Individualism and Free Speech

[CrazyMoron]

What are the Communist views on individualism and free speech?

Just curious.

[CrazyMoron]

What is individualism then?

[Jimmie Higgins]

What is individualism then?Well everyone is inherently an individual so "induvidualism" dosn't mean a supporter of personal freedom - I think that's an import distinction to make because in the US right-wing it is presented that way.

Induvidualism as a political term basically is a code-word for anti-communism and anti-liberalism. Politicians euphamistically talk about "personal responcibility" and "induvidualsim" as counterposed to social welfare programs and working-class organization/unions; also it is a more attractive word than "union busting" or "blaming poor people for poverty".

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Free speech" is only the rights people have fought for and won over time. Here's a concrete example: we have free speech until you go to a street corner near a Walmart to talk to workers there about forming a union - when the cops arrive suddenly you will find out that you actually don't have "free speech" in the abstract.

[FreeFocus]

Some strains of individualism are respectable, and even I have had individualist leanings before (and sometimes, I still do, perhaps). Most of the time, it's right-wing individualism that goes hand in hand with capitalism - the atomization of individuals and the breaking down of communities and real social ties. I don't support that.

Free speech is a human right as far as I'm concerned and any attempt to suppress it under the guise of socialism is despicable.

[Nwoye]

typical right wingers are actually not individualists at all. most (social) conservatives are collectivists, as they are also utilitarians, and support the use of the individual as a means to a greater collective end. social liberals are kind of a weird mix between actual liberals and collectivist populists, so they're kind of in between.

Most modern day individualists are libertarians (or anarchists), and they basically hold that individual autonomy and liberty should be the ultimate goal of political and economic organization.

I would also say that if you are a proponent of Kantian ethics, you are probably an individualist.


Induvidualism as a political term basically is a code-word for anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
i don't mean to be picky here, but liberalism (in its traditional usage) is an individualist philosophy.

[Robespierre2.0]

Individualism is a buzzword. Humans are individuals, in the sense that we all have different preferences, favorite colors, and shit like that, and that's grand- nothing communists disagree with, but we're intrinsically collective animals- We enjoy being part of a group, both for the sense of belonging, and because working together vastly increases our productive power.

The reason 'individualism' gets tossed around so much in American political discourse is because it's an excuse for the decadence and vanities of the wealthy, because, as property owners, they are the only ones who really have the freedom to be individualistic.
Think about it. Us, as workers, have to wear their uniform 40 hours a week, and follow all their orders, lest we be fired. What little 'freedom' we have only exists off the clock, and even then, it largely depends on how threatened the government and big business feel (they're one and the same, after all). If you're a communist, you're going to be called 'anti-individualistic' because you disagree with one's right to do whatever they want at the expense of others, just because their wealth gives them a natural advantage over everyone else- their right to spend money on cosmetic surgery while the poor die of preventable diseases, to own multiple houses while the homeless sleep in cardboard boxes, and so on and so on...

As for free speech, it's not exactly something that you either 'have' or 'don't have'. It has to be viewed from a class perspective. I've been meaning to write a long diatribe about it, but I think this quote from Lenin should explain it pretty well

The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists. Even in the most democratic bourgeois republic 'freedom of assembly' is a hollow phrase, for the rich have the best public and private buildings at their disposal, and enough leisure to assemble at meetings, which are protected by the bourgeois machine of power. The rural and urban workers and small peasants -- the overwhelming majority of the population -- are denied all these things. As long as that state of affairs prevails, 'equality', i.e., 'pure democracy', is a fraud. 'Freedom of the press' is another of the principal slogans of 'pure democracy'. And here, too, the workers know -- and Socialists everywhere have explained millions of times -- that this freedom is a deception because the best printing presses and the biggest stocks of paper are appropriated by the capitalists, and while capitalist rule over the press remains -- a rule that is manifested throughout the whole world all the more strikingly, sharply and cynically -- the more democracy and the republican system are developed, as in America for example... The capitalists have always use the term 'freedom' to mean freedom for the rich to get richer and for the workers to starve to death. And capitalist usage, freedom of the press means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion. In this respect, too, the defenders of 'pure democracy' prove to be defenders of an utterly foul and venal system that gives the rich control over the mass media. They prove to be deceivers of the people, who, with the aid of plausible, fine-sounding, but thoroughly false phrases, divert them from the concrete historical task of liberating the press from capitalist enslavement. .................................... V.I. Lenin, First Congress of the Communist International, 4th March 1919.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i don't mean to be picky here, but liberalism (in its traditional usage) is an individualist philosophy.

I was referring to social-welfare programs not to classical liberalism. All bourgeois politics from conservative to (modern) liberal are essentially "individualist" in outlook - even social welfare programs are, to modern liberals, a way to help individuals "get back on their feet" rather than any attempt to address inherent inequalities in the system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Free speech is a human right as far as I'm concerned and any attempt to suppress it under the guise of socialism is despicable.

But Free speech is not a human right, it should be. When I (as well as other like-minded socialists) say that free speech is not really I right in the abstract, it is not because we desire to prevent individuals from being able to express themselves.

My feeling is that free-speech is essential to any real democracy and will be essential in worker's councils. Stifling the free speech of the working class would be suicide for a worker's society because we will need all the imagination and problem solving and brainstorming that we can muster.

However, should we allow people to burn a cross as free speech? Should NAZIs be allowed to march through gay or jewish or black neighborhoods as the ACLU argued and won them the right to do so? That free speech should be stopped through vocal and confident counter-demonstrations.

When I protest Neo-NAZIs or the Minutemen, liberals always attack the counter-protesters for infringing on free speech. When San Francisco voters passed a law to keep military recruiters out of public high schools, liberals and conservatives called it unconstitutional on the grounds that it "violates the military's right to free speech".

Free speech only exists as far as people fight for it just as protection from hate speech exists only as far as people stand up to it.

[New Tet]

What is individualism then?

It's an ideology that in all instances places the individual thing or person above its/his social milleu. It is pure subjectivism. That is, it is incapable of transcending its subjective experience beyond itself; Lack of objectivity.

I could go on a rant about egotism, selfishness and greed, but those are
moral categories that tend to inadvertently offend people. So instead I'd like to invite you to consider changing the word and meaning of your question:

What is individuality and what does it mean to socialists?

[-marx-]

We may all have the "right" to free speech but that doesn't mean we actually have that right. You find that out when you try to apply this "right" in front of people who don't want you to say what is contrary to what they are saying. It would be more accurate to say we should have the right than saying we actually do have it.

[Nwoye]

It's an ideology that in all instances places the individual thing or person above its/his social milleu. It is pure subjectivism. That is, it is incapable of transcending its subjective experience beyond itself; Lack of objectivity.

I could go on a rant about egotism, selfishness and greed, but those are
moral categories that tend to inadvertently offend people. So instead I'd like to invite you to consider changing the word and meaning of your question:

What is individuality and what does it mean to socialists?
In my opinion, individualism means rejecting collectivist ethical philosophies like utilitarianism and instead respecting the rights of every individual in society - their right to be treated never as means to an end but rather as an end in themselves.