Socialism and Individual Value

[IHateCorporations]

I hear this criticism of Marxism all over: Socialism crushes individuality. I must say that I understand where these people are coming from. After all, under Socialism you are subjected to the will of a community and, possibly, to the whole nation/government.

At the same time, I see collectivism as a much more moral system. And giving up some individuality is well worth the security you gain in such a system.

What do you think?

Note: I am placing this thread under the Philosophy forum, but I acknowledge the possibility that placing it under the Learning forum may have been better. However, I want an answer from a philosophical point of view. :)

[ZeroNowhere]

What is 'the community' made up of, again?

And really, all that this seems to mean is that you are forced to do or not do things. Sure, but that applies to rape laws as much as anything else. In capitalism, individuals face society as something separate from and above them, in socialism they actively participate in its creation.

"From a Romantic point of view, the life pursued and achieved by human beings in a Culture was judged similar in kind to the creation of a work of art. Culture, on this view, was seen to provide the necessary aesthetic framework for thus expressing the life of man. It was seen as a joint communal effort to produce a "great work of art". Within such an effort, indiviudal human beings affiliate themselves by learning to express themselves within its refined practices and cherished customs. In so doing, they contribute to a given cultural tradition, draw sustenance from it, and, thereby, give deeper meaning to their lives."

- Yuval Lurie.

Under capitalism, on the other hand, we work as slaves unto a community incarnated in capital.

[RED DAVE]

I hear this criticism of Marxism all over: Socialism crushes individuality. I must say that I understand where these people are coming from. After all, under Socialism you are subjected to the will of a community and, possibly, to the whole nation/government.We are all, always "subject to the will of a community." We live in communities. That argument is a strawman.

As to the will of a nation or a government, that's so as well. When people put up this argument, what they are doing is saying that they believe in the current system, don't mind the dictatorship of the corporation, and you make me angry because you question my fragile individuality.


At the same time, I see collectivism as a much more moral system. And giving up some individuality is well worth the security you gain in such a system.(1) Drop the word "collectivism." It was popularized by the Ayn Rand Objectivists. Use "socialism."

(2) While we may believe that socialism is more moral, we have to define what we mean by moral. The fundamental morality of socialism involves the class democratization of power, an eventual end to the inequality of wealth, full benefits for all, an end to war, etc. Most right wingers and liberals do not believe in these things. Your morality is not their morality, and there is no such thing as universal morality.

(3) All systems require a surrender of some concept of individuality. The fundamental individuality of the Right is the individuality of captialism: the right to expolit others and live off their labor. This stuff about right-wing individuality is a fantasy of theirs. It generally goes with a down vest and a rifle, an executive job with a corporation and sexual/political fantasies about Sarah Palin.


Note: I am placing this thread under the Philosophy forum, but I acknowledge the possibility that placing it under the Learning forum may have been better. However, I want an answer from a philosophical point of view. :)Philosophy is the representation of the predominant mode of production in the realm of thought. You have to counterpose "your" philosophy to "their" philosophy. Don't let the Right set the terms of debate.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

(1) Drop the word "collectivism." It was popularized by the Ayn Rand Objectivists. Use "socialism."

(2) While we may believe that socialism is more moral, we have to define what we mean by moral. The fundamental morality of socialism involves the class democratization of power, an eventual end to the inequality of wealth, full benefits for all, an end to war, etc. Most right wingers and liberals do not believe in these things. Your morality is not their morality, and there is no such thing as universal morality.

(3) All systems require a surrender of some concept of individuality. The fundamental individuality of the Right is the individuality of captialism: the right to expolit others and live off their labor. This stuff about right-wing individuality is a fantasy of theirs. It generally goes with a down vest and a rifle, an executive job with a corporation and sexual/political fantasies about Sarah Palin.


more or less in agreement with dave here.

(1) "Collectivism" has been used at various times to mean different things. Back around 1900 the Fabians used it to refer to their brand of top-down statist socialism. Kropotkin used it to refer to any form of socialism that retained some form of payment for work.

so, yeah, "collectivism" is no clearer than "socialism". but "socialism" is no longer adequate either since its meaning includes statist forms of socialism such as social democracy ("democratic socialism"), "Communism", etc. so it needs to be modified in some way, such as libertarian or self-managed socialism.

(2) we could regard a consistent working class morality as the only form of objectively universal morality since it implies the abolition of oppression and exploitation, the basic forms of injustice. but there isn't going to be a universal agrement on moral perception because this is skewed by the interests of those who gain from oppression & exploitation. i take it this is dave's point.

(3). yes. humans are intensely interdependent. we have to cooperate to survive and prosper. so there will always be limits to the will of the individual. there is such a thing as a healthy individuality, a realm of personal action and private life. but the right wing's emphasis on "individual freedom" isn't this.

"individual freedom" is an essentially contested concept. that's because, in liberal and conservative ideology, "individual freedom" includes the freedom of the capitalist owner to dominate and exploit workers (via the "freedom" to control their property), the freedom of landlords to dominate and exploit tenants, etc. there is fundamental conflict between the real freedom of workers, freedom in production meaning the ability to develop their skills & potential and control jointly the work process, versus the "freedom" of the bosses and owners to dominate us.

[Klaatu]

I see Socialism as an economic system, not a political system. You can have have all of the freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution (and more) under Socialist system.

Also I think (as the average Marxist does) that we lose an incredible amount of freedom under a capitalist system, where the wealthy and powerful are the real government. And to think that we in Western countries have been fed all of the bullshit over the years, about capitalism and freedom going arm-in-arm (gag me) :mad:

[Impulse97]

I see Socialism as an economic system, not a political system. You can have have all of the freedoms guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution (and more) under Socialist system.

Also I think (as the average Marxist does) that we lose an incredible amount of freedom under a capitalist system, where the wealthy and powerful are the real government. And to think that we in Western countries have been fed all of the bullshit over the years, about capitalism and freedom going arm-in-arm (gag me) :mad:

Finally someone who speaks the truth in lay terms lol.

The above statement is pretty much how I feel. We can have all the freedoms that we have under capitalism and more under socialism. In fact while needed major edits we can use most of the current constitution.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Amphictyonis]

A lot of people have struggled with this, me included. Sartre and Jack London are the ones who wrote the most on the subject. I guess Orwell did as well. I tend to agree with anarchists that centralized hierarchy is a problem. The goal of Marxism isn't to maintain a centralized hierarchy only to use it in the transitional phase from socialism to communism. Most of the "Communist" nations, no, all of the "communist" nations we've seen haven't been truly communist and arguably haven't even been socialist. This isnt to say if a global revolution took place the socialist government wouldn't end up authoritarian. So long as a socialist government can remain as democratic as possible individuality will be more of a social construct not an institutional barrier. Meaning, it will be up to us just as it is now to be individuals but we could very well follow the group as many people do today. Individuality is also not the clothes you wear or the car you drive- thats a capitalist construct. Individuality is a frame of mind and only you can control your own mind. Well, other people can brainwash you but at the end of the day you're responsible for your individuality.

I guess Emma Goldman would be another writer you may want to check out. She's an anarchist but socialist non the less. She stressed individuality in most of her writings.

[syndicat]

I guess Emma Goldman would be another writer you may want to check out. She's an anarchist but socialist non the less. She stressed individuality in most of her writings.

well, yeah, she was in fact an extreme individualist, a follower of Stirner. tried to somehow synthesize this with syndicalism and Kropotkin's anarcho-communism. in other words, not a very consistent thinker.

[ckaihatsu]

I tend to agree with anarchists that centralized hierarchy is a problem. The goal of Marxism isn't to maintain a centralized hierarchy only to use it in the transitional phase from socialism to communism.


I'm of the take that -- like it or not -- centralization is an emergent dynamic inherent to the material world and to *any* kind of human stewardship over it. News gets around, one way or another, and then people will start asking why they've been breaking their backs in the fields when, just three towns over, they have that shit mechanized so that it's relatively milk-and-honey over there compared to here (etc.)....





5. Ends -- Centralization




*Centralization* should be favored, for the interests / benefits of organizational cohesion, accountability, and efficiency (non-redundancy, or avoiding waste from duplication of effort).

But centralization does not necessarily mean "centralization from above" or "centralization according to the whims of an elite small group", to address your concerns.

[...]

Rather than seeing politics as *having* to reside in individual -- and possibly careerist -- personages, we should conceptualize a generalized, centralized co-administration as consisting of *policy* that has been developed and supported from below in a bottom-up way.

[Dean]

I hear this criticism of Marxism all over: Socialism crushes individuality. I must say that I understand where these people are coming from. After all, under Socialism you are subjected to the will of a community and, possibly, to the whole nation/government.
Nah, that's democracy.


At the same time, I see collectivism as a much more moral system. And giving up some individuality is well worth the security you gain in such a system.

Capitalist and Communist societies provide different ways to be different from others. The same is true under fascism or slavery.

You can neither be a slave-owner nor a slave under a properly functioning democracy or socialist regime. But I fail to see how these are legitimately "restrictions on freedom" or individuality.

A better question would be, "to what extent is individuality squelched under socialism versus capitalism?". The answer is rather mundane: anyone who understands socialism, understands that it is a relief of the alienation of man to his labor. That is, we are put more in control of our labor under a socialist system.

So, some of the facts of individuality which are "positive" are removed - that is, slave-owning and wealth-accumulation. But this isn't a very good argument against socialism, for obvious reasons.

Also, moved to learning.

[Son of a Strummer]

I hear this criticism of Marxism all over: Socialism crushes individuality. I must say that I understand where these people are coming from. After all, under Socialism you are subjected to the will of a community and, possibly, to the whole nation/government.

At the same time, I see collectivism as a much more moral system. And giving up some individuality is well worth the security you gain in such a system.

What do you think?

Note: I am placing this thread under the Philosophy forum, but I acknowledge the possibility that placing it under the Learning forum may have been better. However, I want an answer from a philosophical point of view. :)

Well, I am in agreement with several of the replies here but I am going to reply with my own thoughts anyway even if they happen to repeat a few points....

First, I wholeheartedly agree with Syndicat that human beings are social by nature and that relations within and between human societies as well as with nature are intensely interdependent. Human beings, dynamic critters that they are, have proved capable of developing the potentialities inherent our interdependence well beyond mere subsistence towards considerable achievements of knowledge, technology, consciousness, leisure and culture while at the same time, under capitalist and other class-based social orders, have often destroyed the underlying conditions of sustainable interdependence.

How do humans live in harmony with each other and with nature? Well, I think Marx provided a very basic signpost when he posited in the Communist Manifesto a new social order based upon "an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." The basic idea is a society based on equitable cooperation rather than a society, like capitalism, where individuals are systematically compelled to exploit other individuals and nature to maintain their minority class position.

Would a society where "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" crush individuality? Well I think it would only tend to (in the name of democratically legitimated equity and justice) suppress those manifestations of individuality, such as possessive individualism, that are in fact destructive of the free development of others and our underlying interdependence with nature, while at the same time developing the capacities for new forms of “rich individuality which is as all-sided in its production as in its consumption, “ and “the absolute working-out of his creative potentialities” (to quote Marx once again).

Harnessing the potentialities of equitable cooperation means that the community prioritizes the forces and relations of communal production towards the development of capacities, capabilities, and needs of all its citizens. This is the main way in which rich forms of individuality are developed under the communal system- it prioritizes the development of the multifarious capabilities of the citizenry through equitably cooperative and supportive relations. Moreover, it is worth noting that some of the most important and valuable forms of individuality certainly are concerned with inalienable rights of a private nature such as free expression, and control over one's body. This has suggested for some the need for constitutional protection of a certain private sphere of individual right, which, I think, need not at all be inconsistent with a self-managing socialism.

Marx really only provided some interesting signposts. As to the actual institutional forms that might achieve these aims very important work has been done in Marxist and radical theory especially after World War 2, and continues to this day. As Syndicat intimated, theories going under the rubric of self-managed socialism and libertarian socialism have a lot to say about the institutional forms, culture, mental constructs, etc required to move toward and sustain a society where rich individuality and our needs as ineluctably social beings are in harmony.

[el_chavista]

Back to the old Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei :


You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois...This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
...
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

[renzo_novatore]

Socialism is the ultimate expression of individualism. I don't see the dichotomy here - I believe it was stephen t byington who said that individualism is not the opposite of altruism; it is the opposite of idealism. Being an individualist, how would one want to be subject to the authority of the owners of capital? Real freedom also includes economic freedom. Besides, being an individualist does not mean I can't love my peers and give gratuitously to those I love. Indeed, it would be selfless to refrain from giving at times...