Log in

View Full Version : Marxism and Egoism



ClydeBarrow
3rd April 2006, 22:55
Hi,
My brother is a convinced egoist who advocates communism as a (the only) means to achieve total self-satisfaction.

However, I have a problem with this.
It's not that I think that self-indulgence and pleasure are bad. Far from it. I think that living for pleasure makes perfect sense.
But,
I think that the reasoning behind his sort of egoism is contradictory to Marxism. That is, egoism as a form of extreme individualism is a bourgeois concept rooted in the alienation of man from man (In part, at least, because any sort of individualism is bourgeois).

For example, Marx argues,

“Liberty is thus the right to do and perform anything that does not harm others. The limits within which each can act without harming others is determined by law ... This is the liberty of man viewed as an isolated monad, with drawn into himself. ... liberty as a right of man is not based on the association of man with man but rather on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the limited individual limited to himself. The practical application of the right of liberty is the right of property. ... the right of self-interest. .... It lets every man find in other men not the realisation but rather the limitation of his own freedom. ... Thus none of the so-called rights of man goes beyond the egoistic man, the man withdrawn into himself, his private interest and his private choice, and separated from the community as a member of civil society ... The only bond between men is natural necessity, need and private interest, the maintenance of their property and egoistic persons.”
and

Human rights – the right to property, freedom of religion, etc., the rights which guarantee the concrete, real human being in their occupation, their beliefs, etc. – are founded on the separation of man from man, not on the relations or community of people, and are the foundation of bourgeois political economy.
(I got both of these quotes from: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/...elp/ethics.htm) (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/ethics.htm))

Now, I know that Marx isn't arguing for any sort of Christian ascetism or self-denial, but rather, he views both egoism and "altruism" as fundamentally flawed concepts because they are based on the idea of man as an individual, rather than communal, being.
I know that Marx somewhere completely refutes, or at least argues against, Max Stirner's egoism.

I'd appreciate it if somebody could help explain these things to me:
1. Marx's understanding of man as a fundamentally communal being, rather than as a separate being. That is, his opposition to individualism (as a philosophical concept).
2. Marx's opposition to Stirner's egoism (Well, that would probably be explained if you answered the above, anyway)

Thanks in advance; this was longer than I meant it to be.

redstar2000
4th April 2006, 06:22
This may help a little...

The Myth of "Individualism vs. Collectivism" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083239145&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

ClydeBarrow
8th April 2006, 03:36
Thanks for that.
After thinking about it a little longer, this is what I've concluded (at least, it made sense when I wrote it):

So long as we aspire to complete freedom in terms of extreme individualism, we will be living in a bourgeois condition, and so will still be enslaved. This is because, first of all, the destruction of morality as an absolute, and the simultaneous establishment of an egalitarian, libertarian society, is impossible in practice so long as we consider man in his atomized, alienated state - as a separate, egotistical being.
For example,
Disregarding any absolute morality, there is no basis for law. This seemingly fulfills the libertarian aspiration of communism. However, such a state of affairs makes any individual vulnerable to slavery, violence, and other despotisms, and, therefore actually limits the scope of his freedom. To be more specific: according to the egoist/individualist view, rape, for example, is an expression of individual liberty that should not be restricted; a hinderance to the liberty of the victim, to say the least. A "less extreme" egoist may say that in cases such as rape or murder, an absolute morality is justified, and thus, law is justified. Not only is this a compromise of the so-called egoistic liberty, but it is also a justification for the establishment of a political state.

Collectivism, too, is a concept based upon the alienation of man from man, and has therefore only a very limited potential for realizing human freedom. Only, contrary to extreme individualism, egoism, it openly necessitates the compromise of personality,... and there is no need to elaborate further on that. Collectivism is not based upon the natural cohesion between men that would result from the abolition of wage-labor, but it is based upon a sort of self-sacrifice that is even more rooted in the old, traditional ideas than the aforementioned "radical" egoism/individualism.

Individualism and collectivism are really "two sides of the same coin" - a bourgeois "coin" that we must discard altogether.

To paraphrase Marx:
The communist mode of production allows man to completely satisfy his nature as a "free-producer." The general nature of such "work" (if it can be called such), then, geared towards self-satisfaction, would necessarily result in the objectification of ones own individuality in his product, and therefore the total appropriation of that product. The product, then, would also fulfill the needs of other men, thereby representing the unity of all, whereby man's freedom is not limited, but confirmed, in the freedom of others. Such material relations would obviously be projected onto the larger society, which would no longer be a collection of atomized individuals, but rather a liberated organism. A truly radical relationship in which men cooperate as dictated by their nature that is no longer suppressed and restricted by certain material factors.

I've probably just stated the obvious, but then, this was more for self-clarification than anything else, though it is, of course, open to criticism.