Individualism

[Mr. Gorilla]

I need a clear explanation as to what, exactly, individualism is, and how significant it is, from a leftist perspective, as my understanding of it is somewhat vague.

Let me ramble on for a bit as to how I feel about it, given my vague understanding of the topic: I've always interpreted it as "the philosophy that advocates the importance of the individual," which would be something I would adamantly oppose (Is there a school of thought that directly opposes individualism?). I've always seen human beings are co-dependent, reciprocally altruistic animals, with notions of "the power of the individual" being inefficient, or flat-out detrimental, in the pursuit for long-term, stable human happiness and success. We are as ants--although without any natural social hierarchy--with a subconscious desire built into our very essence to ensure the survival and well-being of our species.

This ties into my views on individuality, in which I believe what distinguishes a person as an "individual" holds no value and will become, in time, an outdated concept; for every person, there are at least 1,000 more in the world just like him or her. I do not view myself as a unique, pretty little snowflake, nor do I view others as such, and I do not see how holding such a view is important for sustaining human happiness (If anything, would we not be happier shedding the fruitless, non-conformist pursuit for individuality?).

In the end, I hope that as transhumanism kicks in and we enter a post-hierarchy, post-scarcity communist society, we also shed our notions of individuality and the worth of the individual, moving toward becoming a single mind composed of many bodies (A sort of non-hierarchical hive mind). In such a state of existence, we would find true immortality, and ever-lasting happiness, I think.

[miltonwasfried...man]

I would have to disagree with you. If we "shed our notions of individuality" we become nothing more than 'pons' in the system and have no individual worth. Which makes our pain, misery and even death of no concern as long as the "community" prevails. To give up your individual personality and perspective is to abandon everything that has any value. Minorities and any one who objects to this view would instantly become enemies to the "vanguard" or "community" and either assimilated or be done away with. The idea shouldn't be to become a "melting pot" like the USA, which would just create mindless zombies (however uniform) but instead to celebrate differences and work together as individuals towards our goal of communism. The figurative 'death of individuality' inevitably leads to the actual death of innocent people, which can never be justified.

"It is vain to talk of the interest of the community, without understanding what is the interest of the individual."
Jeremy Bentham

[Tatarin]

We are as ants--although without any natural social hierarchy--with a subconscious desire built into our very essence to ensure the survival and well-being of our species.

If humans had a built-in desire to care of one another, I believe society would look drastically different today. We can't deny that self-preservation is the leading biological role in our bodies, but that doesn't mean that humans are unable or worse off living together. However, it also depends on what kind of society people live in, more equal societies means better, naturally;

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

(The above includes numerous studies, check it out!)


I do not view myself as a unique, pretty little snowflake, nor do I view others as such, and I do not see how holding such a view is important for sustaining human happiness (If anything, would we not be happier shedding the fruitless, non-conformist pursuit for individuality?).

I disagree. You should consider yourself unique - but not better than everyone else.


In such a state of existence, we would find true immortality, and ever-lasting happiness, I think.

That's a pretty long-shot. There is no guarantee that a posthumanist society can become real nor how humans will react to it. And it doesn't guarantee happiness either. Just efficiency. And what about people who wouldn't want to join in?

[Revolution starts with U]

No matter how collectivist you view yourself, it is only through conscious personal effort that anything gets done. We can either have people accept socialism, or impose it upon them. If the former, you have to make it appealing to them as an individual.

Individualism v collectivism is a false dichotomy. There is no such distinction in the real world.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In the introduction of my copy of "The Communist Manifesto", Gareth Stedman Jones writes in the introduction about how, in the aftermath of the repudation of Stirner, Marx wrestled with recounciling the deterministic idea that we're all just part of giant collective masses, forever swept along by the tidal flow of history and economic change, and with little in the way of individual agency, with the reality that ultimately (at the most atomic level of class struggle & consciousness) people need to utilize their own individual initiative in order to help bring about the end of capitalism. (In other words, why people should volunteer their efforts towards communism/socialism. In most of the developed world there are no more "dark satanic mills", and if morality and such is merely an abstration foisted upon us by whatever epoch/economic system we're living in, there's really no reason why communism is even more "just" than capitalism is.)

But yeah. I look foward to the day when we all walk around w/ shaved heads, men and women alike, with color neutral clothing and computer chips implanted in our skulls with which we can receive orders from the glorious communist hivemind. THX-1138 was a utopian film, not dystopian!

[Kenco Smooth]

I need a clear explanation as to what, exactly, individualism is, and how significant it is, from a leftist perspective, as my understanding of it is somewhat vague.

Individualism in it's many forms can be traced back mostly to classical liberalism in which the individual (more specifically the individuals freedom to autonomy typically) was taken to be morally prior to concerns of the good, honour, or other abstractions. It is a philosophy that evaluates society and individual acts in terms of the isolated individual.


Let me ramble on for a bit as to how I feel about it, given my vague understanding of the topic: I've always interpreted it as "the philosophy that advocates the importance of the individual," which would be something I would adamantly oppose (Is there a school of thought that directly opposes individualism?). I've always seen human beings are co-dependent, reciprocally altruistic animals, with notions of "the power of the individual" being inefficient, or flat-out detrimental, in the pursuit for long-term, stable human happiness and success. We are as ants--although without any natural social hierarchy--with a subconscious desire built into our very essence to ensure the survival and well-being of our species.

Critiques of individualism are best to be found in criticisms of the foundations of liberalism. Communitarianism is one such criticism that sees liberalism and individualism as neglecting the collective good and how social relationships play a large role in defining the individual as viewed by liberal individualism. Another critique of course being the Marxist one but there are many of them.

Also, presuming by altruism we mean aiding someone else at no gain or even a cost to oneself, then human beings are not particularly altruistic. Some psychologists have gone as far to claim 'pure altruism' doesn't exist.

And human beings have evolved into a social network nothing like that of ants due to an entirely different method of reproduction. Evolutionary features (those 'essential' to the human race) are tempered simply by the genes most able to survive. There is no place for the good of the species in this struggle to reproduce.



This ties into my views on individuality, in which I believe what distinguishes a person as an "individual" holds no value and will become, in time, an outdated concept; for every person, there are at least 1,000 more in the world just like him or her. I do not view myself as a unique, pretty little snowflake, nor do I view others as such, and I do not see how holding such a view is important for sustaining human happiness (If anything, would we not be happier shedding the fruitless, non-conformist pursuit for individuality?).

you mention your aim as human happiness. This is an essentially individual good (as opposed to, say, honour, tradition or religious devotion) as it is only experienced at the individual level. Denunciating the individual whilst declaring happiness to be our aim is paradoxical. And everyone is unique. Rather they as an individual, their experiences, desires, beliefs and emotions are experienced purely from their position and is unaccessible to others.


In the end, I hope that as transhumanism kicks in and we enter a post-hierarchy, post-scarcity communist society, we also shed our notions of individuality and the worth of the individual, moving toward becoming a single mind composed of many bodies (A sort of non-hierarchical hive mind). In such a state of existence, we would find true immortality, and ever-lasting happiness, I think.

As long as we're limited by evolutionary dictates (the human body and privacy of the mental for example) this remains a pipe dream.

There is a great deal to be criticised about political and philosophical individualism but to go further is to sweep away from under you the basis of all progressive struggle. The desire to see humans living better, happier lives. All experienced at the level of the individual.

[Mr. Gorilla]

And what about people who wouldn't want to join in?

The same answer for those capitalists who wouldn't want to join in a communist society.



But yeah. I look foward to the day when we all walk around w/ shaved heads, men and women alike, with color neutral clothing and computer chips implanted in our skulls with which we can receive orders from the glorious communist hivemind.

Assuming you're referring to my vision of the future, "receiving orders from the glorious communist hivemind" is kind-of a weird way to put it; would you regularly say you take orders from your own mind, assuming you are your own mind?

The thing about the hivemind is that it wouldn't be some weird dream where each drone is "controlled" or "ordered" to do things; to the perspective of each drone, the hive mind itself is its own mind (Think of each drone as a braincell in the hive mind "brain").

It would come about naturally, I think, through wireless telepathic communication augmentation; assuming a person is defined by his or her memories, if those barriers can be broken down and those memories can be shared with the population, you would effectively become immortal, in addition to becoming "one" with society.

You would lose your sense of individuality, sure, but I don't see how this would be detrimental to everyday function, or how it would inherently make you less happy.


THX-1138 was a utopian film, not dystopian!

THX-1138 is nothing like what I am describing, with the society portrayed in it being hierarchical enough to invalidate comparison.

Again, it's not being a "slave to the society;" it is being the society.

With that said, it's inherently unrealistic; it was a film developed by artists, not by those with an understanding of science, technology and human evolution, so it shouldn't be taken as a valid assessment of science, technology and human evolution.


Also, presuming by altruism we mean aiding someone else at no gain or even a cost to oneself, then human beings are not particularly altruistic. Some psychologists have gone as far to claim 'pure altruism' doesn't exist.

To clarify, I meant reciprocal altruism, where organisms acting "altruistic" would be evolutionarily beneficial (Nice Guys Finish First does a pretty good job of explaining it if you want to check it out in more detail).

[robbo203]

As a perspective on this subject its worth reading Louis Dumont, author of Homo Hierarchus (mainly about the Indian caste system). Dumont makes a dichotomy between holistic (traditional) societies and individualistic (modern) societies in which society and the individual have paramount value respectively. Controversially he argues that holism entails hierarchy and individualism entails equality. Here we are not talking about empirical or economic equality but in the sense of the essential value of the individual per se. Hence the precept that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. The argument for human rights essentially springs from an individualist mindset. Dumont places Marx and Marxism squarely within the individualist tradition despite its collectivist bias. He also has some interesting comments on fascist ontology

On the question of individualism vis-a-vis individuality , the one would seem to me to be more externally or outwardly oriented in ther sense of us being economic actors or agents concerned with our own self interest whereas the other is more subjective and inwardly directed. That at any rate is the basis on which Abercrombie & co make a distinction in their excellent book Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism

[Os Cangaceiros]

THX-1138 is nothing like what I am describing, with the society portrayed in it being hierarchical enough to invalidate comparison.

Tune up your sarcasm detector.

[Tatarin]

The same answer for those capitalists who wouldn't want to join in a communist society.

That's different. First, it is only a minority in the world who are capitalists, most are workers in one form or another. Second, we're aiming at changing economic relations to a mode in where everyone will benefit, not fuse together humans into one big organism.


You would lose your sense of individuality, sure, but I don't see how this would be detrimental to everyday function, or how it would inherently make you less happy.

What is the point at aiming at this kind of structure? No one knows if a hive-mind would make anyone happy, even itself. How can it, if you're hearing your neighbours all the time?

[Mr. Gorilla]

That's different. First, it is only a minority in the world who are capitalists, most are workers in one form or another.

I think the people who would oppose human augmentation/posthumanism will be in the minority once the bourgeoisie's reign of ignorance falls.


Second, we're aiming at changing economic relations to a mode in where everyone will benefit, not fuse together humans into one big organism.

I think they go hand-in-hand, and benefit eachother. A communist, anarchist gift economy society would allow for such technology to arise at a much faster pace, and such technology could help ensure the stability of a society such as that.


What is the point at aiming at this kind of structure?

There is immortality and the virtual impossibility of complete destruction of a collection of experiences/memories, for one, which is a pretty big plus.

There is also the processing power we could achieve through linking together to create a massive supercomputer; the rate of technological growth and scientific achievement could accelerate so fast in this vast network of human cloud computing that we won't even be able to measure it (Imagine being able to perform billions of complex calculations in your head, consciously, every split-second, and distributing the results among the masses in a split-second; this would be what we'd be aiming for).


No one knows if a hive-mind would make anyone happy, even itself.

It could very well; emotions are just a bunch of chemical interactions in your brain, so if we had complete control/mastery over them, we could simply program ourselves to never feel pain/misery/whatever again.

Everyone inducted into the hive mind would literally be happy for all eternity (Unless, of course, we evolve beyond the need for emotions, in which case we feel nothing).


How can it, if you're hearing your neighbours all the time?

It's less as if you're hearing your neighbours and more as if you are your neighbours (And vice versa, what with their experiences being yours and your experiences being theirs).

[Desperado]

The same answer for those capitalists who wouldn't want to join in a communist society.


No, forcing the end of oppression is not an oppression. If you stop a slaveowner from owning slaves you are not being totalitarian or anti the individual.

As stated besides, the individual/collective dichotomy is a false one.

[Tatarin]

I think the people who would oppose human augmentation/posthumanism will be in the minority once the bourgeoisie's reign of ignorance falls.

Not necessarily. There is no oppression to be removed with such augmentation. I'm not an enemy of robotic legs and arms for everyone who needs it, but I doubt people would jump into fusion with one another. Not unless there is clear evidence that such "upgrades" to humanity will really be better and make everyone happy, not just more efficient.


I think they go hand-in-hand, and benefit eachother. A communist, anarchist gift economy society would allow for such technology to arise at a much faster pace, and such technology could help ensure the stability of a society such as that.

Unless posthumanism happens in capitalism, communism will be established first before any such technology emerge, I agree. However, a communist society would mean stability itself. Even today in accidents and storms and such, people are very altruistic and selfless (okay, not every person maybe).


There is immortality and the virtual impossibility of complete destruction of a collection of experiences/memories, for one, which is a pretty big plus.

Then what would be the point of living? What would be the point of art or music? Ideas would be known by everyone at the very conception of it, and none would be expressed (why would it?). What of love? Satisfaction? It sounds like a creature that just "exists" because it doesn't want to die. Psychologically speaking, expression is a must for people, we need our individuality as persons, but that doesn't mean we need unequal and unjust societies to live in.


There is also the processing power we could achieve through linking together to create a massive supercomputer; the rate of technological growth and scientific achievement could accelerate so fast in this vast network of human cloud computing that we won't even be able to measure it (Imagine being able to perform billions of complex calculations in your head, consciously, every split-second, and distributing the results among the masses in a split-second; this would be what we'd be aiming for).

Like the previous question; why? People are not demonstrating when social benefits are cut because they aren't allowed to know, but because they aren't allowed to live. Would you really want to change life into just being born to know and calculate at ever faster rates? Calculate what? Know what? What then, if we really can't expand into space, if we're stuck on this planet because it is too costly (in terms of resources) and too great distances to ever colonize other worlds? You'd have a planet with a supercomputer. Where's the life?


It could very well; emotions are just a bunch of chemical interactions in your brain, so if we had complete control/mastery over them, we could simply program ourselves to never feel pain/misery/whatever again.

So that's what life would be? Then if a comet strikes, those who died will be regarded as mere flesh who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?


Everyone inducted into the hive mind would literally be happy for all eternity (Unless, of course, we evolve beyond the need for emotions, in which case we feel nothing).

Again you must answer what will happen to people who refuse.


It's less as if you're hearing your neighbours and more as if you are your neighbours (And vice versa, what with their experiences being yours and your experiences being theirs).

Then that would be way beyond human. Where would I be? I would be one-sixbillionth of this mind. Or nothing. I just can't see this happening without further evidence that it will indeed be better, or that I will be happy in it. And I would defenitely want a demo of it before anything. Sure, if it was a decision between life and death, I would, but not willingly without evidence.

[hunca665]

I like it

[RexCactus]

Individualism is a term that has meaning only to where it is applied. The rights and liberties of the individual ought be protected and defended over and alongside the rights of the collective (as Locke's inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property [seen through a distinctly Marxist lens] are individualistic in nature). The individual must remain unique, empowered by self-determination, and set apart from society as equal, but not identical. Government ought uphold this policy socially, by donning a laissez-faire stance on social liberties (or at least mostly "hands-off") by permitting virtually any action that does not directly and inherently infringe upon the same rights of others. For, by doing the opposite, and collectivising the entire national body of citizens, you approach the dangerous application of Fascist social structure under the State, where the individual does not matter at all and is merely a tool among others of the State.

Economically, individualism should be upheld, but not nearly to the extent of the social sphere. Whereas the means of production should certainly be publicly owned, representation of this ownership by a State entity is counter-productive. Rather, intervention to restructure the current "private sector" from a corporate model into a democratically-controlled co-operative model, which would suppress the class-based oppression resulting from extreme economic self-determination, the pinnacle of Liberalism, which places the bourgeois above the proletariat in all walks of life. Following the restructuring, government should back off, allowing economic flourishing through participatory Socialism and decentralised planning of the workers of their respective industries, while poised to leap in should obvious problems occur. This further is the preferable way to support the individual, as Statism has always collectivised humanity, thus stripping us of our humanity, likening us to tools of the State.

I emphasise this importance as, to suppress individualism in favour of collectivisation, a strong, centralised government, dominated by individuals who are either briefly exempt or totally immune to the collectivisation. This is the nomenklatura, a new class of government bureaucracy that has been epitomised by the Sovyet Union and the People's Republic of China. This perpetuates class struggle by further repressing proletarian goals in the interest of the State and its ruling class. For a Socialist State to succeed without dissolving into Authoritario-Totalitarian chaos, individualism must be upheld and defended by all members of society at all moments.

[Tenka]

No matter how collectivist you view yourself, it is only through conscious personal effort that anything gets done. We can either have people accept socialism, or impose it upon them. If the former, you have to make it appealing to them as an individual.

Individualism v collectivism is a false dichotomy. There is no such distinction in the real world.
I agree, except the false dichotomy is not between Individualism and Collectivism. That is a very real dichotomy as those two -isms are very much at odds (Individual is #1 vs. Collective/Community/Humanity is #1). The false dichotomy is between Individuality and Collectivism.

[CommunityBeliever]

Unless posthumanism happens in capitalism, communism will be established first before any such technology emerge, I agree. However, a communist society would mean stability itself. Even today in accidents and storms and such, people are very altruistic and selfless (okay, not every person maybe).

I agree with that point. Our current focus should be on eliminating our artificial "borders" between nations in order to construct a world socialist society that is able to harness the energy of the Earth and the colonise the rest of the Earth (Antarctica, the Sahara desert, etc) in order to create a Kardashev-1 civilisation.

Once that is done, we will have to begin to transition to a Kardashev-2 civilisation by colonising our solar system and the rest of outer space. However, the naturally evolved biology of human animals is entirely optimised for the conditions of the Earth (specifically the tropic rainforests). This will lead to the need for posthumanism in a communist society and an important part of posthumanism is group minds. I suspect that most civilisations transcend the constraints of natural evolution around the time that they begin to colonise outside their planet.


Again you must answer what will happen to people who refuse.

Nothing. Nobody said anything about forcing a mental collectivisation on people, and even there was a group that was attempting that in some area, there will probably be personal interstellar spacecraft at this stage so you will just be able to run away to a safe area. Nothing really to worry about.

[Mr. Gorilla]

Then what would be the point of living? What would be the point of art or music? Ideas would be known by everyone at the very conception of it, and none would be expressed (why would it?). What of love? Satisfaction? It sounds like a creature that just "exists" because it doesn't want to die. Psychologically speaking, expression is a must for people, we need our individuality as persons, but that doesn't mean we need unequal and unjust societies to live in.

Was there ever a "point" in the first place, though? I'm perfectly fine and happy, even with the cosmic knowledge that I, as an individual, am completely insignificant and that life in general is meaningless (Or "pointless") on a cosmic scale. Life would have never started up in the first place if we needed absolute meaning to ensure happiness or relative success.

But I really don't see how immortality and the permanent preservation of human memory would make life any more "pointless" than it really is (If anything, it would have the opposite effect on a small, human scale, while life will remain just as pointless on a cosmic scale).


Like the previous question; why? People are not demonstrating when social benefits are cut because they aren't allowed to know, but because they aren't allowed to live. Would you really want to change life into just being born to know and calculate at ever faster rates? Calculate what? Know what? What then, if we really can't expand into space, if we're stuck on this planet because it is too costly (in terms of resources) and too great distances to ever colonize other worlds? You'd have a planet with a supercomputer. Where's the life?

Isn't human experience just a bunch of calculations in our brains in the first place?

The only difference between an organism and a machine is that the organism happened by accident.


So that's what life would be? Then if a comet strikes, those who died will be regarded as mere flesh who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

That's kinda how society already works, unless you specifically knew the people who died in that scenario.

In the case of a hive mind, though, no one would really "die" in that scenario; sure, the physical bodies would be destroyed, but in the eyes of the hive mind (Remember, everyone is everyone else, what with memories being shared and distributed across every mind in existence), it's a mere scratch on the knee.


Again you must answer what will happen to people who refuse.

If they don't want to be part of the society, fine (If we forced it on them we would be just as bad as the fascists), but that would be silly; who would reject a perceived (Given that we could have full control over our perceptions) utopia?


Then that would be way beyond human.

Which is the goal, yes; to become better than human.


Where would I be? I would be one-sixbillionth of this mind. Or nothing.

You wouldn't be a "mere fraction" or "nothing;" you would become the hive mind, and so would everyone else.

Imagine suddenly seeing and remembering things everyone else sees and remembers, and continue to do so indefinitely. It would seem to you as if you suddenly developed omniscience; however, everyone else did, simultaneously, and the network is allowing everyone to constantly share the mentioned data. For all intents and purposes, everyone is now the same person.

The only scenario in which people would still remain "different" and have separate "consciousnesses" would require the existence of a soul or something to that effect, but as there isn't any empirical evidence or strong reason in favour of the existence of a soul, we shouldn't have to take that into account.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think the people who would oppose human augmentation/posthumanism will be in the minority once the bourgeoisie's reign of ignorance falls.


Ahhhh.....no.

I like being a finite, imperfect, human. I just want communism, not to become something other than what I already am.

[Mr. Gorilla]

I like being a finite, imperfect, human.

Why is that?


I just want communism, not to become something other than what I already am.

There is no such thing as a static entity. The person that you are today is a different person from the person that you were a year ago as well as the one you were yesterday, as well as the one you were a split-second ago.

[Leftsolidarity]

Why is that?


Because I am comfortable with the fact that I am not perfect and won't live forever. It is what makes me, me.



There is no such thing as a static entity. The person that you are today is a different person from the person that you were a year ago as well as the one you were yesterday, as well as the one you were a split-second ago.

I don't think that involves any of the nonsense that was being talked about before. I am still a human, am I not? I'd like to stay that way.

[Mr. Gorilla]

Because I am comfortable with the fact that I am not perfect and won't live forever. It is what makes me, me.

How does it make you "you" when it's something that every other organism has in common?

The fact of the matter is that, again, there really isn't anything that makes you "you," as a static entity, because we are not static entities. The closest thing we have to preserving individuality and quantifying it is our memories, but even those change with time; you are going to remember different things today than the person who was walking in your shoes yesterday.

With this in mind, I really don't see where you are coming from.


I don't think that involves any of the nonsense that was being talked about before. I am still a human, am I not? I'd like to stay that way.

The point is that you were talking about becoming something different than what you were, when such talk is in essence silly because the quantities of data that we refer to as our "selves" are constantly being manipulated and changed.

I don't see what's so great about being human, and why you want to stay that way, when there are really no benefits to remaining human if given the choice.

[Leftsolidarity]

I don't see what's so great about being human, and why you want to stay that way, when there are really no benefits to remaining human if given the choice.
:rolleyes:

Haha basically where we differ here. I don't understand your sci-fi ideas of one day becoming something other than human. I like being human, I just don't like the way humans interact with each other right now.