Altruism

[A.R.Amistad]

What are everyones thoughts on altruism? I think that its nothing more than a Utopian idea. I don't think there's anything wrong with an ego per say, so long as it isn't used to oppress others materialistically. Theres nothing wrong in taking pride in oneself or ones labor, being concerned with individulaity or even caring about your self.

Making a demand that everyone posess an altruist consciousness seems Utopian to me. According to MIA

Ego

The self. In philosophy, Ego refers to that aspect of an individual human being which is capable of initiating activity. In physcology ego is thought to be the conscious mind based on the perception of the external world.

nothing wrong with this type of ego as far as I see it.

[Blake's Baby]

Why would anyone bother answering that? Obviously there's nothing to be gained for us by it. Why should we seek to improve your understanding of the world?



Or is that not what you meant?

[A.R.Amistad]

Why would anyone bother answering that? Obviously there's nothing to be gained for us by it. Why should we seek to improve your understanding of the world?



Or is that not what you meant?

Not at all, this response doesn't make any sense.

Im not saying Im an egoist im just pointing out that a purely altruist basis seems utopian

[A.R.Amistad]

Question is, is Marxism based on altruism? I dont think it is

[Kyrite]

Personally I believe that everyone possesses altruistic qualities. However the society that we live in is such a way that people are punished for displaying such qualities.

[Steve_j]

Im al little confused with the op, and the link with ego and altruism, maybe im just drunk now, btu can you reword it a little for me?

[A.R.Amistad]

Im al little confused with the op, and the link with ego and altruism, maybe im just drunk now, btu can you reword it a little for me?

Is Marxism altruism? I am also posing that it is not, purely. It doesn't defy ones ego, which isn't necessarily bad or even selfish

[Steve_j]

Question is, is Marxism based on altruism? I dont think it is

Ah no ofcourse its not, its about trying to achieve whats best for you. That is socialism, alot of acts in support of others we will undertake in the process, but they usually come with a reward, that of pride, satisfaction, ect ect.

I dont think altruism truly exists.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I take "altruism" as meaning caring for others. Its not done out of a feeling of self sacrifice or self denial. Its "fellow feeling", working with or helping people for the joy of it. I work as a teacher. To an extent its ego on my part but I like explaining things to people. I like it when someone comes to an understanding of something.

Human nature is highly malleable but part of it I think is a need for connection with others. Part of this implies helping people.Most of us hate the way society is now, locally and globally. We have an idea, a vision of how things could be and we want to fight for this. This is altruism. Its not taking pity on people or being a self sacrifycing martyr (although I do know people like this, they are most often elitist liberals)

[A.R.Amistad]

Personally I believe that everyone possesses altruistic qualities. However the society that we live in is such a way that people are punished for displaying such qualities.


I think we can posses altruistic qualities. I don't think we are set with any particular qualities, we make those "qualities" up ourselves.

[Blake's Baby]

Ah, OK then.

So it's not that you don't belive it exists, more that it isn't necessary to live by it? Or am I missing something again?

[Kyrite]

I think we can posses altruistic qualities. I don't think we are set with any particular qualities, we make those "qualities" up ourselves.

I think that there are certain instincts built into our system that I consider to be altruistic.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is an extremely interesting read on the subject. I found it to be an enlightening read on human nature.

[A.R.Amistad]

Ah, OK then.

So it's not that you don't belive it exists, more that it isn't necessary to live by it? Or am I missing something again?


When did I say that I thought that altruism doesn't exist? I just think that altruism is not substantial enough to base socialism off of. I am also saying that individualism is not necessrily a reactionary thing.

[Steve_j]

Sorry i was the one that said i dont think altrurism really exists. Krite, i havent read the selfish gene, what is the angle?

[Blake's Baby]

What are everyones thoughts on altruism? I think that its nothing more than a Utopian idea...

'Utopian' - relating to imagined worlds; unreal.

Ergo, 'nothing more than (has no more existence than) an unreal idea' (that is, no existence).

That's where you said you thought it didn't exist, in the bit where you said you thought it didn't exist.

[A.R.Amistad]

I think that there are certain instincts built into our system that I consider to be altruistic.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is an extremely interesting read on the subject. I found it to be an enlightening read on human nature.

"Human Nature" is one of the most harmful myths in history. There is no human nature.

[A.R.Amistad]

I take "altruism" as meaning caring for others. Its not done out of a feeling of self sacrifice or self denial. Its "fellow feeling", working with or helping people for the joy of it. I work as a teacher. To an extent its ego on my part but I like explaining things to people. I like it when someone comes to an understanding of something.

Human nature is highly malleable but part of it I think is a need for connection with others. Part of this implies helping people.Most of us hate the way society is now, locally and globally. We have an idea, a vision of how things could be and we want to fight for this. This is altruism. Its not taking pity on people or being a self sacrifycing martyr (although I do know people like this, they are most often elitist liberals)

But doesn't altruism mean "selflessness" by definition?

[A.R.Amistad]

'Utopian' - relating to imagined worlds; unreal.

Ergo, 'nothing more than (has no more existence than) an unreal idea' (that is, no existence).

That's where you said you thought it didn't exist, in the bit where you said you thought it didn't exist.

um, no more real than Christianity is an idea. I think you re making a serious strawman here playing with linguistics.

[Kyrite]

"Human Nature" is one of the most harmful myths in history. There is no human nature.

How can you say that there is NO such thing as human nature? So the nature vs nurture debate is pointless?

[Blake's Baby]

um, no more real than Christianity is an idea. I think you re making a serious strawman here playing with linguistics.

No, I'm not. You said the idea of altruism was utopian, ie that it didn't exist.

Either you believe it does, or you believe it doesn't. If you believe it does, say that it does, don't say that it doesn't; or alternatively, if you don't believe it exists, stick with the formulation of 'it's utopian' (ie it doesn't exist, though maybe it would be nioce if it did).

I'm not playing with linguistics to insist on definitions. Just trying to get clear WTF your position is.

[Leo]

What are everyones thoughts on altruism? I think that its nothing more than a Utopian idea. I don't think there's anything wrong with an ego per say, so long as it isn't used to oppress others materialistically. Theres nothing wrong in taking pride in oneself or ones labor, being concerned with individulaity or even caring about your self.

Making a demand that everyone posess an altruist consciousness seems Utopian to me.

Everyone does already possess some amount of altruism. Just as there is nothing wrong with the ego, there is nothing wrong with the super-ego, which, by definition is altruistic.

However, an altruist person is one who sees an antagonism between his or her own self, and the interests of the whole world, and is driven into serving the latter because of some psychological factor, most commonly guilt.

A marxist does not see such antagonism between the interests of the society and the interests of the individual, between the interests of the worker and the interests of the proletariat etc. and sees himself or herself as a part of the working class, with working class interests, fighting for his or her own personal emancipation as well as that of the working class and whole humanity, and recognizing the irreplaceable connection between the two.

Incidentally, Dzerzhinsky is worth reading on this question:

http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/dzerzhinsky/communist-morality/

[Zanthorus]

Everyone does already possess some amount of altruism. Just as there is nothing wrong with the ego, there is nothing wrong with the super-ego, which, by definition is altruistic.

Don't look now but psycho-analysis is generally not considered a scientific theory.

[A.R.Amistad]

A marxist does not see such antagonism between the interests of the society and the interests of the individual, between the interests of the worker and the interests of the proletariat etc. and sees himself or herself as a part of the working class, with working class interests, fighting for his or her own personal emancipation as well as that of the working class and whole humanity, and recognizing the irreplaceable connection between the two.


This is my position exactly

[Desperado]

I don't think there's anything wrong with an ego per say, so long as it isn't used to oppress others materialistically.

But a lack of action where it is needed is just oppression in another form.

[A.R.Amistad]

But a lack of action where it is needed is just oppression in another form.

I'm mainly asking if there is such thing as a socialist or proletairian ego which is individualistic and altruist at the same time. I agree with the above statement that Altruism, as the view that the individual and society are in conflict, is a bad thing.

[gorillafuck]

"Human Nature" is one of the most harmful myths in history. There is no human nature.
Yes there is. If nobody ever told me "you should avoid causing pain to yourself" I still would avoid causing pain to myself. It's not because of social conditioning that I avoid pain (but that's just one example).

[Blake's Baby]

That's not 'human nature' though, that's stimulus-response. Fish have that, doesn't make them human. Conversely, some people like pain. That doesn't make them inhuman.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm mainly asking if there is such thing as a socialist or proletairian ego which is individualistic and altruist at the same time. I agree with the above statement that Altruism, as the view that the individual and society are in conflict, is a bad thing.

I wouldn't know whether there is a "socialist or proletarian ego", but you seem to be suggesting that behavior that helps others is not in one's rational self interest. This is simply not true.

Assume for example individuals maximize some social good - say, clean water. They can either (1) attempt to horde it all for themselves, with a low probability of success and where failure means they get none, or (2) agree to share it with others, with a guarantee of getting some fraction of the water supply. Depending on the relative importance of water, most people will go with option (2), which happens to both help others and yourself, even though it is not entirely egotistic.

Now true altruism, helping others at considerable cost to yourself (eg., throwing yourself on a grenade to save your platoon) is unsustainable. However, no serious leftist that I know of ever advocated that sort of altruism as a regular feature of the red future. Those that did make great sacrifices so that the rest of us can end capitalism have done so not because they envisioned a society full of heroes like themselves, but so that future generations don't have to make similar sacrifices.

[A.R.Amistad]

I wouldn't know whether there is a "socialist or proletarian ego", but you seem to be suggesting that behavior that helps others is not in one's rational self interest. This is simply not true.

Assume for example individuals maximize some social good - say, clean water. They can either (1) attempt to horde it all for themselves, with a low probability of success and where failure means they get none, or (2) agree to share it with others, with a guarantee of getting some fraction of the water supply. Depending on the relative importance of water, most people will go with option (2), which happens to both help others and yourself, even though it is not entirely egotistic.

Now true altruism, helping others at considerable cost to yourself (eg., throwing yourself on a grenade to save your platoon) is unsustainable. However, no serious leftist that I know of ever advocated that sort of altruism as a regular feature of the red future. Those that did make great sacrifices so that the rest of us can end capitalism have done so not because they envisioned a society full of heroes like themselves, but so that future generations don't have to make similar sacrifices.

I was talking about the "true altruism" that you described. I don't subscribe to egoism, but i am interested in a Marxist view on individuality and such, hence my attraction to Marxism-Humanism. I am more of an altruist myself, I was just thinking that the argument that communism asks one to "give up themselves for the community" is simply a strawman.

[A.R.Amistad]

Yes there is. If nobody ever told me "you should avoid causing pain to yourself" I still would avoid causing pain to myself. It's not because of social conditioning that I avoid pain (but that's just one example).

When people speak of "human nature," they speak of essence, personality traits, moral values, etc. as being inherent in us, which is simply not true and is a basis of idealism. Instincts do not imply "human nature."

[TheSamsquatch]

Altruism is total bull. All it does is prevent you from reaching your full potential.
There's nothing inherently wrong with doing for others.
But if you're doing it because it makes you feel good, because the morality that's been fed to you from all angles since birth gives you a warm feeling in your heart, is that not selfish? Is it not selfish to do good because it makes you feel good? Nobody does good on a larger scale because it's 'the right thing to do' or because they just plainly do it. They do it because they want to be endowed with these positive yet fictitious attributes that we're so fond of. The euphoric emotional reaction and being labeled as 'nice' constitute direct self-interest to me.

[Uppercut]

As far as I know, altruism is simply a selfless concern for others and is something that should be encouraged, especially in our society. It doesn't hurt to get personal satisfaction by helping out a struggling family or student, especially when you have low self-esteem. Depending on the mentality of the individual, this can be a powerful motivator without that person slipping into individualism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Kyrite:


I think that there are certain instincts built into our system that I consider to be altruistic.
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is an extremely interesting read on the subject. I found it to be an enlightening read on human nature

That execrable book, and its failed attempt to accound for altruism, has been taken apart here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-left-hostile-t132454/index.html

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

How can you say that there is NO such thing as human nature? So the nature vs nurture debate is pointless?

Well the debate is pointless given that the dichotomy between "nature" and "nurture" is a false one. Both play a synergistic role in how humans behave.

[MarxSchmarx]

I was talking about the "true altruism" that you described. I don't subscribe to egoism, but i am interested in a Marxist view on individuality and such, hence my attraction to Marxism-Humanism. I am more of an altruist myself, I was just thinking that the argument that communism asks one to "give up themselves for the community" is simply a strawman.

Yes it probably is - however, the problem is that under capitalism, at least in the global north, it is very common for people to think they have a reasonable chance it hording a lot of the weatlh for themselves. As such, even though it may be irrational one finds working people who are adament supporters of capitalism because of the prospect that they too can become a capitalist.

This is a serious problem - people's support for capitalism is actually consistent with their overinflated estimation of the likelihood of them amassing stupendous wealth. Part of the solution should be to get people to realize that they can expect to be better off under say communism, but the problem is tha t "actually existing socialism" failed to make the case.

Under such circumstances, altruism, however problematic, is an alternative approach to persuade ppl to give up capitalism. I doubt it will work long term, but there are certain people raw altruism for whatever reason appeals to, and where it works we should embrace it as a propaganda tool.

[¿Que?]

Marxism is a social theory. It seems kinda silly to try to "individualize" social theory, but hey, it's been done before.

[robbo203]

What are everyones thoughts on altruism? I think that its nothing more than a Utopian idea. I don't think there's anything wrong with an ego per say, so long as it isn't used to oppress others materialistically. Theres nothing wrong in taking pride in oneself or ones labor, being concerned with individulaity or even caring about your self.

Making a demand that everyone posess an altruist consciousness seems Utopian to me. According to MIA

Ego


nothing wrong with this type of ego as far as I see it.

There is nothing wrong with ego in this sense I agree but neither is there anything wrong with the concept of altruism. Altruism simply means a concern for the welfare and welbeing of others.

When you think about it, without altruism, strictly speaking, no human society would be functionallly operable - notwithstanding Smith's desiccated vision of human beings being driven by the invisible hand of the market in the pursuit of their own selfish interests. How would it be even possible to effect a communist revolution on the basis of a working class becoming conscious of itself as a class for itself? Class consciousness depends on the identification with the interests of fellow workers other than yourself, it requires transcendance of a narrow self interested perspective on the world. It is in other words , necessarily a collective or class perspective which ipso facto entails altruism.

Altruism and self interest while apparently contradictory terms, can, do, and must, co-exist. The reasons for wanting a socialist (communist) society are necessarily multiple and cannot simplistically be reduced to a question or altruism or self interest

[Bilan]

Question is, is Marxism based on altruism? I dont think it is

No? It's not based on any ethical philosophy AFAIK. I don't see any particular ethical school, or ideas of "altruism", "self-interestedness", "selfishness" etc. being intrinsic in the marxist school.

Besides, most critiques of altruism/self-interest/selfishness are rather inane (see Ayn Rand's fetishism of the last), as humans possess each of these qualities, and each are fostered/promoted/degraded in different environments.

I think it's unrealistic to claim that we are all one of those. It makes more sense to recognise that our tendency towards any of these is a by-product of socio-historical circumstances.