Socialists Are Individualists

[Saint-Just]

This is mainly for redstar200 and scar. Particularly scar who questioned the interest of my ideology in the individual.

Socialism does not have any inherent conflict with the individual but rather with individualism because of course we believe that the concept of individualism is harmful to society.

An individual’s nature is best pursued by contributing to the collective good rather than the individual good. An individual will best develop in society if they subscribe to the collective good, otherwise they will be abused by capitalism, capitalism a system in which individuals only pursue the interests of the individual.

Very crudely collectivists believe that collectivism is best for the individual and the collective. Individualists believe that individualism is best for the individual and the collective.




QUOTE (Chairman Mao @ Sep 24 2003, 12:07 PM)
I read most of your view of what the dictatorship of the proletariat will be like.The thing I noticed most is that you seem to have some kind of allergic reaction to authority and any kind of hierarchic power structure. Have you ever had a job with a boss redstar2000 or taken an order?

Indeed I have...for more than 40 years!

Why else do you think I utterly despise the bastards?
-redstar2000

The relationship between a boss and subordinate is as natural as friend-friend, teacher-student or lovers. The nature of this relationship is affected by material reality and economic relations and thus in socialism its nature will change. However the relationship will remain equally as valid and necessary. It will no longer be affected by class and this is how the previous antagonisms in such a relationship disappear. There is nothing essentially antagonistic about this relationship. It is only those who cannot accept discipline or obedience that reject this relationship in any form.

It seems to me that your primary critique of Leninism as ‘un-Marxian’ is based on this ideas. Therefore I see your criticism of Leninism as unfounded.


In addition to this:

Couldn't be because he expects to be one of the guys in charge, could it? Maybe? You think?
-redstar2000

You mentioned that I only see the concept of a vanguard party necessary as I see myself as ‘one of the guys in charge’. I cannot substantiate this, however, I put it to you that I do not see myself as ‘one of the guys in charge’. I am not skilled in leadership or in socialist theory to a degree that I would see myself fit for such a role and nor do I desire to be in such a role.

[redstar2000]

An individual’s nature is best pursued by contributing to the collective good rather than the individual good. An individual will best develop in society if they subscribe to the collective good, otherwise they will be abused by capitalism, a system in which individuals only pursue the interests of the individual.

An a-historical muddle. Capitalism came into existence because of changes in the means of production...not because someone got up one morning and said "hey, let's be individualists" and the outcome was capitalism. "Individualism" (insofar as there is such a thing) is a by-product of capitalism...not the other way around.

Beyond that, I frankly think the whole "individualist vs. collectivist" dichotomy is false. I would be quite amazed if people in a communist society would ever be found hurling epithets at one another: "You fucking individualist!" or "You collectivist asshole!".

"Collectives" are, first of all, made up of "individuals" who have chosen to be part of that collective (and the other individuals in that collective have agreed to accept her/him) and who have the right to withdraw from that collective at any time for any reason. (The collective has the right to boot her/him out on the same basis, of course.)

Collectives can only exist as viable organizations when they actively reflect and serve the interests of the individuals who are in them.

So I don't think there's any real conflict there at all; though I can see how it would serve the interests of the capitalist class to create an artificial ideological "conflict".

And I might add that most of the so-called "individualism" in capitalism is fake: e.g., "You Are What You Buy!"


The relationship between a boss and subordinate is as natural as friend-friend, teacher-student or lovers.

Emphasis added.

Natural? Are you suggesting that there is a genetic basis for this?

The human species is about 150,000 years old (at least) and class society is around 10,000 years old (at most). For most of our history there were no bosses or "subordinates"...at least not in any sense comparable to what we've found in recorded history. Hunter-gatherers may select a "chief of the hunt" or a "war chief" or even a "chief" who takes care of relations with the supernatural world. Such persons might be held in considerable respect, but there is no question of automatic deference.

To suggest that domination/submission is "natural" is only supported by evidence from class societies.

That's not good enough.


There is nothing essentially antagonistic about this relationship. It is only those who cannot accept discipline or obedience that reject this relationship in any form.

Again, that's just an assertion...and a tautology.

What you should be arguing here is why should people accept discipline or obedience? Under what circumstances is it justified? What are the limitations of acceptance, if any?

As a "general principle", the doctrine of "discipline and obedience" is, as I'm sure you must be aware, a core value of fascism. Read any fascist author on the subject and he will tell you that a few are chosen "by destiny" to lead and everyone else is "meant" to obey.

He'll even tell you it's "natural".(!)


It seems to me that your primary critique of Leninism as ‘un-Marxian’ is based on this idea. Therefore I see your criticism of Leninism as unfounded.

Well, it does completely escape me how we are supposed to become "free" by elevating obedience to a "virtue"...frankly, it sounds Orwellian. You know, "slavery is freedom" and all that.

I can't imagine what any of that has to do with Marx or Marxism...except as an enemy of both.


You mentioned that I only see the concept of a vanguard party necessary as I see myself as ‘one of the guys in charge’. I cannot substantiate this, however, I put it to you that I do not see myself as ‘one of the guys in charge’. I am not skilled in leadership or in socialist theory to a degree that I would see myself fit for such a role and nor do I desire to be in such a role.

Ok, I'm willing to take your word for it.

But I trust you realize the logical implications of what you just said. What you're saying, effectively, is that you want to be told what to do by a leader.

You want to be something less than fully human, one of Aristotle's upright talking "tools", at the disposal of whoever is your master. Or leader. Or General Secretary of your Party.

Personally, I think this is symptomatic of how deeply you (and Leninists generally) are still rooted in bourgeois ideology.

You may read Marx and Engels, but it's still just words to you; the "liberating impulse" is still absent from your understanding. You fall back on a "charity" view of "Marxism"--you will be "nice" to the workers. You will be "good shepherds".

That's not good enough either.

We do not want "good masters".

We want to be free!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Thanks Mao.

I dont wish to be a collectivist. I regard myself first and foremost as an individual and I view society as a pact between individuals to moderate their behaviour in order that each can be happier and more fulfilled on balance.

I'm not so simplistic that I dont realise that to some extent making this work in practise means talking and behaving as though society itself had some independent objective existence. But I view this as very secondary.

I think we simply have different attitudes to this. Neither can be said to be right or wrong; they are simply different. Fundamentally so. I would say that my attitude is more in keeping with actual human nature in most people, but I could not prove this, and we could argue forever about it without getting anywhere or achieving anything useful.

But I will take issue with you over the idea you seem to be expressing that Individualism and Capitalism are more or less synonomous. They are not. Capitalism is about individuals acting in their own interest allright...BUT capitalism cannot function outside of a society either (something caoitalist themselves usually ignore); because Capitalism requires a society (a pact) that will enforce liberal property rights. Change that and you dont have capitalism.

best wishes.

[Saint-Just]

Interesting points made by both of you. Anyway, by natural I do not mean genetic redstar2000. And, sc4r although capitalism is not intergral to individualism I believe individualism is integral to capitalism.

Redstar2000 I think you are being rather pedantic in your assertion that individualism and collectivism don't actually exist. They are concepts that have limited impact on actual society and society is influenced by a great many other factors however I still think that we can identify these two terms at play in society.

[redstar2000]

Redstar2000 I think you are being rather pedantic in your assertion that individualism and collectivism don't actually exist...however I still think that we can identify these two terms at play in society.

If I notice some trash on the sidewalk at the bus stop in the morning and I go to the trouble of picking it up and putting it in the trash bin, am I being an "individualist" or a "collectivist"?

Dirty sidewalks are unappealing to me; by picking up the trash I am pleasing my personal aesthetic sense by removing something ugly from my view.

But in so doing, I am making a tiny contribution to "a cleaner city", one more pleasant for all to live in...surely a "collectivist" act.

Either way, no one ordered me to do it. Or even paid me.

I like to think of it as a communist act.

I've noticed over the years that there's actually a fair amount of this kind of thing that goes on...completely beneath the radar of the bourgeois media. People do "small" things both to satisfy their own individuality as well as to benefit the larger community. They don't create a bureaucracy or even an organization...they just do them because it seems like a good thing to do.

I think that both "individualism" and "collectivism" are twisted and perverted constructs of class societies.

The "individualism" that capitalist society celebrates is almost entirely that of patterns of consumption. You are "free" to construct an "identity" based on the clothes you wear, the car you drive, where you live, etc., etc.

The utter emptiness of such an "identity" is obvious.

And at the same time we have our own version of "corporate collectivism"...where any sort of genuine individuality is about as welcome as shit on the dinner table. Believe me, I've been there, I know.

In communist society, perhaps there will be people who will argue for this or that course of action based on an appeal to "individualism" or "collectivism". If that happens, I hope others will attack such arguments at once...pointing out that such distinctions are irrelevant! A proposed course of action should be debated on its objective merits (or lack of same) insofar as they can be determined. Appeals to "individualism" or "collectivism" in the abstract are just shabby rhetorical maneuvers...probably intended to obscure the real substance of the controversy.

In short, I do not see why we should feel "compelled" to "choose" between "alternatives" that were generated by class society in the first place.

The "dumpster of history" is capacious...there's plenty of room for outmoded concepts like "individualism vs. collectivism".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 27 2003, 04:50 PM
sc4r although capitalism is not intergral to individualism I believe individualism is integral to capitalism.


Yes I agree.

Capitralists do, however, always ignore the fact that they must have a fairly strong society which will enforce liberal property lawsr. Without this capitalism cannot function.

They ignore this aspect because they wish to vastly overstate the degree to which capitalism depends on society; and of course also they wish to claim that Capitalism can function 'without' bureacracy'.

[Saint-Just]

redstar2000, what if you pick up the litter for the benefit of others, or if you pick it up only for your own pleasure?

I admit that collectivism and individualism are hard to define but I think they do exist. Collectivism is the concept of the whole of society as one entity. Individualism is the concept of the individual as a single entity divorced from society.

Anyway, it seems a small point to argue.