Kant and communism???

[Trissy]

Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only

I'm not a great fan of the Categorical Imperative as a moral system but I got thinking about Kant's second formulation of the Categorical Imperative (see above) and the possible links this has with communism...

If we see Kant as critising Hypothetical Imperatives (i.e. if I want X I must do Y...if I want good grades, I must pay attention in lectures) because they involve self-interest, and as promoting Categorical Imperatives (i.e. do Y!...pay attention in lectures!) do to their lack of self-interest then can the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative be seen as promoting Communism over Capitalism?

Why do we perform jobs? A lot of the time we perform jobs because we desire money and material wealth. My job as a teacher, docter, politician, etc may well also be driven by a desire to help people but if it weren't for the wage then I probably wouldn't be able to do such a job. If this is the case then we could see jobs in a Capitalist society as being driven by self-interest and as violating the Second formulation as it involves people using other people merely as a means to an end. My desire for wealth means I use people as a means to an end whether this be through purchasing clothes made in a 3rd world country with slave labour or whether this be through educating classes of children...my desire for food and drink means I use people as a means to an end as well and so on.

However under Communism this would cease if everbody gave in accoradance to there ability and took in accordance with their needs. I'd be a teacher, a farmer, a police man because I had the ability to perform the tasks involved and because it inolves everyone doing their 'duty'. Of course there would still be a small percentage who would act using Hypothetical Imperatives but this would be far less prominent.

Anyway I was just wondering if anybody else had any thoughts on the matter because I haven't read too much Kant and I could easily be wrong considering it's just an idea I've been toying with.

[cubist]

Why do we perform jobs? A lot of the time we perform jobs because we desire money and material wealth

we perform jobs becuase society enslaved us to wages, inorder to survive we must work under the borgeoisie, we don't work in desire ofmaterial values, but in order to live we must work, material values premote class inside the proleteriat class itself, to create a competitive desire to chase wealth whilst still making the borgeoisie more money, its a the trap capitalism has held us in for in excess of 200 years.

maslow defined the 5 structures of needs both for in and out of the work place

1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc.

3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc.

4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc.

5. Self-Actualisation needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.



http://www.accel-team.com/images/maslow/maslow_01a.gif

another diagram of it is here (http://www.businessballs.com/maslowhierarchyofneeds5.pdf)

this has been evolved over the decades and has had aesthetic needs, though this is merely supportive of what capitalism has done it has made man have moer needs from the initial analyisis set out by maslow

see the 90's version here (http://www.businessballs.com/maslowhierarchyofneeds8.pdf)

its all strange but i feel that explains why we work

[percept¡on]

I agree with this statement by Kant, that we should in general treat people as ends rather than means, but if you take it in context with Kant's other formulations I would say it is rather antithetical to communism.

If you treat each man as an end, it would stand that taking from one group (the rich) in order to benefit another group (the poor) would be treating the first group as a means, which would be wrong. Kant asserts that to harm any individual for any reason, even if it benefits everyone else, is unjust. If you tax Bill Gates and use the revenue to build a school for the mentally challenged, in Kant's view you have committed an injustice.

So while I agree with the statement by itself, if you temper it with Kant's other beliefs it is very anti-utilitarian and reeks of libertarianism.