Self-interest

[Lynx]

Hi :)

In arguing with capitalists (or anti-socialists, from my perspective) they invariably say that socialism and communism won't work because it fails to consider self-interest. In other words, people seek to benefit themselves with little regard to higher ideals or concern beyond their immediate family and community. This is an evolutionary trait, designed to help individual survival.

I believe self-interest exists but am unsure as to the extent of its importance.

I know little about communism - does it take into account self-interest? Is it important or a problem to be dealt with?

My politics are left-wing. My philosophy is (usually) pragmatist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's a difference - that most people (especially hegemonists in the Gramscian sense) can't seem to grasp - between survivalism and greed.

Survivalism is: if you're hungry, you need food. Back in the pre-feudal days, you either killed or were killed.

Greed is: if you want to treat your corporation as a fiefdom like Conrad Black, swindling fellow capitalists, you pocket corporate funds without reporting such.



Then again, it's a spectrum. Survivalism is an evolutionary trait, but NOT greed (which is embedded by society into the individual).

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Welcome to the board.

Of course self-interest exists, but that does not mean Socialism is infeasible. Basically Socialism requires people to work for the betterment of society, and capitalists say that this can't happen because people will always work for themselves first. However, betterment of the self and betterment of society are not always mutually exclusive, though in capitalism they usually are (hence the problem). It is likely that in post-revolutionary society people will work to improve both society and themselves, as Socialism will provide not only the opportunity but also the obligation to do this (humans also have an instinctive desire to contribute top the greater good; take, for example, the very strong desire in most healthy, mature human beings to reproduce and further the species).

In my opinion, it is the duty of the transitional Socialist state to manipulate social and economic conditions such that working to improve society is the most efficient way to improve one's own conditions. Only then will the necessity of a state disappear, and we can ascend to Communism.

[Vargha Poralli]

In arguing with capitalists (or anti-socialists, from my perspective) they invariably say that socialism and communism won't work because it fails to consider self-interest.

Self-Interest is an just an illusion. Men started to be civilised and developed not because of self interest alone but because of the communal behaviour of our species. Scientists categorise us as Social Animals.


In other words, people seek to benefit themselves with little regard to higher ideals or concern beyond their immediate family and community.

Community comes there too. Where is self interest in there ?


This is an evolutionary trait, designed to help individual survival.

This is total bullshit for the reason I have stated above. Humanity had survived and grown this much not because of Individual self interest but because of social power of people.

[rouchambeau]

In other words, people seek to benefit themselves with little regard to higher ideals or concern beyond their immediate family and community
I doubt that is wholy true. If it were, I don't see how that hinders us in any significant way. Communism/socialism/whatever should be born out of grassroot efforts and struggles that are pertinent to the immediate community.

[Lynx]

Self-Interest is an just an illusion. Men started to be civilised and developed not because of self interest alone but because of the communal behaviour of our species. Scientists categorise us as Social Animals.
You wouldn't walk up to a person and spit in their face, would you? Social animals evolve social skills in order to protect themselves from harm. Self-interest.

Community comes there too. Where is self interest in there ?
The people you regularly come into contact with are important to your survival and how secure you feel.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Stepping over people to climb the corporate ladder is done out of self interest. Having the most toys is done out of self interest. Is self gratification an illusion?

[Lynx]

For Hammer: I agree. The greed end of self-interest is also encouraged as ambition.

For rouchambeau: I suppose my original question is referring to people who have no interest in ideology. The only questions they ask themselves is 'How does this work/what do I get out of it?' They do this no matter what system they find themselves in.

For RedStar1916: I have taken your post to heart and will study further. I realize I will have to eventually work my way through the literature and texts to see what was written about these aspects.

For everyone: Keep posting your thoughts, I will check back later and then go mostly into learning mode. :blush:

[rouchambeau]

For rouchambeau: I suppose my original question is referring to people who have no interest in ideology. The only questions they ask themselves is 'How does this work/what do I get out of it?' They do this no matter what system they find themselves in.

My point still stands.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:21 pm
My point still stands.
Sadly, I don't see a difference between movements at the grassroots level and those on a larger scale. For instance, our local recycling program doesn't work as well as it should because of the behavior of self-interested individuals. In most cases they fail to alter their behavior sufficiently, while a minority of them deliberately attempt to sabotage the program by including materials that render large volumes of recyclables unusable.

I assume that socialism, like recycling, requires people's participation and support.

[Enragé]

dont know if its been said before but communism is actually in the self interest of the vast majority of the people in the world (the working class)

communism is nothing but collective selfishness; you provide for the community so that the community provides for you... if you decide to take advantage of the community the community will say "fuck off!" and well... have fun starving or living like its 1550 ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:17 pm
dont know if its been said before but communism is actually in the self interest of the vast majority of the people in the world (the working class)

communism is nothing but collective selfishness; you provide for the community so that the community provides for you... if you decide to take advantage of the community the community will say "fuck off!" and well... have fun starving or living like its 1550 ;)
^^^ That's an interesting thought - basically an expansion of stratching each other's backs.

[Lynx]

Can altruism (scratching each others backs) prevail over self-interest (the free-rider) ? This is essentially a sociological question.

With regard to the recycling program in my community, there seem to be the following camps:

1. Those who take the time and effort to comply with the program.
2. Those who don't take the time or do it half-heartedly.
3. Those who do not comply or ignore the program.
4. Those who attempt to sabotage.

I would assume that people in group 1 behave the way they do because they are altruistic (just want to help) or socially/idealistically aware (they believe in the value of a recycling program).

People in groups 2 and 3 would be those who display differing levels of apathy. The rationale behind their behavior could be that they're unconvinced (neutral) or self-interested (what do me, myself and I get for participating?)

People in group 4 are anti-social.

[black magick hustla]

communism is self interest

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 05:17 pm
dont know if its been said before but communism is actually in the self interest of the vast majority of the people in the world (the working class)
There is a difference between those who would join to improve their own lot in life and those who join because they feel the need to correct a massive injustice.

[Janus]

Self-interest works and operates differently within different frameworks. Someone acting within his or her own self-interest within a business framework in capitalist is obviously only going to be looking out for him/herself. But what about instances in which one must work and cooperate with others in order to gain the optimum results. Obviously, we can see here that there's a strong adaption variable to this concept of self-interest upheld by capitalists.

[RebelDog]

The more technologically powerful and knowledgeable the human race becomes the greater the chance of moving toward communism/anarchism. Basically, humans develop in to groups, nations, companies, families for their self interests in order to secure greater and more reliable resources and so increase survival chances. When the human race is in a position that it can sufficiently exploit its environment to the degree that scarcity is eliminated then I cannot see why/how someone could/would want to act in an individual manner when their self interests and the interests of society would be the same thing. Acting in an individual manner by trying to, say, exploit people for ones self interest doesn't make sense when your material needs are already met and there exists no possible niche to return to exploitation, hierarchy. In a communist/anarchist society struggling for self interest above others welfare would be like arguing for a return to feudalism at the moment.

[Floyce White]

As I said in this post on December 27, 2005 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42974&st=169):

redstar2000: "Well, I agree with Marx. In fact, it's not just 'workers' who 'fight' for 'self-interest...it's everybody."

Something is fundamentally wrong with an analysis if an abstract, classless "everybody" fights for the same thing. Let's examine this more closely.

"Self-interest." How do we discover what is "self-interest?" Through the only way available to us: human perception. With increasing accuracy over time, what the "self" perceives as interest is "self" interest. "Self" perception of class interest is "self" interest. "Class" interest is "self" interest. "Self" interest is "class" interest. "Self" equals "class." "Class" equals "self." The class interest of the working class is "self-interest." The class interest of the capitalist class is "self-interest." The class interest of everybody is "self-interest." Therefore, workers and capitalists have the same interest. And what interest is that? Of workers as workers, and capitalists as capitalists--just as they now perceive themselves to be. In this way, we can "prove" that workers and capitalists alike are interested in the current system of accumulation of fixed capital, and docile variable capital, to produce and circulate goods and services. In this way, we can "prove" that all lower-class persons throughout history all fought to reproduce their existing societies.

It's sophistry. We might just as well have said that "the people" fight for "'the people's' interest." "The people's" perception is "the people's" interest. "People" equals "class." The class interest of everybody is "'the people's' interest." And so on.

Instead of using shortcuts, we should say that what the self perceives as interest is self-perception of interest. What the self perceives as class interest is self-perception of class interest.

Upper-class people accumulate property as small family groups in competition with all others, and have individual power to get others to do what they want done. Upper-class interest is self-interest. Lower-class people are dispossessed en masse, and have no power except when united and organized as very large, cooperative groups. Lower-class interest is community interest.

Class interest is based on this material reality. Self-perceptions of class interest can be determined to be correct or incorrect regardless of the reasoning used to justify them.

[Djehuti]

The Right To Be Greedy
Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything

http://www.point-of-departure.org/Lust-For...y-v1_2_5-en.htm (http://www.point-of-departure.org/Lust-For-Life/RTBGreedy-v1_2_5-en.htm)

[Lynx]

I'm sorry but Floyce White's comment makes my mind spin.
Self-interest begins and ends with the individual. Some expressions of self-interest are compatible with socialism, some are not, some are shared by both ideologies. An appeal to self-interest can attract followers, this is what politicians of all stripes do. Is it what revolutionaries do?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:16 pm
The Right To Be Greedy
Theses On The Practical Necessity Of Demanding Everything

http://www.point-of-departure.org/Lust-For...y-v1_2_5-en.htm (http://www.point-of-departure.org/Lust-For-Life/RTBGreedy-v1_2_5-en.htm)
Reading this will take awhile!
:blush:

[Floyce White]

Lynx: "An appeal to self-interest can attract followers, this is what politicians of all stripes do. Is it what revolutionaries do?"

That's what bourgeois revolutionaries do. That's bourgeois revolutionariness, better known as "bourgeois radicalism." Or just plain "radicalism" for short. Since anti-capitalist struggle is not a form of pro-capitalist struggle, there is no such thing as "working-class radicalism."

The method/goal of "leaders" and "followers" is the ideological version of the method/goal of masters and servants.

Lynx: "I'm sorry but Floyce White's comment makes my mind spin."

Nothing prevents you from asking specific questions.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Lynx+April 16, 2007 07:43 pm--> (Lynx @ April 16, 2007 07:43 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 05:17 pm
dont know if its been said before but communism is actually in the self interest of the vast majority of the people in the world (the working class)
There is a difference between those who would join to improve their own lot in life and those who join because they feel the need to correct a massive injustice. [/b]
not really, the end-result is the same

i dont care why people want a better world, all i want is to have that better world :)


Can altruism (scratching each others backs) prevail over self-interest (the free-rider) ?

Self-interest and altruism dont contradict in communist society.

whether you scratch somebody's back because you're a nice guy (altruism), or because if you dont scratch somebody's back nobody will scratch yours and you end up with an itchy back (self-interest) doesnt matter
the end-result still is; no itchy back.

If you try to free-ride in communist society people simply wont let you, if you dont help society society doesnt help you. So, i'll repeat, they can have fun starving or living like its 1550.
Honestly, i dont care if they do if thats what they want, fuck 'em, as long as they dont bother me with it.

[Floyce White]

NKOS, you should not keep repeating the divisive slur about "free riders." You and the other anarchists couldn't defend it in the "free rider" thread. So now you're just pretending that debate "never happened," and go on pushing bits and pieces of your false arguments. That's intellectual cowardice.

The only point you anarchists really made in that thread was that anarchism is a form of exchange relations--a form of capitalism--totally incompatible with the communist society of sharing. Just as I've been saying for years.

The unemployed are not "the same as" the capitalists. Your propaganda about "free riders" is a false formulation. If you could have defended it, you would have done so in the "free rider" thread. You and others tried and failed.

Sharing is not exchange. Communism is not keeping account of who does what, who owes what, who gets what. That's capitalism. The promotion of "self-interest" is the promotion of capitalism.

Workers cannot tear down capitalism with the arguments capitalists use to defend capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Self Interest exists, and thats exactly why we should'nt allow leaders or bosses.

Also Solidarity exists which is I think a much stronger human trait and should be encouraged.

Floyed Rice, stop attaching idealogical buzzwords to things, Anarchism is not a form of Capitalism and you know that. Stop playing Mr. Philosopher and be honest. Most Anarchists will tell you that Free-Riding would'nt exist in an Anarchist Society because of the nature of humans, but also if it did happen (which it won't) Society would'nt be obliged (As they are in a Walfare state) to provide for them, thats they point we are making, but I have also said a couple times, that Human Nature is such that free riding would'nt be a problem so it should be a non issue. Anarchism is not an exchange theory, its not advocationg ownership, its advocating liberty and equality and you know that.

[Floyce White]

Pretty childish to make fun of someone's name. Shows your level of integrity and comradeship real clear.

[Enragé]

NKOS, you should not keep repeating the divisive slur about "free riders." You and the other anarchists couldn't defend it in the "free rider" thread. So now you're just pretending that debate "never happened," and go on pushing bits and pieces of your false arguments. That's intellectual cowardice.


wasnt that the debate where you refused to acknowledge the fact that free-riders are in many respects the same as the bourgeois, i.e parasites on the working class?
hm?
Because they are.

Communist theory is in fact based upon preventing people from free-riding, its not just to each according to need its
FROM EACH ACCORDING TO ABILITY (i.e no free-riders! they force people to work for them, work more, since they do not want to do it themselves), to each according to need.


The only point you anarchists really made in that thread was that anarchism is a form of exchange relations--a form of capitalism--totally incompatible with the communist society of sharing. Just as I've been saying for years

no its not


The unemployed are not "the same as" the capitalists.

oh god there you go AGAIN

YOU ARE CONFUSING CAPITALIST CIRCUMSTANCES WITH COMMUNIST ONES
NO! THE UNEMPLOYED INDEED AREN'T THE SAME AS THE CAPITALISTS, because they are unemployed not because of choice, but because capitalism needs an army of the unemployed!
In COMMUNISM, EVERYONE GETS A JOB if they are able to perform a job, there is NO UNEMPLOYMENT
the ONLY PEOPLE NOT WORKING would be those that choose! not to work (whereas in capitalism it is those who cannot get a job), or who physically or mentally are not up to any task (i.e the disabled, who will still get whatever they need since it is not their fault they cannot work etc).
But those people who CHOOSE not to work, who CHOOSE to abandon their comrades, who CHOOSE to exploit the world around them by letting others provide their goods for them while doing nothing in return whilst being perfectly able to... well... those parasites... should they get what they need? hmm? Do they work according to ability? NO, NO, NO!
Not to mention this is not only a moral necessity, but a practical one, if we allow free-riders, communism will probably fail.


Sharing is not exchange. Communism is not keeping account of who does what, who owes what, who gets what. That's capitalism. The promotion of "self-interest" is the promotion of capitalism.

No ofcourse not. And nowhere do i say we need to start some big organisation who keeps track of what everyone does, god no.
There will be people that slack off, who cares, doesnt matter, since there are people who will make up for that, or the technology will do so
However, people will notice if someone sits on his front porch all day drinking beer
How will people respond? Will they say; "Ah lets send him another truckload of beer for the next week?" no they wont, they will say "if he wants to reap the benefits of society, well then let him get off his ass. We all work too, and if we wouldnt society would fall apart, so let him work as well if he wants to have a part in the wealth we all produce", and what will you do? Stand there amongst those people shouting "NO NO NO, give him his beer!"? Why?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Floyce White+April 18, 2007 11:23 pm--> (Floyce White @ April 18, 2007 11:23 pm)Sharing is not exchange. Communism is not keeping account of who does what, who owes what, who gets what. That's capitalism. The promotion of "self-interest" is the promotion of capitalism.

Workers cannot tear down capitalism with the arguments capitalists use to defend capitalism.[/b]
This is what I'm asking.

Originally posted by "NKOS"@

"Lynx"
There is a difference between those who would join to improve their own lot in life and those who join because they feel the need to correct a massive injustice.
not really, the end-result is the same

i dont care why people want a better world, all i want is to have that better world :)
[Pragmatist mode=on] Me too :)