Individualism

[{GR}Raine]

This is the arguement I hear, that communism takes away all individualism, and heres a snippet of an aim convo my friend and I had. these arent his beleifs, but he was helping to show me a point.

(talking about Marx)
GmMe8: right, but that didnt stop him from advocating a philosophy that was anti-individualism and illogical
GmMe8: a multitude of philosophers exists that argues
GmMe8: that the self is what we should focus on, that egotism is noble
GmMe8: that communism is the intellectual's opiate
GmMe8: how do you respond to the Nietzsches and the Rands of the world
GmMe8: that charge that pity is wrong, that pity weakens us, that communism is the idea that only results in mediocrity
mrwednesday4728: of course not, we simply want to make man equal on the scale of ecenomic terms. we should focus on everyone as a whole of course, and the individual is an important part of the whole.
GmMe8: why should males be equal on "the scale of economic terms?" we are naturally competitive, naturally creative, naturally greedy creatures
GmMe8: capitalism taps into all of that
GmMe8: and allows us to develop and progress our society
GmMe8: there is no need or reason for us to be economically equal
mrwednesday4728: because when we do that, people get exploited. we dont mind some people winning, but when other people work jsut as hard, yet may get fractions of what the winner gets.
GmMe8: but so what if people get exploited? people have the means and the talents available to them so that they are not exploited. if they are in fact exploited, then it is done by their own choice and espouses their own massive ignorance
GmMe8: see my point now? its not that easy to argue for communism
mrwednesday4728: but what about people born in say, africa? they were born into the poverty etc. they cant help it. And they certainly cant help themselves out of it.
GmMe8: its racist and ignorant to equate birth in africa with poverty. thats simply not true. if the economies in africa are stable and function properly, then anyone born in poverty possesses the means to become wealthy
GmMe8: btw, i dont agree with what im saying at all, but you wanted arguments
GmMe8: so here you go
mrwednesday4728: i was using africa as an example since that is one of the poorest and worst off places in the world.
GmMe8: right
mrwednesday4728: and the people cannot change their governments to function properly. the government has to. the people are ignorant by birth, not choice.
GmMe8: the people dominate the government
GmMe8: the government should not dominate the people
GmMe8: and what does this have to do with communism anyways?
GmMe8: we're discussing the merits of an economic system that equates income for everybody
mrwednesday4728: i dunno, we kinda got off eh?
GmMe8: and i am making the point that such an idea is flawed
GmMe8: lol
GmMe8: ok, enough, i dont like arguing like that
mrwednesday4728: like what?
GmMe8: i disagree with my own points, but im just saying, dont underestimate your opponents
GmMe8: because im sure they'll argue similar shit
mrwednesday4728: ok thank you :-)

[Super Mario Conspiracy]

GmMe8: why should males be equal on "the scale of economic terms?" we are naturally competitive, naturally creative, naturally greedy creatures

There is no such thing as "natural greed". This is a quote that one of my friends wrote on the subject:


But let's also talk about the concept of "human nature" a little. If there is one thing history teaches us, it's that there is no such thing as "human nature". Human beings have lived under a huge variety of social structures. In the course of 5000 years of civilization, we have built and sustained societies of almost every imaginable kind. Humans are the most adaptable creatures on Earth. We have been able to survive in all situations and all environments precisely because we don't have a fixed genetic programming. If there was such a thing as "human nature", then civilization would not exist.. If we were slaves to our instincts, none of the things you see around you would be possible.

In all ages, the ruling class tried to appeal to some sort of "natural order" to defend the established system. Feudalism proclaimed the Divine Right of Kings - the notion that the established system was God's will, and that God had made the human race so that it would always need kings and aristocrats to rule over the commoners. Nowadays, capitalism proclaims Human Nature - the notion that the established system is Nature's will, and that the human race has been shaped by some higher power (either God or Evolution, depending on which capitalists you ask) to always be inherently selfish, and to always have the rich rule over the poor.
Same old lies, different packaging.

So, in conclusion, the capitalist "human nature" argument is actually wrong on four different levels:

1. The most distinctive feature of Mankind is adaptability. Looking at history, you will not see evidence of any rigid "human nature" - quite the contrary. Human beings have shown that they can live in just about every imaginable kind of society, including a communist one. Communes have existed for over 2000 years, starting with the earliest recorded Christian and Buddhist communities, continuing with various independent medieval villages, and then with workers' communes in the 19th and 20th century. Even today, such communes are flourishing in Argentina, and the tradition of the Jewish kibbutz continues.

2. Even assuming that "human nature" exists, the evidence points to the fact that it is not inherently selfish. There is no gene for selfishness in the human genome. Also, you have to look at the way our ancestors lived. We are social animals, not solitary hunters. In the natural, tribal state of Mankind, excessive selfishness on the part of individuals would have caused their tribe to lose cohesion and die, while more altruistic tribes prospered. Therefore, natural selection eliminated excessive selfishness and encouraged altruism and co-operation between individuals.

3. There remains the indisputable fact that thousands of acts of altruism happen each day. If human nature is inherently selfish, then how do you explain the fact that millions of people risk their lives for others? This "human nature" must be very weak and easily overridden, if it exists at all.

4. This whole argument about "human nature" is completely irrelevant in the end, since (as I already explained above) communism does not require people to be altruistic. Communism is not built on the premise of altruism - on the contrary, it is built on the premise that most people act according to their own interests most of the time. Of course, altruism helps a lot and we strongly encourage it, but communism does not require it. The only thing that communism requires is for people to be intelligent enough to realize that a communal system is in their own interest.

Communism does NOT rely on people sharing their possessions out of the kindness of their hearts. It relies on people sharing their possessions because they know that they will all benefit from it.

(From: http://www.dune2k.com/forum/index.php?topic=14111.0 )


GmMe8: but so what if people get exploited? people have the means and the talents available to them so that they are not exploited. if they are in fact exploited, then it is done by their own choice and espouses their own massive ignorance

This is just like saying "People in Africa are just lazy and stupid - that is why Africa is a poor continent and full of deceases".


GmMe8: its racist and ignorant to equate birth in africa with poverty. thats simply not true. if the economies in africa are stable and function properly, then anyone born in poverty possesses the means to become wealthy

Ah, I see.


GmMe8: the people dominate the government
GmMe8: the government should not dominate the people
GmMe8: and what does this have to do with communism anyways?

That the people control the government is an example of socialism - it has everything to do with communism because communism is the succeding system of socialism (or, the system that comes after socialism).