Narcissistic Communism

[Capitalist Octopus]

So I have an idea for an article, wanted to run it by you guys first, see your thoughts. The article will either be written for a Marxist site, but more likely, for a campus level paper.
Basically the thought is, that on campuses at least, the perception of communism (or far left politics in general) is that it’s a bunch of holier than thou people attempting to be morally right all the time, saving the world, basically liberal utopianism.

Part of this is due to the fact that the on campus dialogue of far left politics often leaves out the idea of class interests as a motivation for class struggle and thus communism.
My article will begin by explaining the idea of class interest. It will explain that for the bourgeois 1% class, capitalism is in their material interest. It is unlikely that they will ever prosper materially again like they are right now. So unless you judge value of life by something non material, capitalism is best for the bourgeois.

Then it will say that these people are the exception, for most of the rest of the world, communism is in their class interest. It will explain why. I think that there’s no human nature, merely trends that arise from material conditions. So what we see in capitalism comes from it. But, I do think that there’s something innate in the sense that most people will want to have enough to eat, live comfortably, etc. And then expand from that. This isn’t saying that people are greedy, but just that they want to not starve, break their backs daily, etc

Communism is what offers this. It may not offer the possibilities of massive material advancement like capitalism, but that can only work out for a few people anyways.
To summarize up to here, communism isn’t based on moral saving the world. Class interest is the base, and for most people, communism works in their class interest. So you don’t have to be a self disregarding saint to be a communist. In fact, if you’re most focused about your material interests, communism will probably still be best for you.

Then I want to say that becoming a communist isn’t so much a question of changing your interests, but having a different perception of what the best way to achieve them is. The American dream idea has been a horrible block against this because it leaves everyone thinking they will be millionaires. To quote, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

Essentially, analyze your material situation honestly. Don’t fall into utopian dreaming that keeps you believing you will “make it”. You don’t have to be Ghandi to be a communist.

I hope this makes sense? My outline for the article makes it a lot more clear but I tried to paraphrase a bit. I just think it’s an important idea to discuss, class interest, because it often gets lost in the pseudo socialist ramblings of utopian liberals. I know that happened to me for a while, but Rafiq was great in changing that lol. Two more things, this article will be written in an easy to read style. Not overloaded jargon like this post. And the title of the thread is for the article, I don’t think caring about your interests first makes you a narcissist. Finally, I know this is pretty basic stuff for people on this website, but for a centre right paper which has an audience of largely self interested business students, it might be something new.

[Positivist]

Sounds pretty good. It may be helpful to site mainstream anthropologists/sociologists/scientists who critidcize the idea of a fixed human nature, and its probably best if the anthropologist is apolitical so citing them cant be turned into "but they're a communist too" or "but they also support (insert something anti-communist)".

It may also be good to explain that the systems of governance that emerged under the USSR, China Cuba, etc were/are not communist.

But overall I think its a great idea to explain why communism is in most peoples interest. And I'd reccomend that you don't limit your argument to economic interests either. Also expalin how crime, pollution, resource depletion social conflict, and other things will be reduced and ultimately eliminated in a communist society. But definitely keep the economic factors in there.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Sounds pretty good. It may be helpful to site mainstream anthropologists/sociologists/scientists who critidcize the idea of a fixed human nature, and its probably best if the anthropologist is apolitical so citing them cant be turned into "but they're a communist too" or "but they also support (insert something anti-communist)".

It may also be good to explain that the systems of governance that emerged under the USSR, China Cuba, etc were/are not communist.

But overall I think its a great idea to explain why communism is in most peoples interest. And I'd reccomend that you don't limit your argument to economic interests either. Also expalin how crime, pollution, resource depletion social conflict, and other things will be reduced and ultimately eliminated in a communist society. But definitely keep the economic factors in there.

Good idea on the citations. Do you have any links by any chance?

I'm going to focus mainly on economic for this article just because I think it's often overlooked, especially since the left has become so intertwined with identity politics, envionmentalism, etc (which isn't a bad thing, but you get what I mean)

I think one of the things that drew me to the elft was realizing that it wasn't in my economic interest to be right wing economically lol. Like, it wasn't in my interest. I discovered that during my first job. This isn't to say that I only care about myself, but that acted as a spark of sorts.

[Mr. Natural]

Capitalist Octopus, Be careful not to step on "utopianism," for communism holds visions of a realized human future. Positivist pointed to some of these other-than-economic visions that engage and energize people.

So did Marx. "Communism as the positive transcendence of private property, or human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., 'human') being--a return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man .... Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts.

In this passage, Marx stresses the "utopian" motivations for communism. Marx and Engels, Marxism, communism, etc., are all about human liberation, and this needs to be stressed, not squelched. So long as such "utopian" visions are rooted in real material relations, they are communist, not utopian.

I also believe the whole question of class and class-based revolution needs to be revisited, and that Marx and Engels would do so. "Class" refers to a socio-economic group's relation to the means of production, and capitalism's means of production have now gone global and enveloped the human species and Mother Nature. Capitalism was developing in Marx's day, and now it is "mature." Who is the proletariat now?

Good luck on your paper. Whatever your take on class is, though, I would surely stress the "utopian" benefits of a communist future. And thanks for your commitment and energy.

My red-green best.

[Ravachol]

In light of what you wrote, the following might be an interesting piece too: http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything. It was written in 1974 by the situationist collective 'For Ourselves: Council for Generalized Self-Management' and outlines a sort of 'egoist communism', a synthesis between individualist desire and the communist project.



"Communist egoism" names the synthesis of individualism and collectivism, just as communist society names the actual, material, sensuous solution to the historical contradiction of the "particular" and the "general" interest, a contradiction engendered especially in the cleavage of society against itself into classes.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Capitalist Octopus, Be careful not to step on "utopianism," for communism holds visions of a realized human future. Positivist pointed to some of these other-than-economic visions that engage and energize people.

So did Marx. "Communism as the positive transcendence of private property, or human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., 'human') being--a return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully-developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully-developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man .... Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts.

In this passage, Marx stresses the "utopian" motivations for communism. Marx and Engels, Marxism, communism, etc., are all about human liberation, and this needs to be stressed, not squelched. So long as such "utopian" visions are rooted in real material relations, they are communist, not utopian.

I also believe the whole question of class and class-based revolution needs to be revisited, and that Marx and Engels would do so. "Class" refers to a socio-economic group's relation to the means of production, and capitalism's means of production have now gone global and enveloped the human species and Mother Nature. Capitalism was developing in Marx's day, and now it is "mature." Who is the proletariat now?

Good luck on your paper. Whatever your take on class is, though, I would surely stress the "utopian" benefits of a communist future. And thanks for your commitment and energy.

My red-green best.

Very good point. Thanks.

[Capitalist Octopus]

In light of what you wrote, the following might be an interesting piece too: http://libcom.org/library/right-be-greedy-theses-practical-necessity-demanding-everything. It was written in 1974 by the situationist collective 'For Ourselves: Council for Generalized Self-Management' and outlines a sort of 'egoist communism', a synthesis between individualist desire and the communist project.

I've seen this posted quite a few times before but I don't think I have ever read it. I will give it a look. Thank you!

[Mr. Natural]

Ravachol, That is a most interesting link you provided--and massive. I'm going to have to read it in its entirety, for it centers on a favorite theme of mine: human beings as social individuals and communism as the means for the self-realization of human social individuals.

I don't want to detour the OP, and am wondering if you might want to start a thread on your link, perhaps with a "social individual" focus.

A couple of observations on this theme. The new sciences of organization I am constantly and futiley promoting have a general term for life's organization, which is a "social individual" organization. The term is "collective adaptation to individual ends." This describes communism, as well as the organization of life. Life is a communal systemic process. Life is communist; communism is natural.

I also consider the human species as an "individual" within the overall life process with its myriad species. The human species, too, must function as a social individual in the sense that it must find its realization within the life process and must not significally oppose nature's "communist" organizational relations.

Capitalist organization opposes the organization of life and represents the capture of the social individual by the "society." Think 1984.

My red-green best.