I was reading this text today and theres a line in it that I am just completely failing to wrap my head around.
Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government?
In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin’s constitution, will all ‘from bottom to top’ be ‘at the top’? Then there will certainly be no one ‘at the bottom’. Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory.
The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?
Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.
The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.
If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.
Specifically this last line is the one thats baffling me:
If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.
In this sentence, what is the principle being referenced? My best guess it that its saying something along the lines of:
A man can rule himself, which demonstrates that:
- Everything that is being governed (the man) is also part of the executive body of the governance, because he is the one governing
- Despite the fact that all is governing, there is still something being governed (the man)
But i’m really not sure, so I thought I would outsource some brainpower onto my wise hexbearian comrades.
This is a point/counterpoint thing, right? The first quote is the point being made, the second being a counterpoint that attempts to disprove the point (?). So this:
The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.
Is saying that if everyone will govern, then there will be no governed people? [I think]
And the counterpoint is:
If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.
It is stating that the above is false, in the sense that there cannot be “no one” who will be governed. It is pointing out that a man does not rule himself alone. I do not rule myself; my behavior is determined by others. In the traditional sense, a ruler and the ruled. However, if everyone participates in the governence process, then everyone is accountable to everyone else. Meaning, I am accountable to everyone else, and everyone else will in turn be accountable to me.
If it were simply me, existing alone, then there is no one else I am accountable to, and thus I am ungoverned.
I haven’t read this at all, so this is probably wildly wrong, and I’ll believe it’s wildly wrong unless someone else tells me I’m right.
