Individualism?

[Lyev]

More specifically what are it's links with capitalism, free enterprise, private property, Friedman-ite economics and all that jazz. (I'm fairly sure it's closely linked in with this train of thought). Also, collectivism is the Marxist alternative to individualism, isn't? If so, how? Is collectivism basically just a fancy way of saying what we want, as socialists, (in the pre-Leninist sense) to put in the place of capitalism/individualism? I also read on http://www.marxists.org that national liberation movements are an example of collectivism. Could someone elaborate on this?

Thanks everyone.

[NecroCommie]

Just today we discussed this deeply within our marxist book club. We stated that capitalism uses individualism in a way, as it justifies everything that happens in capitalist society. Someone is rich? He deserves it through his actions. Someone is poor? He deserves it through his actions. Everything that happens to an individual is blamed or praised on the actions of that individual, as if the state and society could not possibly have an impact on anything.

Marxists on the other hand believe that people are more or less victims of their conditions. Let it be material or social, in the marxist mind collective effort of the masses and of organizations has the greatest impact on the life of an individual. This is why individualist dream of "changing the world alone" is seen as futile, even if not necessarily bad.

Also, the difference is seen on the idea of what is effective. Marxists constantly encourage organizing and moving en masse, as it is seen as more productive and efficient than running around as a bunch of individuals. Capitalists on the other hand firmly believe that the "invisible hand" of selfish desires ultimately profits the entire society around them. As if individualism is an evolutionary force that guides herds.

We also concluded that individual gains and collective gains do not exclude each other, quite the opposite infact. Healthy individuals are only born in a healthy society, and vice versa.

[Left-Reasoning]

"[the] most perfect Socialism is possible only on the condition of the most perfect individualism." - Benjamin Tucker

[Chambered Word]

Reminds me of that stupid 'human individuality' argument you get from capitalists.

Capitalism is the freedom of the capitalist to be an individual. The worker, on the other hand, must work and be happy with what he's given like everyone else. He has no individual control of his conditions.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Individualism has long been a talking point by capitalists and libertarians, but in fact capitalism and collectivism are both against the individual in that capitalism makes one sacrifice the individual for profit and to build up men who remain individuals while everyone else becomes a slave. While marxism and all forms of collectivism make the individual kill himself in the name of brotherhood. A quote by Ayn Rand sums up collectivism and how it is anti individual-"a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody." She is correct b/c socialism and collectivism advocate that we sacrifice for our brothers and in turn sacrificing ourselves and our individualism. Her problem is that she advocated capitalism which as i said is not at all individualistic but is instead slavery. The individual must be our top priority in a revolution because when the individual is being repressed either by collectivism or capitalism humanity as a whole will suffer.

[Left-Reasoning]

Reminds me of that stupid 'human individuality' argument you get from capitalists.

Capitalism is the freedom of the capitalist to be an individual. The worker, on the other hand, must work and be happy with what he's given like everyone else. He has no individual control of his conditions.

Precisely comrade. The capitalists are hypocrites in their encouragement of "individuality", as they mean only the individuality of the capitalist exploiters.

But this is not reason for one to reject all individualism whatsoever. What is needed is individualism for all. That every man have the freedom to be himself.

"the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny." - Benjamin Tucker

[gorillafuck]

Individualism has long been a talking point by capitalists and libertarians, but in fact capitalism and collectivism are both against the individual in that capitalism makes one sacrifice the individual for profit and to build up men who remain individuals while everyone else becomes a slave. While marxism and all forms of collectivism make the individual kill himself in the name of brotherhood. A quote by Ayn Rand sums up collectivism and how it is anti individual-"a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody." She is correct b/c socialism and collectivism advocate that we sacrifice for our brothers and in turn sacrificing ourselves and our individualism. Her problem is that she advocated capitalism which as i said is not at all individualistic but is instead slavery. The individual must be our top priority in a revolution because when the individual is being repressed either by collectivism or capitalism humanity as a whole will suffer.
...and you propose?

[JAH23]

two words: Ayn. Rand.

[Chambered Word]

two words: Ayn. Rand.

I'm sorry, come again?

[Hit The North]

The problem with trying to steer a course between individualism and collectivism is that you end up adopting essentially petite bourgeois positions which generally, like Tucker, end up in schemes which offer a return to small capital. And the problem with that is that not only is it hopelessly utopian, but it also threatens to begin the process of accumulation toward the re-emergence of big capital.

[Lyev]

From the definition of "Individualism and Collectivism" on Marxists.org:

Individualism is the ethos which emphasises the autonomy of the individual as against the community or social group. The word was first used in a translation of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America in 1835.

Collectivism is the ethos which emphasises the priority of the community as a whole or the group as against the individual. The word came into the language in the 1880s as a direct result of the work of the First International (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/f/i.htm#first-international), originally as a synonym for common ownership of the means of production...

Collectivism is the dominant ethos in communities where private property is not dominant, and this includes poor working class communities in modern capitalist societies; powerful social movements (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#social-movement) also tend to overshadow individualism and trade unions (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/u/n.htm#union), national liberation (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/n/a.htm#national-liberation) and other struggles are generally characterised by a strong collectivist ethos.

Socialism entails a collectivism which does not suppress the individualism of bourgeois society, and in contrast to the ‘crude’ collectivism of very poor working class communities, is a collectivism which transcends (or sublates (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/u.htm#sublation)) individualism.Thoughts?

Also, I understand that Liberalism is individualist and that it defends "individual freedoms", what's wrong with this from a Marxist perspective?

[redcoyote89]

I think it mostly has to do with the degree the concept of individualism is taken in contemporary liberal society. It seems to me taken to a degree where the role of culture and media as well as race/class/gender are all unconsequencial to ones own ability to be "free" or "succeed" in capitalist society. That would be the most glaring danger of individualism.

I think of how this mentality has become so imbued within American consiousness. Think of movies like "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Freedom Writers" where dispite the relative abject poverty the main characters (Will Smith or the Students) can still due to their own initiative and that alone, can always progress or succeed in liberal capitalist society.

I think more and more people are starting to believe that and this is where the danger really reveals itself. This romantic notion of the virtues of liberal capitalism is a key weapon of the right to combat the left, even including "progressive" liberals.

[cb9's_unity]

Every culture puts limits on the individual. Capitalism openly promotes individualism, yet capitalist governments consider murder and theft as criminal because they are detrimental to society. The individual is limited for what is considered the greater good.

In a communist society private property is viewed as detrimental to society as murder and theft. For that reason private property rights are made criminal for the greater good of society.

Communism will offer the greatest freedom to the individual as it destroys the capitalist conditions that limit the working class under it.

[Nwoye]

what do you mean by individualism? It can mean a myriad of things and it would really help to know what you're specifically referring to when you use the term.

Also I don't think the individualist - collectivist spectrum is helpful in any way; Marxists are interested in analyzing society with regards to class and the relations of production, so it's a debate we should perhaps disregard. As a general rule any debate phrased as option 1 vs option 2 is probably going to be stupid and counter productive. Consider individualism vs collectivism, nature vs nurture, Marxism or anarchism, etc etc.

[Lyev]

what do you mean by individualism? It can mean a myriad of things and it would really help to know what you're specifically referring to when you use the term.

Also I don't think the individualist - collectivist spectrum is helpful in any way; Marxists are interested in analyzing society with regards to class and the relations of production, so it's a debate we should perhaps disregard. As a general rule any debate phrased as option 1 vs option 2 is probably going to be stupid and counter productive. Consider individualism vs collectivism, nature vs nurture, Marxism or anarchism, etc etc.
I had no idea that it had one than more meanings. What are it's different definitions?

[h9socialist]

Ayn Rand was a nasty, loveless old *****, (who gave us Alan Greenspan, by the way) and should be given any deference on a Left-wing web site.

Socialism values the individual for his/her common humanity. Capitalism values the individual on the basis of his/her net worth. (If you don't believe me, try to get a home loan). That is the true difference between to two points of view on the subject of the individual.

[Nwoye]

I had no idea that it had one than more meanings. What are it's different definitions?
Well there's individualism with regards to morals, ie all that matters is you as an individual. That's essentially egoism. There's individualism with regards to political philosophy and that's what you were referring to - liberalism and libertarianism and whatnot. There's also individualism espoused by dumb college kids which essentially amounts to "be yourself don't conform". Think Ralph Waldo Emerson or Henry David Thoreau.

[Lyev]

Well there's individualism with regards to morals, ie all that matters is you as an individual. That's essentially egoism. There's individualism with regards to political philosophy and that's what you were referring to - liberalism and libertarianism and whatnot. There's also individualism espoused by dumb college kids which essentially amounts to "be yourself don't conform". Think Ralph Waldo Emerson or Henry David Thoreau.
Thanks pal, I mean the political philosophy one :) so, yeah what's it's links to liberalism and libertarianism, ie. defending individual freedoms? And why is defending individual freedoms a bad thing (or is it a good thing)? And what is the Marxist alternative to defending individual freedoms?

[Hit The North]

And what is the Marxist alternative to defending individual freedoms?

Obviously Marxism is concerned with the freedom of the working class.

[Hit The North]

what do you mean by individualism? It can mean a myriad of things and it would really help to know what you're specifically referring to when you use the term.



Here are a few more uses of the term 'individualism':

"Individualism" is a way of perceiving the world. It morally elevates the individual above the collective and argues that there is an antagonism of interests between the two.

It can also refer to a method of explaining social life under the doctrine of methodological individualism; where either collective agents (institutions, social classes, etc.) are theorised to behave like real individuals; or real individuals (kings, thinkers, military leaders, etc.) are seen to be more decisive than collective forces.

Under the guise of phenomenological individualism, it also proposes that meaning derives from the inner consciousness of individuals. We could contrast it with relational realism which is closer to Historical Materialism.

In the social sciences there are a number of writers, such as Zygmunt Bauman, Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck, who propose that modern society is undergoing a process of individualisation which decentres individuals from the social collectives they emerge from, thus predicting the collapse of class poltics.

[AK]

Socialism values the individual for his/her common humanity. Capitalism values the individual on the basis of his/her net worth.
Mind if I use that in my sig?

[Nwoye]

Thanks pal, I mean the political philosophy one :) so, yeah what's it's links to liberalism and libertarianism, ie. defending individual freedoms? And why is defending individual freedoms a bad thing (or is it a good thing)? And what is the Marxist alternative to defending individual freedoms?
Marxism or communism as a political praxis isn't opposed to individual freedoms, and things like free speech or freedom of the press certainly aren't "bad". I think a Marxist would say that such freedoms aren't valuable in and of themselves, but only in terms of what affect their expression or suppression has on society as a whole.

As an example, you know that the United States' constitution declares freedom of speech as an unalienable right, one which much be protected and not infringed upon by the state. Well there was a recent supreme court case (i don't remember exactly how long ago it was) which ruled that since corporations are legal persons, entitled to the same rights as citizens (it's called corporate personhood), they have a right to free speech. In addition, monetary donations to political candidates or campaigns constitutes political speech, since it is apparently a form of expression or show of support. Therefore limiting the amount or altogether restricting a corporation from donating money to a political campaign constitutes a violation of free speech.

That is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Such a ruling further perpetuates the upper class dominance of public officials and the state in general. Now in this case, I think it would be very difficult for a leftist to argue that this expression of free speech is legitimate, considering it without question supports upper class control of the state. Obviously the right to free speech here is completely counterproductive to the agenda of the working class, and should be opposed.

That is not to say that we should discourage free speech: free expression and indeed free criticism of the socialist movement should be encouraged, as it promotes real democracy and accountability. We should just recognize that when "free speech" is exercised for the sole purpose of suppressing these goals (like the example above, or when Kadet newspapers in 1917 after the October Revolution called for the dissolution of the soviet government and the institution of a constitutional monarchy) then it should be opposed.

[Chambered Word]

Marxism or communism as a political praxis isn't opposed to individual freedoms, and things like free speech or freedom of the press certainly aren't "bad". I think a Marxist would say that such freedoms aren't valuable in and of themselves, but only in terms of what affect their expression or suppression has on society as a whole.

As an example, you know that the United States' constitution declares freedom of speech as an unalienable right, one which much be protected and not infringed upon by the state. Well there was a recent supreme court case (i don't remember exactly how long ago it was) which ruled that since corporations are legal persons, entitled to the same rights as citizens (it's called corporate personhood), they have a right to free speech. In addition, monetary donations to political candidates or campaigns constitutes political speech, since it is apparently a form of expression or show of support. Therefore limiting the amount or altogether restricting a corporation from donating money to a political campaign constitutes a violation of free speech.

That is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Such a ruling further perpetuates the upper class dominance of public officials and the state in general. Now in this case, I think it would be very difficult for a leftist to argue that this expression of free speech is legitimate, considering it without question supports upper class control of the state. Obviously the right to free speech here is completely counterproductive to the agenda of the working class, and should be opposed.

Exactly. There really is no freedom of speech. If you have money, you can print your opinion where everybody will hear it. You have more power. There really is no freedom under capitalism in practice.

[FreeFocus]

The interests or nature of the individual and the collective (society) need not conflict, but they sometimes do. For example, individuals under capitalism suffer from economic exploitation, cultural assault, patriarchy, etc.

Socialism removes barriers to human development and, for this reason, improves and supports the health of the individual and the collective. The principle of free association, for example, is one that can be expressed to the fullest extent possible under socialism. It's only possible to quite a limited extent under capitalism, and even then, when it's possible to freely associate, it usually takes many years to come to that point (e.g. living under a patriarchal, nuclear family, or getting out of a job that you hate).

[Lyev]

Marxism or communism as a political praxis isn't opposed to individual freedoms, and things like free speech or freedom of the press certainly aren't "bad". I think a Marxist would say that such freedoms aren't valuable in and of themselves, but only in terms of what affect their expression or suppression has on society as a whole.

As an example, you know that the United States' constitution declares freedom of speech as an unalienable right, one which much be protected and not infringed upon by the state. Well there was a recent supreme court case (i don't remember exactly how long ago it was) which ruled that since corporations are legal persons, entitled to the same rights as citizens (it's called corporate personhood), they have a right to free speech. In addition, monetary donations to political candidates or campaigns constitutes political speech, since it is apparently a form of expression or show of support. Therefore limiting the amount or altogether restricting a corporation from donating money to a political campaign constitutes a violation of free speech.

That is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Such a ruling further perpetuates the upper class dominance of public officials and the state in general. Now in this case, I think it would be very difficult for a leftist to argue that this expression of free speech is legitimate, considering it without question supports upper class control of the state. Obviously the right to free speech here is completely counterproductive to the agenda of the working class, and should be opposed.

That is not to say that we should discourage free speech: free expression and indeed free criticism of the socialist movement should be encouraged, as it promotes real democracy and accountability. We should just recognize that when "free speech" is exercised for the sole purpose of suppressing these goals (like the example above, or when Kadet newspapers in 1917 after the October Revolution called for the dissolution of the soviet government and the institution of a constitutional monarchy) then it should be opposed.
Oh right I thought it was that. It's just that I was talking to a Stalinist a while ago who seemed pretty opposed to the "liberal nonsense" of individual freedoms. He was on about the "greater good" and whatnot. Thanks for clearing things up.

[FreeFocus]

Marxism or communism as a political praxis isn't opposed to individual freedoms, and things like free speech or freedom of the press certainly aren't "bad". I think a Marxist would say that such freedoms aren't valuable in and of themselves, but only in terms of what affect their expression or suppression has on society as a whole.

As an example, you know that the United States' constitution declares freedom of speech as an unalienable right, one which much be protected and not infringed upon by the state. Well there was a recent supreme court case (i don't remember exactly how long ago it was) which ruled that since corporations are legal persons, entitled to the same rights as citizens (it's called corporate personhood), they have a right to free speech. In addition, monetary donations to political candidates or campaigns constitutes political speech, since it is apparently a form of expression or show of support. Therefore limiting the amount or altogether restricting a corporation from donating money to a political campaign constitutes a violation of free speech.

That is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Such a ruling further perpetuates the upper class dominance of public officials and the state in general. Now in this case, I think it would be very difficult for a leftist to argue that this expression of free speech is legitimate, considering it without question supports upper class control of the state. Obviously the right to free speech here is completely counterproductive to the agenda of the working class, and should be opposed.

That is not to say that we should discourage free speech: free expression and indeed free criticism of the socialist movement should be encouraged, as it promotes real democracy and accountability. We should just recognize that when "free speech" is exercised for the sole purpose of suppressing these goals (like the example above, or when Kadet newspapers in 1917 after the October Revolution called for the dissolution of the soviet government and the institution of a constitutional monarchy) then it should be opposed.

It isn't freedom of speech that makes the ruling ridiculous, it's corporate personhood, and the ruling shows that the state and capitalism are inseparable.

[cenv]

We shouldn't frame our ideas in terms of the narrow individualist / collectivist dichotomy, since "individual liberties" and some abstract "greater good" are both meaningless without a larger social and human context. If anything, the false dichotomy between the individual and the collective is a symptom of modern capitalism's fragmented and illusory world view. Communism brings about the collective conditions that pave the way for the individual's liberation and realization.

[Nwoye]

It isn't freedom of speech that makes the ruling ridiculous, it's corporate personhood, and the ruling shows that the state and capitalism are inseparable.
true, and it is a good example of the reciprocal nature of capitalism and the state, but it's also a good example of how freedom of speech can be detrimental to achieving democracy (ie socialism).