Why are some communists so hostile to the ideas of personal freedom, etc?

[Poison]

I honestly don't understand this. Some of the first Marxists I knew were extremely hostile whenever I mentioned valuing individual freedom (and specified it as freedom that doesn't exploit or affect anyone else without their permission) or human life (when objecting to their claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them should be shot). I've spotted a few similar viewpoints around here as well. I'm not entirely sure if these are mainstream views by Marxists. I realize (and made this known to the Marxists in question) that there is no inherent value in human life and freedom/rights are simply concepts. However I can't understand how anyone can rage against capitalism for being exploitative and wrong in so many ways and then turn around and claim that because rights, etc are simply concepts that clinging to them is stupid. I also realize that Marxist theory is very material--however that doesn't change that we care about these concepts. Isn't care for others why we want this system, after all? Concern over the rights of workers? Are these mainstream views? Have I simply stumbled upon a few crazies?

[Q]

What are you talking about? Communism is all about freeing people from any form of oppression, social or otherwise. About unleashing the full creativity of human beings that enable them to develop themselves in whatever they want.

I think you just stumbled across some weirdo's.

[Poison]

That's what I thought, too. I never took them seriously, but hearing some things here vaguely echoing what they said had me concerned.

[Bitter Ashes]

I wouldnt take them seriously. Doesnt sound like they have a clue.
What things have you heard here though Poison?

[JimmyJazz]

An overreaction against libertardians. Half the time that "freedom" and "personal liberty" are talked about in the U.S., freedom for the rich is really what's being proposed.

[Poison]

I don't think I'd be able to find any as they were vague and not very recent, but I'll see if I can find them. I don't even remember the subject, though.

[Poison]

Hmm...found this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1393266&postcount=20) but it wasn't the example I was thinking of at all.

[JohannGE]

I think you might have brushed up against the purist view that the work of creating the revolution should always be paramount and that anything else is avoidance or delaying.

I suppose, theoreticaly they do have a point but I have yet to meet a purist who is quite as pure as they would like you to believe. Those of us who live in the real world realise that the mind and body work far better for variety of stimulation, recreation, rest and even the occasional self indulgance.

Tell em to get back to their books! ;)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Hmm...found this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1393266&postcount=20) but it wasn't the example I was thinking of at all.

So? What is your problem with that statement?

[cb9's_unity]

Whoever you talked to was an idiot and constituted the largest threat the true left really has. Its sad that there are so many people parading themselves around as communists who really have no idea about what their talking about.

More than likely they saw some cool soviet propaganda in their world civ class, watched a few horror movies about the Soviet Union and China on the history channel and never read anything about or from Marx.

I'm a Marxist but I can stand and admire anarchists, council communists, Leninist's, Trotskysts, and pretty much anyone else who stands for the democratic rule of the proletariat (no matter historical figure they choose to name themselves after). The only people on the left I really hate are the guys you just described who cry out against the bourgeoisie but have never gotten any information that doesn't come strait out of capitalist hands.

[Poison]

So? What is your problem with that statement?
Did you read that it wasn't the example I was thinking of? It really wasn't a lot of text, hard to miss..

You also missed that I only said vague echoes of that sentiment were here. I wasn't complaining, but I was asked for an example.

[Poison]

Whoever you talked to was an idiot and constituted the largest threat the true left really has. Its sad that there are so many people parading themselves around as communists who really have no idea about what their talking about.

More than likely they saw some cool soviet propaganda in their world civ class, watched a few horror movies about the Soviet Union and China on the history channel and never read anything about or from Marx.

I'm a Marxist but I can stand and admire anarchists, council communists, Leninist's, Trotskysts, and pretty much anyone else who stands for the democratic rule of the proletariat (no matter historical figure they choose to name themselves after). The only people on the left I really hate are the guys you just described who cry out against the bourgeoisie but have never gotten any information that doesn't come strait out of capitalist hands.

I think that's precisely what it was--too many are obsessed with the imagery and the feelings it evokes (especially the authoritarian, nationalist, saluting crap) and enjoy essentially saying nothing while trying to appear as intelligent as possible (saying bourgeoisie and proletariat twelve times in a paragraph)...thankfully I don't see much of that here...

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Did you read that it wasn't the example I was thinking of? It really wasn't a lot of text, hard to miss..

I just kind of assumed that because you linked to that post in response to someone asking for examples of communists saying things you disagree with that it was something you had a problem with. Sorry that I didn't recognize that you just wanted to randomly link to an unrelated post.

[Poison]

I just kind of assumed that because you linked to that post in response to someone asking for examples of communists saying things you disagree with that it was something you had a problem with. Sorry that I didn't recognize that you just wanted to randomly link to an unrelated post.

Sorry, forgot to type -edit- for the second line. I was asked to link to a post of someone vaguely echoing the same sentiments found here on this board.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Sorry, forgot to type -edit- for the second line. I was asked to link to a post of someone vaguely echoing the same sentiments found here on this board.

And how does someone pointing out that Marxism isn't based on "morals" vaguely echo that they would want to kill anyone that doesn't agree with them? :confused:

[Poison]

And how does someone pointing out that Marxism isn't based on "morals" vaguely echo that they would want to kill anyone that doesn't agree with them? :confused:
A Marxist saying that Marxism is anti-morals infers that they are against the idea of not doing immoral things (ie not killing, etc) and that Marxists are free to do immoral things (ie killing). It's called infering?

And when I said vaguely, I did actually mean vaguely, ya know?

[Revy]

Half the time that "freedom" and "personal liberty" are talked about in the U.S., freedom for the rich is really what's being proposed.

That's true. Marx specifically mentions this in Chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto.



In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

[Poison]

@Stancel
I agree, the idea that freedom is capital is stupid. But that wasn't what I was talking about--instead, personal freedom in a communist or socialist society, which was apparently an abhorent idea to some.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

A Marxist saying that Marxism is anti-morals infers that they are against the idea of not doing immoral things (ie not killing, etc) and that Marxists are free to do immoral things (ie killing). It's called infering?

And when I said vaguely, I did actually mean vaguely, ya know?

And..who decides what's "immoral"?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well I think the hostility to personal freedom can only apply to state socialists. Because any state system cannot value personal freedom too highly.

[Poison]

And..who decides what's "immoral"?

It's up for debate, seeing as it's subjective, but there's a difference between disagreeing on what's morals and claiming to be anti-moral.

[Poison]

As far as I know, anarchism places more value on individual freedom than the other socialist schools. Anarchist authors, like Kropotkin, have shown how by extending maximum liberty to all would lead to communism. This of course does not mean anarchists are for "liberal individualism" which is advocated by bourgeois theorists to justify the tyranny of capitalism. To put it in simple terms, your individual freedom ends when my nose begins. Noone can engage in wage slavery or establish religious hierarchies while claiming "freedom" to do so. Such a conception of freedom does not take into account the fact that people's actions affect others and so, such bourgeois "freedoms" cannot be allowed in communism.

Precisely, thank you. But to oppose personal freedoms which affect no one else while complaining over how immoral capitalism...that's stupid.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Well I think the hostility to personal freedom can only apply to state socialists. Because any state system cannot value personal freedom too highly.

You'd think that after receiving so many responses informing you of what "state socialists" mean when they say they advocate the state that you wouldn't be posting this kind of crap.


It's up for debate, seeing as it's subjective, but there's a difference between disagreeing on what's morals and claiming to be anti-moral.

Or maybe he just means something like this...


We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations.

The concepts of eternally true moral or individual rights are both authoritarian. Maybe that's why these people you're talking about were so hostile when you brought up individual freedom.

[JimmyJazz]

It's up for debate, seeing as it's subjective, but there's a difference between disagreeing on what's morals and claiming to be anti-moral.

That's not what it means. To say that Marxism is anti-moral, or amoral, is to contrast it with what Marx and Engels called "utopian socialism". That is all. It means that Marxism predicts a historically inevitable revolt against socialism, carried out by the producers and based on their self-interest, as opposed to a utopian vision which sees socialism coming about, if ever (it's not at all inevitable), on the basis of convincing the ownership classes to simply give up their property out of the sheer goodness of their hearts and the compelling humanity embodied in the idea of socialism.

And anyway, even if you didn't know this, did you really think someone was saying that Marxism is anti-moral in the sense that it stands against goodness, kindness, love and personal freedom? :confused:

[turquino]

'Without their permission'? What does that mean? Workers give their consent to work for capitalists everyday because their lives depend on it. Most exploitation exists by permission. On the other hand, the expropriation of private property is a violation of the capitalist's individual freedom is it not?

The goal of communists is to abolish the oppression of groups by groups. That oppression is not natural, it's man made and it can be unmade. People have forgotten that we can purposefully intervene in society and act on it to create a better order. Individual freedoms can be progressive in their place, but for communists freedom is not something abstract, it can only be realized through society, meaning collectively.

[Poison]

That's not what it means. To say that Marxism is anti-moral, or amoral, is to contrast it with what Marx and Engels called "utopian socialism". That is all. It means that Marxism predicts a historically inevitable revolt against socialism, carried out by the producers and based on their self-interest, as opposed to a utopian vision which sees socialism coming about, if ever (it's not at all inevitable), on the basis of convincing the ownership classes to simply give up their property out of the sheer goodness of their hearts and the compelling humanity embodied in the idea of socialism.

And anyway, even if you didn't know this, did you really think someone was saying that Marxism is anti-moral in the sense that it stands against goodness, kindness, love and personal freedom? :confused:

No. For about the fifth time in this thread: I said it was vaguely related but wasn't what I was thinking of.

[pastradamus]

I honestly don't understand this. Some of the first Marxists I knew were extremely hostile whenever I mentioned valuing individual freedom (and specified it as freedom that doesn't exploit or affect anyone else without their permission) or human life (when objecting to their claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them should be shot). I've spotted a few similar viewpoints around here as well. I'm not entirely sure if these are mainstream views by Marxists. I realize (and made this known to the Marxists in question) that there is no inherent value in human life and freedom/rights are simply concepts. However I can't understand how anyone can rage against capitalism for being exploitative and wrong in so many ways and then turn around and claim that because rights, etc are simply concepts that clinging to them is stupid. I also realize that Marxist theory is very material--however that doesn't change that we care about these concepts. Isn't care for others why we want this system, after all? Concern over the rights of workers? Are these mainstream views? Have I simply stumbled upon a few crazies?

The people who you refer to are not Marxists. Just unknowledgable Idiots who think they are. I am a Marxist who does not object to any personal freedom(well that I can think of anyway). I believe that Marx himself was very libertarian ( to come up with some his theories he had to be) and had human rights and interests at heart.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

SocialismOrBarbarism. I am refering to Leninists, I thought that was clear by state socialism.

[JimmyJazz]

No. For about the fifth time in this thread: I said it was vaguely related but wasn't what I was thinking of.

I wasn't addressing the OP--I already made an earlier post responding to the OP. I was addressing the subsequent discussion in which you expressed horror at the phrase "anti-morals".

[Poison]

I wasn't addressing the OP--I already made an earlier post responding to the OP. I was addressing the subsequent discussion in which you expressed horror at the phrase "anti-morals".

Really now?


A Marxist saying that Marxism is anti-morals infers that they are against the idea of not doing immoral things (ie not killing, etc) and that Marxists are free to do immoral things (ie killing). It's called infering?

Hardly sounds like I'm aghast at such things, only explained to another person who failed to read my posts that "anti-morals" vaguely inferred such things and was somewhat similar to what I was talking about.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's not what it means. To say that Marxism is anti-moral, or amoral, is to contrast it with what Marx and Engels called "utopian socialism".
No, that is not what separates theory-based socialism from utopian socialism.


That is all. It means that Marxism predicts a historically inevitable revolt against socialism
I'll presume that you meant 'against capitalism', or 'for socialism'. You'd still be wrong, though. The only time Marx actually said anything that could imply that was in a propaganda document before he had actually begun his critique of political economy. And even that one is pretty vague. One would expect more mention of the socialist revolution being 'inevitable' (as well as less effort put into the socialist movement) if that was the case.


as opposed to a utopian vision which sees socialism coming about, if ever (it's not at all inevitable), on the basis of convincing the ownership classes to simply give up their property out of the sheer goodness of their hearts and the compelling humanity embodied in the idea of socialism.
Well, IIRC, that was not what utopian socialism was based on, actually.

[JimmyJazz]

No, that is not what separates theory-based socialism from utopian socialism.


I'll presume that you meant 'against capitalism', or 'for socialism'. You'd still be wrong, though. The only time Marx actually said anything that could imply that was in a propaganda document before he had actually begun his critique of political economy. And even that one is pretty vague. One would expect more mention of the socialist revolution being 'inevitable' (as well as less effort put into the socialist movement) if that was the case.


Well, IIRC, that was not what utopian socialism was based on, actually.


The Utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the 19th century, and still governs some of them. Until very recently, all French and English Socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling, was of the same school. To all these, Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as an absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered.

Sorry, but finding any distinction between what I said and what Engels says here is splitting hairs. We are in Learning, not Theory.

[ckaihatsu]

Why are some communists so hostile to the ideas of personal freedom, etc?

I honestly don't understand this. Some of the first Marxists I knew were extremely hostile whenever I mentioned valuing individual freedom (and specified it as freedom that doesn't exploit or affect anyone else without their permission) or human life (when objecting to their claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them should be shot). I've spotted a few similar viewpoints around here as well. I'm not entirely sure if these are mainstream views by Marxists. I realize (and made this known to the Marxists in question) that there is no inherent value in human life and freedom/rights are simply concepts. However I can't understand how anyone can rage against capitalism for being exploitative and wrong in so many ways and then turn around and claim that because rights, etc are simply concepts that clinging to them is stupid. I also realize that Marxist theory is very material--however that doesn't change that we care about these concepts. Isn't care for others why we want this system, after all? Concern over the rights of workers? Are these mainstream views? Have I simply stumbled upon a few crazies?


It's not that Marxists are *hostile* to "individual freedom" any more than we are "hostile" to a "God", or a pantheon of gods -- it's simply that individual freedom, like a "Deity" (or deities), simply * doesn't exist *.

"Individual freedom", along with exploitation, permission, human life, agreement, viewpoints, mainstream views, inherent value, freedom/rights, concepts, concerns, and crazies, are *all* societally determined definitions and dynamics.

You have no more freedom, as an individual, than you have time away from necessary work at your workplace, the means to comfort in which to enjoy that "freedom", and the material means to which you can afford *certain* material items that the capitalist economy relents to provide for you.

Now would you call that "individual freedom" -- especially considering that millions like yourself are living mostly identical lives and lifestyles to your own, thanks to capitalism? Are you going to find an avenue to some kind of personal experiences that are exceptionally unique from what the rest of us are experiencing? (If so, congratulations -- I don't mean to dissuade you.)

If we run over all of those value-terms you used we would find *enormous* variation in them, in terms of how they're applied to various populations of people on the earth, especially over historical time -- let me put it this way:

- Individual freedom, for whom, to do what, exactly, to another person?

- Exploitation to what extent of a person's 24-hour day?

- Permission to do what over how much property, exactly?

- Human life, defined how, as distinct from the lives and experiences of animals in the wild?

- Agreement by whom, to do what, to whom?

- Viewpoints on what, by whom, using what knowledge and information, exactly?


I'm getting tired of making this list, so I hope this suffices -- you see the problem with using (bourgeois) abstract terms? -- By themselves they sound *great*, and they make for the best marketing, incidentally, but as soon as you put them into a real-world, particular situation, you realize that they come under the parameters of the larger power structures that exist -- and make up -- society at any given time and place.

In this way Marxists would rather favor * authoritarianism * over "individual freedom" if that authoritarianism was the kind that effectively led the masses to collectively overthrow capitalist rule and implement a global revolutionary workers' state.

"Individual freedom" just isn't strong enough to accomplish this necessary task -- it only delays it.


Chris




--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[FreeFocus]

I disagree with a lot of what has been said in this thread. Personally, ethical concerns are a major part of why I am an anarchist and communist. Only through the abolition of capitalism and the state and the implementation of socialism and free association can humanity truly be liberated and free to reach its full potential.

I don't support the idea of revolution through whatever it takes. That's a very dangerous path to travel down and the revolution would undoubtedly become corrupted in the process. After that, what do you know, we have another dictatorship/state/tyranny. We need concentrated action that is grounded in justice.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't support the idea of revolution through whatever it takes. That's a very dangerous path to travel down and the revolution would undoubtedly become corrupted in the process. After that, what do you know, we have another dictatorship/state/tyranny. We need concentrated action that is grounded in justice.


There's a pernicious stereotype -- as bad as any applied to individuals -- that says that *all* revolutions are the same and that they all become runaway freight trains, or stampedes, with no guiding consciousness or self-awareness.

While I appreciate learning from history, we also can't allow ourselves to feel *trapped* by history -- the point of (revolutionary) politics and mass activity is to *determine* *for ourselves* how society should be composed, and not let anything or anyone interfere with that direction.

So, as a related point, there's a distinction to be made between *means* and *ends* -- I think we have a strong platform in common among the many people here at RevLeft, but the *means* potentially used to realize a worldwide revolution might still need to be discussed.

We don't need a *means* of revolution that envisions revolutionary politics as the 'politics of court', meaning of ground-level suspicions, intrigues, paranoia, and backbiting.

I don't even agree with the "social justice" flavor of politics, either, because that focus only pushes aside the more important issues of how land and the means of mass production should be used.

The *means* should be based on the self-empowerment and solidarity of labor activity, because, as we're seeing today, without growth in the economy everyone just kind of finds themselves idle with a lot of time on their hands. A socialist revolution would not be about just making busywork -- it would turn over the full controls of the economy to the workers themselves so that we could determine *how best* to advance the abilities of workers in order to *grow* the economy and bring about a new kind of world and ways of living.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

-If you have 'Individual Freedom' without Socialism you will have neither

-If you have 'Socialism' without Individual Freedom you will have neither

-Only when you have the both together can you have true communism