Individuality

[Andropov]

How much individuality do you think a person has?
Are we all special unique snowflakes that have free will to pick and choose our decisions and course in life?
Or are we all products of our environment with our whole perspective and decision making process formed by our material context?
Or are we a mix of the above?
Curious as to what the differing ideological perspectives are on the idea of indivduality because myself I would have strong opinions on this subject.

[PoliticalNightmare]

We all have different skills, abilities, personalities and needs, yes. Any attempt to say we don't have individuality is a blatant authoritarian attempt to infringe upon civil liberties.

Society depends upon the growth of the individual whilst the individual depends upon the aid of society. The correct extraneous material circumstances are required for the individual to grow (this can be achieved via workers' solidarity/mutual aid which is achieved by free associations which operate on direct democracy extended via delegative democracy) but we must also respect the wishes of the individuals (freedom to associate is also freedom not to associate with a communistic society of free associations).

Ultimately, the mind is not seperate from the material world surrounding us; we have massive impacts on our environment and our environment has masive impacts on us; we react to our environment and our environment reacts to us.

I am neither an individualist or a collectivist as both ideas are inherently authoritarian and lend themselves to one another rather easily whether it be the idea that individuals must strive to reach the top of the hierarchy in a capitalist society or whether we must sacrifice ourselves for the greater good; the commune, the state, the church, the capitalist or God. The distinction between individualism and collectivism is no fine line; they are but mirror reflections upon one another.

[Hit The North]

We all have different skills, abilities, personalities and needs, yes.


Actually many of us have roughly the same skills, abilities, personalties and needs. This is what makes social life possible.


Any attempt to say we don't have individuality is a blatant authoritarian attempt to infringe upon civil liberties.
True, but the appeal to individuality can often be used to undermine collective claims; to justify inequality; to deny the possibility of communism.


but we must also respect the wishes of the individuals (freedom to associate is also freedom not to associate with a communistic society of free associations).Individuals are always free to disassociate themselves from society, even under capitalism. They can lead impoverished lives in hermitage. Under communism perhaps this decision will not result in the same level of impoverishment for the hermit. However, communism would not be able to tolerate groups attempting to found their own rival societies based on private property and unfree association.


I am neither an individualist or a collectivist as both ideas are inherently authoritarian and lend themselves to one another rather easily whether it be the idea that individuals must strive to reach the top of the hierarchy in a capitalist society or whether we must sacrifice ourselves for the greater good; the commune, the state, the church, the capitalist or God. The distinction between individualism and collectivism is no fine line; they are but mirror reflections upon one another.
That's interesting and of course these two aspects of human experience take on unfree forms in class society. But class society transforms everything human into grotesque apparitions. Under communism, a society based on free association, both our individuality and our collectivity will take on truly human form.

[Jalapeno Enema]

How much individuality do you think a person has?
Are we all special unique snowflakes that have free will to pick and choose our decisions and course in life?
Or are we all products of our environment with our whole perspective and decision making process formed by our material context?
Or are we a mix of the above?
Curious as to what the differing ideological perspectives are on the idea of indivduality because myself I would have strong opinions on this subject.
The eternal debate.

I have to say a mix of the two.

I've seen, however, some interesting studies about monozygotic twins separated at birth and raised in different environments. Often cases they exhibit similar behaviors, regardless of upbringing. Two of the problems with these studies, however, is that they're based on anecdotal data, and that the study sizes have been severely limited by the rarity of adult twins separated at birth.

If I find a source, I'll post later.


Actually many of us have roughly the same skills, abilities, personalties and needs. This is what makes social life possible.I agree here. A basic prerequisite for such a basic social interaction as conversation is a common experience. Experiences are dictated by skills and abilities, and influenced by needs.

If two people have no common experiences, they could not communicate.

Assuming there are no communication barriers, however, any living person can have a discussion with anybody else, even if it's basic themes such as eating or weather; we all have some things in common.

When you factor in the communication barriers, similarities between experiences become only more prevalent.

When you get down to it, we're all much more similar then we are different. We tend to tune out similarities, however, and focus on differences, because that is how we can recognize and define one another.

http://www.otherfamily.net/gallery2/d/8981-1/individuality.jpg

[Sixiang]

I know this as the "nature vs. nurture" debate. It seems to obviously ridiculous to assert that one is absolutely true and the other is absolutely false. I would say that nurture plays a much more prominent role in making us who we are, but nature is definitely there, even if it is less prominent. I would say that we all are generally capable of the same things, but our upbringing and social variables seriously affect how we define ourselves. I would say that I am who I am mostly from how my parents raised me and from the uncountable moments in my life that affected things for me. The whole "human nature" thing mostly has to do with biological traits and some minor habits and tastes.

[gorillafuck]

I've never met a person who I wouldn't say is unique in some ways, but people are very similar (even people that try to act really "different"). Individuality is a beautiful thing, but "individualism" as an ideology can be harmful to class politics and is often used as an excuse for capitalism. Then again, there's individualism that wants people to embrace themselves (the good kind), and then there's individualism that opposes collectivism and preaches greed and isolation. They're very different things.

[NecroCommie]

Sorry for the self-promoting, but I really don't feel like writing all this shit again.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1180

[Andropov]

My own perspective on this is that Individuals as perceived in society do not exist.
Every persons perspective is shaped by their environment and the circumstances in their life.
Now one common argumenet used by Liberals is that people can choose to change their course that they were put on from birth due to circumstance.
But from my perspective ones scope and thought process of options and choices is completely limited by their respective contexts.
What seems like a completely rational and logic decision in one context would never even be considered in another context.
Hence why I dont believe we have "choice" as such, more so we have choice from a limited number of variable outcomes that are products of our respective contexts.
Even that choice is further wittled away by the fact that due to our upbringing and variable events which have shaped our consciousness will mean we are disposed to a particular course of action.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Actually many of us have roughly the same skills, abilities, personalties and needs. This is what makes social life possible.

Really? You don't think that a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter and an academic don't all have completely different abilities? You don't think that Bob can prefer haddock and Simon can prefer cod?


True, but the appeal to individuality can often be used to undermine collective claims; to justify inequality; to deny the possibility of communism.

Well, here we are talking about individualism (which I don't agree with) rather than individuality. To deny that individuals are different is absurd.


un[/I]free association.

I believe this Kropotkin quote is relevant here:



Let us glance for a moment at the Middle Ages, when great fortunes began to spring up.
A feudal baron seizes on a fertile valley. But as long as the fertile valley is empty of folk our baron is not rich. His land brings him in nothing; he might as well possess a property in the moon.
What does our baron do to enrich himself? He looks out for peasants--for poor peasants!
If every peasant-farmer had a piece of land, free from rent and taxes, if he had in addition the tools and the stock necessary for farm labour, who would plough the lands of the baron? Everyone would look after his own. But there are thousands of destitute persons ruined by wars, or drought, or pestilence. They have neither horse nor plough. (Iron was costly in the Middle Ages, and a draughthorse still more so.)
All these destitute creatures are trying to better their condition. One day they see on the road at the confines of our baron's estate a notice-board indicating by certain signs adapted to their comprehension that the labourer who is willing to settle on this estate will receive the tools and materials to build his cottage and sow his fields, and a portion of land rent free for a certain number of years. The number of years is represented by so many crosses on the sign-board, and the peasant understands the meaning of these crosses.
So the poor wretches swarm over the baron's lands, making roads, draining marshes, building villages. In nine years he begins to tax them. Five years later he increases the rent. Then he doubles it. The peasant accepts these new conditions because he cannot find better ones elsewhere; and little by little, with the aid of laws made by the barons, the poverty of the peasant becomes the source of the landlord's wealth. And it is not only the lord of the manor who preys upon him. A whole host of usurers swoop down upon the villages, multiplying as the wretchedness of the peasants increases. That is how things went in the Middle Ages. And to-day is it not still the same thing? If there were free lands which the peasant could cultivate if he pleased, would he pay £50 to some "shabble of a duke"(1) for condescending to sell him a scrap? Would he burden himself with a lease which absorbed a third of the produce? Would he--on the métayer system--consent to give the half of his harvest to the landowner?
But he has nothing. So he will accept any conditions, if only he can keep body and soul together, while he tills the soil and enriches the landlord.
So in the nineteenth century, just as in the Middle Ages, the poverty of the peasant is a source of wealth to the landed proprietor.

I don't think people will be swarming other voluntarily to be wage labourers in a communistic society.


That's interesting and of course these two aspects of human experience take on unfree forms in class society. But class society transforms everything human into grotesque apparitions. Under communism, a society based on free association, both our individuality and our collectivity will take on truly human form.

Yeah, for free associations to develop we must rely on the growth of the network of relationships between individuals (society) and the growth of skills and personality of the individual, hence both concepts are not seperate from one another and both lean on each other.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I would agree with what others are saying. We as humans share much of our basic nature, our ability to think and our desire for certain things in life and so forth, and we could hardly interact effectively if we did not. At the same time we also obviously have different abilities and desires and a desire to be respected as distinct individuals.

I imagine your concern with this question relates to whether socialism threatens the individual. I suppose that depends on what sort of vision you have for individuality. It seems to me that many people, particularly in America, have a rather unrealistic expectation that society not impinge on their individual choices at all, at least in the economic sphere. One can see this in the SUV and suburbia lifestyle so common today and the whole Tea Party movement against social programs and tax to pay for them.

This notion of individuality as unhindered economic autonomy, in my estimation, will have to go at some point, simply because it conflicts with ecological needs. We can't give everyone an SUV and a 5000 square foot McMansion. It just wouldn't be cost effective under any economic system, nor could the global ecosystem support it. We can give people housing large enough to fit them comfortably and transportation that will get them from home to work, but it will require us to work together and focus on something other than "me first". I think that socialism aims for a more tempered and refined individuality than that under capitalism, one that recognizes the need for cooperation and moderation to make things work.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Really? You don't think that a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter and an academic don't all have completely different abilities? You don't think that Bob can prefer haddock and Simon can prefer cod?

Don't think he was denying that at such a specific level as preferences for different food. We all, however, need food to survive and in that sense have a common interest in having enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but fairly minor differences in skill have been exploited by employers to justify different levels of pay among the work force. That's something that ought to be avoided, and emphasizing similarities which we do in fact have and hence entitlement to the same common needs counters this divisive excessive emphasis on differences between workers.

As for the nature vs. nurture debate, well, have even our genes themselves not ultimately been shaped by the environment? I'm no expert on this, but humans did not always have the ability to reason at this level, for instance, and has evolution itself not been triggered by our environment?

On the OP's original question, of course we have individuality in the sense of different preferences for food, games, etc. Also, of course, doctors have their own set of skills as compared with electricians, for example. That said, the important thing is that we have powerful common interests and our differences don't preclude us from common control of the means of production.

As for the concern about authoritarianism, certainly excess infringement on individuality is undesirable, as is excessive power for any single person to the point that collective interests are threatened. Communism would abolish as much as possible this dichotomy of interests by socioeconomic organization in a way which causes what is in the economic interests of individuals to be in the interests of the society in general (and vice-versa).

[Zanthorus]

"The further back we trace the course of history, the more does the individual, and accordingly also the producing individual, appear to be dependent and to belong to a larger whole. At first, the individual in a still quite natural manner is part of the family and of the tribe which evolves from the family; later he is part of a community, of one of the different forms of the community which arise from the conflict and the merging of tribes. It is not until the eighteenth century that in bourgeois society the various forms of the social texture confront the individual as merely means towards his private ends, as external necessity. But the epoch which produces this standpoint, namely that of the solitary individual, is precisely the epoch of the (as yet) most highly developed social (according to this standpoint, general) relations. Man is a Zoon politikon in the most literal sense: he is not only a social animal, but an animal that can be individualised only within society." (Marx, Grundrisse)

"Without any doubt, the individual is a unit from a biological point of view, but one cannot make this individual the basis of social organization without falling into metaphysical nonsense. From a social perspective, all the individual units do not have the same value. The collectivity is born from relations and groupings in which the status and activity of each individual do not derive from an individual function but from a collective one determined by the multiple influences of the social milieu. Even in the elementary case of an unorganized society or non-society, the simple physiological basis which produces family organization is already sufficient to refute the arbitrary doctrine of the individual as an indivisible unit free to combine with other fellow units, without ceasing to be distinct from, yet somehow, equivalent to them." (Bordiga, The Democratic Principle)

[PoliticalNightmare]

Don't think he was denying that at such a specific level as preferences for different food. We all, however, need food to survive and in that sense have a common interest in having enough.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but fairly minor differences in skill have been exploited by employers to justify different levels of pay among the work force. That's something that ought to be avoided, and emphasizing similarities which we do in fact have and hence entitlement to the same common needs counters this divisive excessive emphasis on differences between workers.

Oh, yeah, I absolutely agree with most of this but it seems absurd to come out with statements like "the individual does not exist" (I mean, what am I if I am not an individual? Even a robot is an individual, lol.) just like it is absurd to say "there is no such thing as society". I mean, we all depend upon each other for help (society), we have many things in common (and we should focus on these things as you point out) but we do have differences. This is quite obvious to me.


Furthermore, I think communistic free associations may utilise and maximise the maximum potential of individual differences by allowing their workers to do labour they are skilled at, unrestricted by financial difficulties or marketplace competition for jobs. I just ask for a society where individual differences don't result in an imbalance of power. As you say, we can also make the most out of similarities, particularly as these will help a great deal with communication and social life around the commune.

I think the anarchist key phrase "Liberty, Equality and Solidarity" comes into play, here.


As for the nature vs. nurture debate, well, have even our genes themselves not ultimately been shaped by the environment? I'm no expert on this, but humans did not always have the ability to reason at this level, for instance, and has evolution itself not been triggered by our environment?

Yeah, sure. I don't think I started mentioning nature vs. nurture though. Still, the environment has an impact on the individual and vice versa (the individual has an impact on the environment).


As for the concern about authoritarianism, certainly excess infringement on individuality is undesirable, as is excessive power for any single person to the point that collective interests are threatened. Communism would abolish as much as possible this dichotomy of interests by socioeconomic organization in a way which causes what is in the economic interests of individuals to be in the interests of the society in general (and vice-versa).

I pretty much agree with this which is why I argue to abolish both collectivism and individualism (in a political sense, not in the normative sense - individual differences in personality and skill will always exist).