Marxism and altruism

[anomaly]

Marxist theory is quite obviously a materialist theory. It also deals essentially with economic forces, saying that people act in their material (or class...or self) interests. Does this apply to all situations though? Or is there room for altruism within Marxism? We talked about this in my government class today, and I really was clueless as to whether altruism and Marxism can coexist. The teacher gave an example of a soldier throwing himself upon a grenade. This action is surely not for his own interests, but rather for those around him. So, if Marxist theory is correct, it must have a place for altruism.

So how does altruism fit into Marxist theory, that is, historical materialism?

[pharmer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:41 AM
Marxist theory is quite obviously a materialist theory. It also deals essentially with economic forces, saying that people act in their material (or class...or self) interests. Does this apply to all situations though? Or is there room for altruism within Marxism? We talked about this in my government class today, and I really was clueless as to whether altruism and Marxism can coexist. The teacher gave an example of a soldier throwing himself upon a grenade. This action is surely not for his own interests, but rather for those around him. So, if Marxist theory is correct, it must have a place for altruism.

So how does altruism fit into Marxist theory, that is, historical materialism?
This is quite the question, I struggle with it myself. Marxism is touted as an alternative to capitalism but it really doesn't diverge to far from the materialist qualities that exist today. It seems that incentive must be given to encourage altruism within Marxism.
The 'open access vs. commons' analogy emphasizes that point.

Let's say we have a fish pond shared by a community. In an open access system, each person has equal time to fish from this pond. Now they can be altruistic and catch enough fish to fulfill their needs, OR they can catch as many fish as possible to maximize their benefits from their allotted time at the pond. Since it's in their best interest to maximize the number of fish they go home with, each person will inevitably 'over-fish', catch way more than they actually need, and the pond will be fishless before long.
Now if the same fish pond were under common access, there would be specific limits on what could be taken from the pond. These limits would be such that each person could catch a certain number of fish, this number being a reasonable amount which would sustain their needs and ensure the pond's stock is available over a period of time. If a person from this community over-fished their fishing privileges would be revoked.

Altruism, I suppose, is an idealistic perspective on life and a person who is altruistic in an open access system will inevitably be marginalized by their own design. In Marxism there is an opportunity to promote altruism, although is it really altruistic if you are limited not by your own conscience, but by regulations determined by the commons.

[anomaly]

The capitalist system involves 'open-access'. I am not sure to what extent 'common access' will be employed under communism, as the only rule governing distribution would be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Communist society will be a collective one, with the concern being placed not upon one individual, but upon the people of the commune as a whole. As the commune lives, so lives the individual. In capitalism, however, it may be said that the above is opposite, that is, as the individual lives, so lives society, to an extent. The problem with this is obviously that the extent to which an individual can 'contribute' in capitalism is based upon their material situation, and so some have a greater advantage than others always. In communism, I expect the connection between the commune (society) and individuals will be much greater, and so, inevitably, each will be better off. This will probably be due to the decentralized structure of communism, making components of each commune that much more important. Today, if one worker doesn't work, the economy is not affected. In communism, however, if one worker refuses to work, this could very well influence the economy.

I do not think altruism will affect the posibilities of sustaining communism in any real way, however.

My question, though, concerned not how altruism will affect communism, but if altruism fits into Marx's theory of historical materialism. Marx said, essentially, that people tend to act in their class interests. History, however, contains examples of the opposite, of people being altruistic in their actions. So, my question is how HM accounts for such things.

[pharmer]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 10:46 PM
The capitalist system involves 'open-access'. I am not sure to what extent 'common access' will be employed under communism, as the only rule governing distribution would be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Communist society will be a collective one, with the concern being placed not upon one individual, but upon the people of the commune as a whole. As the commune lives, so lives the individual. In capitalism, however, it may be said that the above is opposite, that is, as the individual lives, so lives society, to an extent. The problem with this is obviously that the extent to which an individual can 'contribute' in capitalism is based upon their material situation, and so some have a greater advantage than others always. In communism, I expect the connection between the commune (society) and individuals will be much greater, and so, inevitably, each will be better off. This will probably be due to the decentralized structure of communism, making components of each commune that much more important. Today, if one worker doesn't work, the economy is not affected. In communism, however, if one worker refuses to work, this could very well influence the economy.

I do not think altruism will affect the posibilities of sustaining communism in any real way, however.

My question, though, concerned not how altruism will affect communism, but if altruism fits into Marx's theory of historical materialism. Marx said, essentially, that people tend to act in their class interests. History, however, contains examples of the opposite, of people being altruistic in their actions. So, my question is how HM accounts for such things.
I'm not so sure you can explain altruistic actions with materialist theory. The external world surrounding us is said to define the interactions between us. By this definition I can't think of a scenario by where altruism would be motivated from the material surroundings.

Altruism, perhaps, can be attributed to human ecology, defined as an innate mechanism employed by an induvidual to protect an interest greater than him/herself (eg. mother proctecting her offspring from predator, soldier jumping on grenade to safe a greater # of troops, etc...). Since materialism doesn't account for innate interactions (materialism based empirical knowledge ??) it won't be factored into Marx's theories of historical materialism.
Perhaps this is because history of materialism concerns itself with 'large-scale' historical events and altruism, I would suggest, is a trait limited to induviduals, therefore a society cannot display altruistic characteristics.

What do you think?

[odinsgrandson]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 04:41 AM
Marxist theory is quite obviously a materialist theory. It also deals essentially with economic forces, saying that people act in their material (or class...or self) interests. Does this apply to all situations though? Or is there room for altruism within Marxism? We talked about this in my government class today, and I really was clueless as to whether altruism and Marxism can coexist. The teacher gave an example of a soldier throwing himself upon a grenade. This action is surely not for his own interests, but rather for those around him. So, if Marxist theory is correct, it must have a place for altruism.

So how does altruism fit into Marxist theory, that is, historical materialism?
There's something about any theory that takes so long to explain as Marx's theory. There's simply more to this question than what we've mentioned.

Among philosophers, the real question is whether or not 'free will' exists. Here goes:

Physics tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That reaction causes other reactions that eventually cause everything to happen. So everything that happens has a cause, and that cause can only produce one possible effect.

If we apply this to our own psychology, it means that everything we do has a cause and can only result in one outcome. Think about that for a bit. It would be possible, knowing all of the conditions at the big bang, to forecast the whether tomorrow, or that I would be here writing this note.

Under this theory, we are all products of predestined powers, such as our environment, class, culture, genes etc.


The opposing theory is that either some actions do not have causes (hard to swallow) or that human creatures (or all creatures) can decide between different causes, and make the connection between cause and effect. Therefore, you have several causes that affront you, and you choose between them and take action.

The second theory is accepted by most laymen, while the first theory is accepted by most philosophers. This is because the second cannot concretely account for what makes the connection between cause and action- the religeous can account for it in spiritual ways (Good + Evil tugging at you, you pick between them) but Marx was not interested in that sort of thing- neither were most philosophers then.

So, if you accept the first theory, then go a little furthur. What is it that causes a certian action to be taken, and another not to be taken?
He has an aversion to a certain thing, and an appetite for another. A man has an appetite for money or food, but an aversion to work. So, his appetite wins out and the man sets to work to gratify his appetite.

A man has an aversion to seeing his comrads in arms die. He also has an aversion to his own death. In a split second the aversions are weighed out against each other, and the man decides to sacrifice his own life.

All actions can be accounted for in this way. The great trouble is that this theory has not been used to predict the future very well, only account for the past.

[anomaly]

Then, odinsgrandson, do you claim that historical materialism is simply wrong? Is it not material interests guiding us, but rather degrees of 'aversions'? Your theory asserts that, at certain times, our own material interests will be abandoned, due to our sensing that one particular aversion is not so terrible as another. The question, then, is why is this so? What makes one aversion 'worse' than another, and how do we come to this conclusion? In short, you assert, contrary to supposed Marxist thought, that some actions are not, in fact, guided by material conditions, but rather some actions are simply guided by an individual's subjective reasoning.

Perhaps individual behavior is simply such that it cannot be predicted, concretely, by any one theory, be it HM or any other.

To you, pharmer, I suppose what I think is that HM applies only to actions by groups of people in power, that is, classes in power. To the lowly individual, HM does not apply. But to the wealthy elite, or to the poor proletariat, HM can accurately predict actions based on that class's material interest at the time.

Let us use the principle of economy for a moment: are mere individual actions important to the whole of human history in the long run? No, HM says as much. The only things that matter are prevailing economic conditions of the time, and economic classes reflecting those conditions and acting accordingly. In this way, we can simply cut individual actions out of the theory entirely.

So we come to a point where we see that only economic conditions and the actions of classes reflecting those conditions really matter in the whole of human history. In short, it may be said that HM is a macro-theory of history, concerned with history and its driving forces as a whole. That is, individuals do not drive history, so HM does not account for individuals. Economic conditions and classes do drive history, and so HM does account for them.

Altruism can be ruled out as a motivating factor for classes since only material interests act as motivation for them. History proves as much. However, in this interpretation, HM does allow for altruism to take place at the micro-level, that is, of individuals.

Be this satisfactory, pharmer? What are your thoughts on my little attempt at analysis here? You wrote something similar to this, though briefer (you must be witty, eh?), so perhaps we agree.