Communism: Positive and Negative Freedom

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Hello all, I have been thinking all day about this post and I think I need to point out a few things.

I am not a communist although I believe it would if possible be the perfect society. I dont believe its possibly due to the threat of beacracy, dictatorship etc amongst other reasons relating to human nature. But that is for another thread. I am a Social Democrat for the record.

Now I want people to remember that this is taken from a philosophical perspective so please no one liner rehtoric posts about evils of capitalism or infallibility of communism.

Here goes:

These views are based on Isiah Berlin's essay Two Concepts of Liberty and I will back it up in replies by John Rawls two essays The Right and the Good and Justice as Fairness.

Definitions of freedom -

Negative freedom:


'What is the area within the subject...is or should be left to do or be without the interference of others?' ( Berlin uses questions as definitions).

Berlin is here arguing for a paticular model of freedom (not equality or justice) and alludes to the uselessness of freedom to the poor.

This definition is basically one relating to the absence of coercion. If no one is coercing you then you are free in this negative sense of freedom. Negative freedom is freedom from obstacle or restraint.

Positive freedom:


'What or who, is the source of control of interference that can determine what someone is to do, or be, this rather than that'.

The individual wants to be master. This generally amounts to the idea of self mastery.

Freedom from the coercion of others or from impulse. (Problems arise with those who cant think rationally such as the mentally retarded).

Freedom is to exercise control over your own life, you are free in the positve sense if you actually exercise control and not free if you dont, even if you are not actually restrained in any way.

True freedom lies in self realisation through individuals making their own choices. Berlin maintains that the positive conception of freedom can be used to liscence all sorts of unjust coercion.

Here is a crucial point I think: The idea of freedom is central to any viable political philosophy, any one without freedom will be rejected.






Now I want some criticism if you will of either form of liberty/freedom and want to know whether you think either are compatible with communism.

I have a lot more to say but just to throw this out out of curiosity.

[cubist]

i think the concept of freedom is as very intrical item,

you will never be truly free no matter the idealogy, one will always have to face the consequence of one actions.


as a person existing in capitalism, i can say i am free, i am ontop of financial circumstances, (unlucky Mr Cappy PIG i paid off all my debts i don't owe you shit, for now anyway.)i go to work to live my life revolves around my work, but that will always happen no matter which ideology is in place. after working how ever i can spend my money, save my money, sleep eat play drink smoke pot go out on the rob, murder, rape, anything the only constant is work, how ever many of those affor mentioned activities will have bad consequences (actual restriction of freedoms through the judicial system)

its not freedom to say hey fuck work i will go to london today but name an ideology where that is possible,

in communism if you don't go to work you let the people down and have to fast them, in anarchy you let the nation down in all ideals work must be done, and consequences of actions taken by the person will occur.

so really you are never free, the matter is everyone should be as free as the next person and that is what communism is about

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

i think the concept of freedom is as very intrical item

Sorry, Im not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify? What is your definition of freedom.


you will never be truly free no matter the idealogy, one will always have to face the consequence of one actions.

Why does freedom have to be brought about by an ideology? Secondly why cant we be free even facing the consequences of our actions?


its not freedom to say hey fuck work i will go to london today but name an ideology where that is possible,

In any ideology you can just stop working and go to London.


in communism if you don't go to work you let the people down and have to fast them, in anarchy you let the nation down in all ideals work must be done, and consequences of actions taken by the person will occur.

Why do you equate freedom with the effects of your actions on others, I thought it would be the other way around.


so really you are never free, the matter is everyone should be as free as the next person and that is what communism is about

If you are never free then how are we to be free under communism?

Why should we all be free anyway?

I'm sorry this really interests me and I am going to be very critical but I hope constructively so.

Plus if you can offer some critiques of what I posted that would be helpful.

;)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Just wondering if anybody else has any feedback, this is a topic that really interests me.

[monkeydust]

Freedom....one of the most complex concepts to understand, 'positive' and 'negative' freedom are two branches under which to categorise ideas, though it's not a very practical categorisation.

I personally think that any distinguishment is a confusion of language.

If one is free from something, they are invariably free to do something else, conversely being free to do something is often inseperable from being free from something else.

Being free to have an education is equivalent to being free from ignorance; being free from taxation simply means free to spends one's money as one wishes.

Much more effective is MacCallum's value free concept of freedom.

Essentially X is free from Y to do or be Z.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 07:38 PM






Freedom....one of the most complex concepts to understand, 'positive' and 'negative' freedom are two branches under which to categorise ideas, though it's not a very practical categorisation.

They are Berlin's concepts, they are a cateragorisation that I find are justified. What are do you see as problematic or non-practical aboput them?


I personally think that any distinguishment is a confusion of language.

Why so, I dont see the confusion in language with the terms he uses, can you point them out?



If one is free from something, they are invariably free to do something else, conversely being free to do something is often inseperable from being free from something else.

What about coercion from others? Are we free then?

I am sorry but I am not sure once again along with cephas what you are getting at.

This is important to me so I am being very critical.

[monkeydust]

I am sorry but I am not sure once again along with cephas what you are getting at.

What I am getting at is this:

In a broad sense, positive freedom can be defined as freedom to. The ability to do something. Thus freedom to go where one wishes, freedom to say what one wants and freedom to spend one's money as one wishes are all positive freedoms.

Negative freedom relates to a freedom from something. Freedom from taxes, freedom from opression and freedom from exploitation are basic examples.

My problem with distinguishing between the two is that nearly all 'freedoms' can be expressed in both positive and negative terms, thus I consider classifying freedoms as either 'positive' or 'negative' rather meaningless.

Freedom to go where one wishes, or freedom of movement is often categorised as an essentially 'positive' freedom. However if can also be expresed in negative terms being free from anyone restricitng or inhibitng movement.

In the same way freedom of speech may be classed as both a positive and negative freedom. You are free to] say what you want, and free from anyone who would wish to prevent this.

I feel that most 'freedoms' tend to encompass both 'positive' and 'negative' aspects. Trying to classify freedoms according to these two categorisations seems rather meaningless to me.

[SittingBull47]

freedom as an idealogy? i'd say it's an instinct that exists in everybody. some don't bother with it, as they think it's a waste of time to become absolutely independent. others pursue freedom relentlessly, and they are called "idealists". why not just call them "instinctists"? (or, a better word along those lines....)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Nobody here is arguing for freedom as ideology.

Left thats for clarifying, your second post was veryy good.

The reason he defines freedom is this sense is that as long as there is coercion to do something you may not want to do then you cannot be free, coercion from state for example. He is arguing that any ideology that puts equality before freedom will get neither as another philosopher of politics so aptly put it.

My view on communism is that freedom is sacrificed for equality, what would you say to this?

[Wenty]

My view on communism is that freedom is sacrificed for equality

Is this communism in theory or practice?

In theory I don't think communism stops people from being 'free', in that vague sense of the word. If we're thinking of freedom of speech, of elections and so forth than why not? I think a better definition of the type of equality is needed, a definition that would deem that statement worthy perhaps.

Are we thinking of equality in the sense that seeming as we're living in this utopia we don't need or require the freedoms that Capitalism offers?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Freedom not to be coerced by others into doing anything you dont want to.

I realise of course that this is the main flaw in capitalism but at the same time it dosent exempt communism. I fear that the abolition of private property may in fact be a lack of freedom although I may in more than two minds over that one.

My definition of freedom with regards to communism is both positive and negative, I dont think either suits communism.

I also mean in practise.

[monkeydust]

This is a very interesting topic.


My view on communism is that freedom is sacrificed for equality, what would you say to this?

In a sense you are correct.

Communism would not allow any one person universal freedom, to do what he or she wanted. One would not for instance, be able to buy someones labour, or to try and better one's circumastances through 'hoarding' of resources.

On the other hand, almost everybody would have a considerable level of freedom. I presume that everybody will have a 'good' standard of living, no single person would be realistically 'unfree', tied down by 'wage slavery'.

There's a key issue at the heart of this debate: To what extent can one mans freedom be the cause for anothers opression?

Classical Liberals and laissez faire capitlaists were more than willing to allow people a great deal of formal freedom. In practice however, the ulitmate freedom of the few was undermined by the effective enslavement of the many.

In many 19th century Industrialised nations 'the people' were free from any formal inhibition to dowhat they wanted. This resulted in the organic growth of society to produce little substantial freedom to the working classes. How free were factory workers?

What I am getting at is that unlimited freedom cannot be achieved for everyone. I believe that there has to be some restriction on actions, in order to guarantee the freedom of the many.

In this sense, a Marxist might argue that Communism does not allow any one individual unlimited freedom, but the cumulative freedom of the many vastly outweighs that of any other system.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I'll wait for more opinions but I must say Left, that was an excellent reply.

[cubist]

freedom, is not an ideal i never said that i am saying no matter the ideal freedom with never get any better,

you must always face the consequences of your choices.

someone will always not like what you do and they're freedom is to not see what you do happen, so a margin will always be drawn, people will all have to agree on what is isn't acceptable and there you go freedom is restricted.


the freedom we really want is the freedom to live, and read unedited impartial news stories on the world, so that we can make real choices on national issues.
and thats something capitalism can't allow which is why i am a socialist

[El Che]

This thread is suppost to be a criticism of communism, yet I see no criticism. I gather that you somehow consider there would be a lack of freedom in communism but you do not tell me how you come to that conclusion. You define your first concept, freedom, but you do not define your second concept, communism, nor explain how the two are incompatible. Perhaps this is suppost to be obvious, well to me it is not.


True freedom lies in self realisation through individuals making their own choices.-Geist

The fist, rather obvious, thing to point out is that in civilized society one is never completely free to make "one's own choices". You are not free to murder another human being for example. The real question, then, is in determining what choices one should be free to make by gauging if freedom to conflicts with someone else's, preceding, freedom from.

Freedom to murder vs freedom from being murdered. Freedom to exploit others vs freedom from being exploited.

Beyond that, I would tell you that communism is all about giving people the freedom to be what they want. It is about the realization of one and all. It is about freeing the majority of humanity from the coercion of poverty. The great majority of humanity is free not to choose wage slavery but they aren't free from being coerced into choosing it.

Your definition of freedom is actually very useful in explaining how capitalism, and therefore 'social democracy', is essential aint-human and oppressive. In that one is "coerced" into wage slavery by the powers that be and is in that sense impeded from fully realizing himself in countless ways. To eliminate this coercion is to make the great majority of humanity freer. In other words, to eliminate this coercion is to give the great majority of humanity more options.

[cubist]

Your definition of freedom is actually very useful in explain how capitalism, and therefore 'social democracy', is essential aint-human and oppressive. In that one is "coerced" into wage slavery by the powers that be and is in that sense impeded from fully realizing himself in countless ways. To eliminate this coercion is to make the great majority of humanity freer. In other words, to eliminate this coercion is to give the great majority of humanity more options

genius, El Che.

but was that thread at all directed at my post? if so what bit sorry.


Geist


In any ideology you can just stop working and go to London.

yes, but in capitalism, that is viewed as AWOL leads to disiplinary records wich taints pay improvements, CV's or something else in your life which matters,


in communism, you let the nation down, your comrades those that work to keep you alive. or at least thats what i think

[El Che]

Thanks cephas. No, it was all directed at Giest.

[peaccenicked]

When it comes down to the nitty gritty. Freedom is the recognition of necessity.
Ignoring it is totally capitalistic and beyond any of the requirements of true individualism. This ignorance is the birthplace of all disunity,sectarianism, and ultimately the poverty of leadership. The utter pretence that one is not part of it is ABSOLUTE cowardice.
Negative freedom is merely a bourgeois abstraction in a world starved of liberty and economic justice.
Positive freedom is know exactly the nature of the enemy.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 6 2004, 08:31 PM







This thread is suppost to be a criticism of communism, yet I see no criticism.

It is not a critique of communism more so a critique of communism's loose definitions of what freedom entails and whether coercion is involved in capitalism. Also the notoin of putting equality before freedom.


I gather that you somehow consider there would be a lack of freedom in communism but you do not tell me how you come to that conclusion.

I am being vague for a reason, I am simply putting forward to concepts of freedom/justice and seeing whether they equate with peoples concepts of freedom here, from a communists perspective. I have a reason for this but I dont want to express it as of yet. It is kind of an experiment on my part.


You define your first concept, freedom, but you do not define your second concept, communism, nor explain how the two are incompatible. Perhaps this is suppost to be obvious, well to me it is not.

There was no intention to show them as incompatible to see whether the versions of freedom expressed were compatible with communism. I dont feel the need to define communism on this board. I assume you all know what it means.


The fist, rather obvious, thing to point out is that in civilized society one is never completely free to make "one's own choices". You are not free to murder another human being for example. The real question, then, is in determining what choices one should be free to make by gauging if freedom to conflicts with someone else's, preceding, freedom from.

In a society there is agreed rules of rational choice on what should constitute the terms of justice and thus freedom. A theory on freedom requires no such agreement since each person is free to plan his life as he cooses aslong as he abides by the principles of justice or freedom.

I would point out that the benefit of different conceptions of what is freedom is that it allows others to develop life plans which as limited beings we cannot and yet wish to appreciate.

The evaluation of a persons idea of freedom depends largely on a huge range of empirical knowledge.


Beyond that, I would tell you that communism is all about giving people the freedom to be what they want. It is about the realization of one and all. It is about freeing the majority of humanity from the coercion of poverty. The great majority of humanity is free not to choose wage slavery but they aren't free from being coerced into choosing it.

Each person in a practise affected by it has an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all. Justice and freedom are a complex of three ideas, liberty, equality and reward for services contributing to the common good. It is neccessary that these are open to all. My worry is that under communism this idea is subverted with an unequal balance toward equality ignoring the other two. In Leninism for example the Vanguard ignores the principle for equal opportunity in my opinion anyway.




Your definition of freedom is actually very useful in explaining how capitalism, and therefore 'social democracy', is essential aint-human and oppressive.

I agree that they are, I am not defending capitalism. Marxist alienation springs to mind as perhaps a better way to show this dont you think.


In that one is "coerced" into wage slavery by the powers that be and is in that sense impeded from fully realizing himself in countless ways

What about being coerced into a communist society against your will, isnt your private property being taken away coercion, the same with collectivisation etc.

I must stress I am not trying to be glum here, in fact it is these worries that must be addressed I am sure you will all agree.


Good post by the way.

[El Che]

Geist,

We're trying to have a discussion here but you're holding out on us. You deliver your understanding of communism in piecemeal fashion. Be candid. No one is going to move against you if your views do not conform to the norm. I, for one, can see that you are concerned with the causes socialists champion but have, most likely, been made reticent in embracing it by the misinformation and lies that have been spread on the subject.

Communism is not aint-democratic nor aint-freedom as such. I'd be interested in discussing the issue at great length with you because democratic, libertarian values are one of the basic tenants of my philosophical outlook. If you go back to the originals, back to Marx, with an open mind, I think you find that this idea of communism is not about less freedom but more freedom. In the true sense of the word, your sense. It is necessary to understand that these ideas emerged in a time and in a place, view them in the context of their time. But essentially this idea of communism is the only way out of a historical spiral of oppression and senseless brutality. Marxism does a good job of explaining reality but its track record is poor. It is necessary to rethink the communist project, moreso in that sense, in action. However, Marxism totally revolutionized its time and the world. It alone elevated 'political philosophy' to the category of respectable human endeavor. Its insights continue to be the base of the progressive Left upon which all else is constructed.


What about being coerced into a communist society against your will, isnt your private property being taken away coercion, the same with collectivisation etc.

-Geist

As I hinted at in my first post, you must decide whether or not freedom from being exploited precedes freedom to exploit.

If you are with me then you will agree that coercing a capitalist out of his property is no different than coercing a criminal into jail after he just murdered someone. That is the issue because beyond philosophical abstractions what is of interest is determining what is just. Marxists predicate their conception of justice on an understanding of social evolution which they use to point the way foward.


Good post by the way.

-Geist

Thank you.

[El Che]

Something important which I did not address:


Also the notion of putting equality before freedom.-Geist

And then


My worry is that under communism this idea is subverted with an unequal balance toward equality ignoring the other two.

Here you are really going to have to be more specific in telling me how socialist egalitarian proposals work against 'freedom' or 'liberty'.

At first glance it seems like sort of stereotypical misconception that abounds in popular culture. It is a myth. A strawman set up by the enemies of socialism, much like the idea that socialism is totalitarian in nature. Or the idea that communism stands for massification of people removing or deminishing their individual identities. None of it is true, they are simply lies put forth to demonize social justice.