individuals have more money than 600,000,000 people in the wo=
rld. It
is clear that this type of growing inequality does not contradict the tenet=
of private
property.
Equality
Civil Society defines the concept of equality as (Article 3, Constitution o=
f 1795):
"Equality consists of the fact that the law is the same for all, whether it=
protects or
punishes."
In other words, 'equality' in Civil Society consists in 'equality before th=
e law' but not
equality of opportunity. In other words, it is equality in the purely lega=
l sense and not
in the economic or human sense. Equality within Civil Society, therefore, =
is entirely
compatible with vast and growing economic disparity, concentration of wealt=
h, power,
and privilege. In fact it would be more correct to say that the concept of=
'equality'
touted by Civil Society is premised on economic inequality since Civil Soci=
ety itself is
premised on private property. One must ask the question 'in what sense can=
we talk
about liberty in such a society?'
Liberty
The grand word 'Liberty' conveys a sense of freedom from exploitation. How=
ever, this
notion is entirely incorrect. According to Article 6: "Liberty is the powe=
r that belongs
to man to do anything that does not infringe on the right of someone else."=
Similarly
according to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1791 "Liberty consists=
in the
power of doing anything that does not harm others" defined by law.
Therefore, 'liberty' within Civil Society implies the right to do anything =
that does not
infringe on the property of others. The boundaries of 'liberty' within Civ=
il Society are
defined by law that upholds the inviolability of private property as the ce=
ntral tenet of
Civil Society. In other words, 'liberty' is premised upon the right to exp=
loit workers
via the institution of private property. Furthermore, the attempt on the p=
art of
workers to change social relations (which cannot be done without infringing=
upon
private property) is not the realisation of liberty but the infringement of=
'liberty'. In
conclusion, 'liberty' within Civil Society is nothing other than liberty fo=
r the capitalist
to exploit the workers.
Security
Civil Society is prevented from falling apart from the stress of economic i=
nequality by
the concept of security. Article 8 of the Constitution of 1793 says, "Secu=
rity consists
in the protection afforded by society to each of its members for the conser=
vation of
his person, rights, and property."
Marx writes: "Security is the highest social concept of civil society, the =
concept of the
police. The whole of society is merely there to guarantee to each of its m=
embers the
preservation of his person, rights and property."
In other words, 'security' within Civil Society is not the security of peop=
le from
hunger, poverty, depravation. But merely the security of property and 'righ=
ts' defined
as the unimpeded individual use of that property. Therefore, security is n=
ot
understood as security of the people or the individual in general but speci=
fically
security of property and the utilisation of property.
Marx writes: "Thus, none of the so-called rights of man goes beyond egoisti=
c man,
man as he is in civil society, namely an individual withdrawn behind his pr=
ivate
interests and whims and separated from the community. … The only bond that =
holds
them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the conserva=
tion of their
property and egoistic person."
Civil Society is based on capitalist exploitation (property), formal 'equal=
ity' before the
law, 'liberty' to exploit workers, and a police force to guarantee 'securit=
y'. It is high
time that those who speak in the name of Civil Society should realise that =
they speak
only the name of capitalist exploitation.
Some might argue that while the above may be correct, nonetheless, seculari=
sm and
the free press are positive benefits of Civil Society.
Secularism
The common impression about secularism is that it is the anti-thesis of rel=
igion or of
religious intolerance. This view is supported by the religious right who ne=
ver tire of
inveighing against the secularists. As we find out this view is also not co=
rrect.
According to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1791,=
Article 10,
"No one should be molested because of his opinions, not even religious ones=
."
Furthermore, "the liberty of every man to practice the religion to which he=
adheres" is
guaranteed as human right. The Declaration of the Rights of Man 1793, Arti=
cle 7,
upholds "the free exercise of religious practice". The Constitution of 1795=
, Section
14, Article 354, argues that freedom of religion is so obvious that the 'ne=
cessity of
announcing these rights supposes either the present or the recent memory of=
despotism'. Similarly, the Constitution of Pennsylvania, Article 9, Paragr=
aph 3 says,
"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God acco=
rding to
the dictates of their own consciences: no man can of right be compelled to =
attend,
erect or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against h=
is consent;
no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the=
rights of
conscience." The Constitution of New Hampshire, Article 5 & 6 says, "Among=
the
natural rights, some are in their very nature unalienable … Of this kind ar=
e rights of
conscience."
In Pakistan the point of contention between the bourgeois secularists and t=
he
religious-right is not concerned with whether or not there should be religi=
on or
religious worship (both uphold the right of religious worship). The centra=
l issue
between these two parties is whether the state should be a theocracy or a s=
ecular
state.
The bourgeois secularists, who are 'highly educated' capitalists, wish to s=
ee the
capitalist economy run in accordance with the most modern notions of capita=
list
relations. Amongst other things, this includes the 'emancipation' of women=
but
obviously within the confines of a capitalist economy. Naturally, such an =
'emancipation' is unable to mobilise working class or peasant women because=
of the
limited nature of its class aims.
The religious-right, who are 'less well educated' small capitalists, wish f=
or a capitalist
economy with a more traditional superstructure. This traditional superstru=
cture, in
reality, is a better ideological defence against the rising working class m=
ovement than
pure bourgeois democracy. Therefore, they are the principle obstacle in th=
e path of
development of working class consciousness.
The conflict between these two social groups is over the particular form of=
capitalism
(modern or traditional). While the religious-right is a more obvious enemy=
, the
bourgeois secularists are the more devious and clever enemies of the workin=
g class
and women. Revolutionary forces must use the right hand to fight the influ=
ence of
the narrow minded right-wing forces, and the left hand to fight the influen=
ce of the
'left-wing' devious bourgeois secularists in the realm of ideology.
Free Press
According to the Constitution of 1793, Article 122, the 'unlimited freedom =
of the
press' is guaranteed as a consequence of the right of man to individual fre=
edom.
However, a deeper reading shows that the freedom of the press is limited by=
the
concept of public liberty. The same article says, 'the liberty of the pres=
s must not be
permitted when it compromises public liberty'. In other words, the freedom=
of the
press must not be permitted when it impinges on the right of the capitalist=
class to
exercise its liberty to exploit the workers through the institution of priv=
ate property.
It has become quite obvious that a tight censorship is maintained over all =
the media
of the world, despite the claim that we have entered an era of communicatio=
ns and
free information. But it is less obvious that such censorship is not contr=
adictory to
Civil Society. Civil Society is premised on the right of censorship in to =
protect 'liberty'
based on private property. This can be seen in the attitude that the US sta=
te has taken
towards the attacks against Iraq and Afghanistan in the 'free press'.
Conclusion
The reader can see from the above exposition of the concept of Civil Societ=
y that it is
wholly tied to the class rule of the capitalists. Therefore, the conclusion=
that Civil
Society is merely a euphemism for the dictatorship of the capitalists is no=
t
unfounded. Furthermore, the argument that the use of the concept of Civil =
Society by
a particular group is different from the above exposition ignores the natur=
e of
politics. The subjective desires of individuals or groups are wholly irrel=
evant in
relation to the use of the concept Civil Society. In the political field, =
the concept is
intellectually and morally tied to the class rule of the capitalists. This=
link cannot be
changed and the concept cannot be 'appropriated' for revolutionary purposes=
.
Therefore, it is high time that activists realise that `Civil Society' is p=
remised on
exploitation, selfishness, oppression, inequality, and censorship. Those w=
ho are
genuine to the people must develop new theoretical premises upon which to c=
onduct
the struggle for the emancipation of people.
CMKP - Communist Workers and Peasants Party of Pakistan
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---