The so-called human obstacle to communism

[anomaly]

As some of you may know, I'm taking economics class this year. We have touched, but barely, on Marxism. While speaking of the grandeur and invincibility of capitalism, my econ teacher said that Marxism inevitably fails because Marx did not take self interest into account. Nw, this is clearly the mainstream view, so if we can overcome this apparent flaw, we can greatly help to modernize Marxist theory, I think. No theory created by man can ever be perfect, but we can atleast greatly improve an existing one.

[ComradeRed]

Point out that self interest implies class consciousness exists.

If humans are self interested, that means that those who are in the same material boat are "doomed" to think alike. Thus there is still class clashes, and class consciousness.

But I speculate this bastard of an economist is coming from the vulgar school of thought, in which case mercilessly point out the ridiculousness of his "rational self-interest"...apparently the homo economicus is able to headlessly contradict ethics (the oldest institution of humanity), rationality ("irrational self interest" is better used to describe the philistinism), how self interest makes you apparently omnipotent to all economic phenomena (you don't want to be screwed by the market, it's against your "self interest"), and the obvious fact that this is a guise for human nature which has no basis in reality.

Pick up a copy of Steven Keen's Debunking Economics, a masterpiece that dissects bourgeois economics for the contradictions and inconsistancies that it is.

[anomaly]

That sounds like a good idea (the book). But we must face the facts that throughout human history, the individual is primarily concerned with himself. Now, I think that communism certainly serves the individual well, but this is cast to the shadows and the benefits to the collective only have been glorified. These individual benefits are what we must unearth.

[drain.you]

the individual has always been primarily concerned with himself because in the past social structures have been based around competition and exploitation. people won't need to be so selfish in a communist society and competitive behaviour that is in capitalism will be frowned on like slavery is frowned upon today...hopefully :P

[idealisticcommie]

Thank you drain you. What we are talking about is the expansion of the ethos that people exhibit towards each other in families to a higher. Ultimately, (I hope I don't get screamed at too much for this), we are talking about LOVE. :D

Am I right? Talk to me.

[redstar2000]

It is a tautology to argue that humans are motivated by "self-interest". The question is always what is "in my self-interest?"

That answer changes depending on the social context in which the question is asked.

In rural parts of the United States, kids are still being taught that it is "in their self-interest" to risk their lives in American wars. A disproportionate number of kids from rural areas continue to volunteer for such wars.

If one starts by assuming that capitalism is the "final" and "eternal" form of human society, then it logically follows that the infinite accumulation of wealth is "in our self-interest".

But what is "in the self-interest" of those who are, for one reason or another, unable to accumulate wealth? Is it not the forcible abolition of a social order that keeps them down?

According to Marx, capitalism creates an entire class of people who are "frozen out" of its wealth-accumulation process...and this class grows larger with every passing decade. Ultimately it will become so numerous that it will simply sweep aside the system that has "kept them down".

Capitalism's concept of self-interest will be swept aside as well. It is, when you stop and think about it, an incredibly constricted view of "self-interest" that suggests we should spend the bulk of our lives in piling up stuff that we will never use.

In fact, capitalism attempts to teach us daily that "we are what we buy". How foolish is that?

Marx made the communist view of "self-interest" pretty clear. When we spend our lives doing as we freely choose -- engaging in work that is genuinely satisfying to us -- that we can be said to really fulfill our self-interest.

Why should we settle for anything less?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Red Powers]

Self interest is based on a concept of individuality that only becomes a ruling idea with the growth of capitalism. Assuming that all humans saw themselves as individuals in all previous societies is ahistorical. The very concept of self interest as opposed to family, clan, tribe, community, lineage grouping, age cohort or whatever interest is something that develops over time. Look at the change from Judaism being about a chosen PEOPLE to Christianity being about a PERSONAL savior, and even this takes centuries to become fully developed.

It is only under capitalism that we become a society of fully atomized individuals each with his or her "permanent record." If you look at societies where capitalism is introduced all at once ie African, Native American the communal structures are disolved -- things fall apart. This is one of the worst aspects of capitalism in my book. Humans aren't meant to be self-interested and most of us aren't. We are fabulously social beings who care deeply about each other. One more reason to get rid of their fucked up system.

[redstar2000]

The argument presented by Red Powers is one that's commonly found in anti-capitalist circles...but I think it is a questionable one.

It's true that humans were "social animals" in their origins and, to this day, we have a marked tendency to seek out the company of like-minded individuals for work or pleasure or both.

However, if it's thought that communist society will somehow "re-invent" the "family, clan, tribe, community, lineage grouping, age cohort", etc., then I must disagree. Those social constructs were and remain extremely oppressive by their very nature.

It is part of the progressive aspect of capitalism that it has done so much to weaken or even destroy those pre-capitalist institutions.

The problem with capitalism is not that it was the first form of class society to recognize human individuality...but that its concept of human individuality was and remains narrow and constricted.

There is potentially infinitely more to human individuality than trying to turn oneself into a ruthless, greedy bastard. But that's all that capitalist individuality has to offer.

We find that more and more unsatisfying as time passes. The solution to our problem is not to be found in pre-capitalist forms of individual submission to oppressive hierarchies. We need to fully realize our individual autonomy...something that is only possible in a communist society.

To associate with whom we wish, to work at what we love, to live in material dignity, to learn that which interests us...this is what it really means to be an individual and fully human.

The "capitalist option" is a very poor substitute indeed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Red Powers]

Well maybe I didn't express myself well enough. I was just trying to indicate that self-interest built, presumably on individuality, is a historical development and not any kind of universal human motivation. I was by no means suggesting that we go back to tribes and clans.

[anomaly]

I think that RedStar makes a lot of sense here. I have, too, noticed that, for the majority, capitalism is not in their self interest. Capitalism is the very object which deprives many of food and shelter - the essentials to life.

Revolution, however, is in many people's self interest, including mine (I'm po'). And when the proletariat collectively come to this realization, we shall have our revolution!

[CarlTheCommie]

Hi Redstar,

Could you expound on this, please?

However, if it's thought that communist society will somehow "re-invent" the "family, clan, tribe, community, lineage grouping, age cohort", etc., then I must disagree. Those social constructs were and remain extremely oppressive by their very nature.

[urben]

Socialism is a society that eliminates scarcity, meeting human needs with a system that progressively develops the capacity to produce in super-abundance. Even if human nature was just concerned with meeting individual needs (which, as others have pointed out, is a flawed and ahistorical concept), there's absolutely no reason to equate socialism with self-sacrifice.

Revolutionaries sacrifice themselves consciously, but in a post-revolutionary socialist economy, material self-sacrifice would be wholly unnecessary.

Also, revolutions don't require entirely class-conscious movements. All social revolutions have included to a large degree people who simply feel that the current system oppresses them, and can't fulfill their needs as individuals. Peace, land, and bread were of course social demands, but they struck a chord in hopeless, pauperized workers and peasants as individuals. I still believe that you need a class-conscious sector of that movement to give it political clarity and leadership, but the point is that "self-interest" has been a driving force in all social revolutions - as it will in the socialist revolution as well.

We shouldn't be afraid of saying that the revolution's soldiers will be largely compelled to activity by self-interest. It is simply the logical extension of capitalism's contradictions, and it's what gives our vision of socialism a materialist foundation. Besides, the end - a society built on different foundations and invigorated with a sense of community and internationalism, will justify those means.

[anomaly]

Neither socialism, nor any other economic or social system, can eliminate scarcity. All goods and services are scarce.

[Hiero]

Alot of people say this, but in the Socialist countries and the former socailist countries i have not yet found how this was a big problem. Ask your teacher how this caused a problem?

[gilhyle]

The concept of self-interest has a critical part in Marxism:

The Sartrean idea of a class-in-itself becoming a class-for-itself is an inadequate attempt to articulate the sense in which Marxism recognises the occurence of a dual (linked) process in creating a revolutionary class unity. Those two moments are:

- the process of the material interest of all members of the class becoming increasingly similar due to the homegonisation of the form of social relation as as capittalism develops;

- the process of the articulation of a self awareness of itself as a class.

The Labour Aristocracy theory of Lenin is a strong example of the methodology of analysing material interests.

The fact that Marxism recognises that self-awareness does not automatically reflect material interests accurately is the aspect of Marxism that ensures that it is not a mechanical materialism.


Your lecturer has COMPLETELY missed the point of Marxism, if he thinks it postulates a transformation of society being motivated by a moral consciousness in contrast to self interest.

[DisIllusion]

Neither socialism, nor any other economic or social system, can eliminate scarcity. All goods and services are scarce.

True, but Marxism seeks to spread out those scarce goods and services, instead of having one class stockpile it and enjoy it wantonly.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:37 AM

Neither socialism, nor any other economic or social system, can eliminate scarcity. All goods and services are scarce.

True, but Marxism seeks to spread out those scarce goods and services, instead of having one class stockpile it and enjoy it wantonly.
Not true. All goods and services are finite in supply. But whether that finitude is significant for daily lives depends on whether the unpriced supply meets demand. If it does, finite or not in supply, it is not scarce.

[chilcru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:35 AM
As some of you may know, I'm taking economics class this year. We have touched, but barely, on Marxism. While speaking of the grandeur and invincibility of capitalism, my econ teacher said that Marxism inevitably fails because Marx did not take self interest into account. Nw, this is clearly the mainstream view, so if we can overcome this apparent flaw, we can greatly help to modernize Marxist theory, I think. No theory created by man can ever be perfect, but we can atleast greatly improve an existing one.


In so far as concerning the contention that "Marx did not take self-interest into account", there is no need to modernize Marxist theory because it is simply not true that Marx did not take self-interest into account. This erroneous view is based from the fact that capitalists and their bourgeois spokesmen, such as your professor, had a different view of man's self-interest. To them, self-interest is the unbridled accumulation of wealth. Marx in The Manuscripts of 1844 defined man's self-interest differently, a definition that is closely hewed to his concept of man's alienation from his labour. Thus, to Marx, in a society ruled by capitalists, man's self-interest is to do away with the capitalist conditions that exploit his labor.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:43 AM
Hi Redstar,

Could you expound on this, please?

However, if it's thought that communist society will somehow "re-invent" the "family, clan, tribe, community, lineage grouping, age cohort", etc., then I must disagree. Those social constructs were and remain extremely oppressive by their very nature.
Well, one runs into, now and then, a kind of "romanticization" of pre-capitalist social formations.

They seem, in retrospect, to be "more human" than the "war of all against all" that seems to define the relationships between people under capitalism.

Back in the 1960s, for example, some people thought that the "best way" to "escape capitalism" was to "re-invent the tribe". Others thought that some sort of "rural commune" was "the only real alternative".

I don't have to tell you how those ideas worked out in practice.

Badly! :(

Those "alternatives" to capitalism were, in fact, originally overthrown by capitalism...and that was generally perceived as a liberating experience.

No longer was one's life bound by the limits set by "tribal elders" or a "village council"...under capitalism, one was "free" to "live as one chose" (if one could obtain the cash, of course).

This was one of the progressive features of early capitalism...it dissolved all the chains that bound people into traditional hierarchies.

Now, the only acceptable hierarchy is net worth!

And that, of course, is the hierarchy that we seek to utterly destroy.

And bring a permanent end to the whole idea of hierarchy...until it becomes so unthinkable that even the words used to describe it are known only to linguistic historians. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[TheComrade]

RedStar - I agree with most of what you are saying.

I agree that it is natural for humans to care more about those close to them - family, friends, lovers etc - than themselves. It is capitalism that drives people to think more of what they would get out of it than what it will do to other people - it's a sick and money driven system.

Hierarchy has, however, always exsisted. From the times of the earliest tribes there has almost always been a leader, a chief, a wiseman - whatever. It appears that it is in some peoples nature to be led and in others to lead. The ancient Egyptians had One Leader - One Dynasty - who was considered to be a God on Earth - now if that hadn't exsisted, would they be as powerful as they were? Would they have overcome the immesurable difficuties of basic dissagreement and forged that so wonderful an empire with lasted way into the Roman Empire?

The Spanish Civil war is another good example of where the lack of definition about self interest/self belief led to innumerable factions and divides. The Republicans were left wing but were a mish mash of Anarchists, Communists, Socialists, Republicans, Anarcho-Communists, Stalininsts etc... every time they sat down to discuss something - there was a dissagreement and a new faction was born - if Marxs had been more flexiable about decisive action - about who actually, when it comes to the crunch, makes the decision - perhaps The Republicans would have succeeded.

This is one of the major concerns I have over Communism and anarchism...please help me over come it!

[gilhyle]

I don't understand the question here from 'The Comrade'. Is the point that it seems unavoidable to have a single leader to be successful ? Or is it that we must be more tolerant of dissent in order to forge a politically useful unity ? Or what ?

[Janus]

[QUOTE]We need to fully realize our individual autonomy...something that is only possible in a communist society.

You have succeeded in confusing me. I thought that the whole goal of communism was to subvert individual autonomy to the good of the group. Therefore, how can individual autonomy be realized in a communist society? Redstar, if you clear up this matter, it would be extremly helpful.