Che On Individualism

[4thInter]

What was Ernesto's view on Individualism? :che:

[BolshevikBabe]

Che was vehemently opposed to individualism, if I remember correctly. I personally think Marxist-Leninists have often failed to really apply the dialectical method to individualism, however, and I think a solution needs to be based in the fact that both individualism and "vulgar" collectivism are flawed viewpoints of the world.

Individualism tends to tie itself to subjectivism, pragmatism and voluntarism and gives the individual a great amount of sovereignty and autonomy that in reality doesn't exist. Vulgar collectivism on the other hand tends to act in a deterministic manner, it can't perceive collectivities as being formed out of material conditions and expressing certain interests. Classes are real materially existing collectives, whereas something like a nation-state is a metaphysical collectivity that exists out of a moral command, i.e. that one will serve their country (when posited in such a sense that it aims to flatten contradiction anyway)

The answer is to realize that the collective has primacy over the individual, but that the individual in turn influences the collective in numerous ways, and that communism has to be a system which while placing emphasis on classes and class struggle, also has a basis in the individual. Capitalism crushes individuality in all senses except in that which serves private property - there it encourages individuality to the point where it tries to break collective bonds.

[BIXX]

Individualism tends to tie itself to subjectivism, pragmatism and voluntarism and gives the individual a great amount of sovereignty and autonomy that in reality doesn't exist.

I don't believe most individualists give the individual the degree of freedom you talk of here. As far as I am aware they just call for it.

Also a lot of individualists seem to be obsessed with changing society for other folks, not just for themselves and their loved ones, which I find odd in an individualist. I would generally not classify that as individualism, but maybe that's the egoist in me that is tainting my viewpoint.

Overall I think you haven't done very much individualist reading, may I suggest a few things?

Renzo Novatore, Max Stirner, and Bruno Filippi. Alfredo M. Bonnano is also a good starting point, as I think it helps to come to individualism and egoism with an insurrectionary understanding.


The answer is to realize that the collective has primacy over the individual, but that the individual in turn influences the collective in numerous ways, and that communism has to be a system which while placing emphasis on classes and class struggle, also has a basis in the individual. Capitalism crushes individuality in all senses except in that which serves private property - there it encourages individuality to the point where it tries to break collective bonds.


I disagree. Though we aren't going to convince each other so if rather avoid a debate about this.

I see that I value myself and my loved ones above all else, and society itself is the enemy of our self-actualization.

[BolshevikBabe]

I don't believe most individualists give the individual the degree of freedom you talk of here. As far as I am aware they just call for it.

Also a lot of individualists seem to be obsessed with changing society for other folks, not just for themselves and their loved ones, which I find odd in an individualist. I would generally not classify that as individualism, but maybe that's the egoist in me that is tainting my viewpoint.

Overall I think you haven't done very much individualist reading, may I suggest a few things?

Renzo Novatore, Max Stirner, and Bruno Filippi. Alfredo M. Bonnano is also a good starting point, as I think it helps to come to individualism and egoism with an insurrectionary understanding.

I've read almost all of Stirner's works before, which is what reinforced a lot of my impression that individualism tends to fit with subjectivism, pragmatism and so forth. Certainly I wouldn't suggest individualism is completely moribund and anti-revolutionary, I just think it doesn't tend to harness revolutionary opportunities well and through its focus on the will over objective laws, can manifest itself in unrealistic ways.



I disagree. Though we aren't going to convince each other so if rather avoid a debate about this.

I see that I value myself and my loved ones above all else, and society itself is the enemy of our self-actualization.

Certainly one should value themself, but what I'm saying is that I don't think that's incompatible with a graduated collectivism that isn't just some kind of anti-individual vulgarity. It's difficult to really draw a firm line and say on this side is the individual, on the rest the collective etc. because the contradiction between individual and collective is obviously interpenetrative - a huge part of who we are as individuals is formed out of our experiences with environment and other individuals (as you point out w/r/t loved ones), while at the same time the individual can to some degree influence the direction of the external.

I see the collective as primary only because I think it tends to determine that which is individual - for example when analyzing history, I don't start from the viewpoint that it's a series of "great men" who directed history on its course and acted as an embodiment of the will of nations or ideologies or whatever - I think that's very much a liberal standpoint. Certainly individuals have played important roles in history, but it has stemmed out of their attachment to real material forces, especially classes.

[Tim Cornelis]

In the film Che (part one) it shows an excerpt of an interview in which Che talks about individualism. Not entirely sure where in the film it is, and maybe it was in part 2. But it's a good movie so you might as well watch it.

http://www.sockshare.com/file/7ZGTPFIC3TS0CO (oops, this is part II)

[RedWorker]

What the hell is individualism?

Nothing. It doesn't exist. It's a meaningless word used either by right-wing politicians who claim that communism somehow restricts individual people's rights or by crypto-fascist pseudo-communists who think communism means something like the Borgs or Stalin USSR.