Capitalism is a collectivist system

[Dimentio]

The reason why I think capitalism is a collectivist system, is that the individual would need to subject her own personality and time to serving other people in order to gain an income. Even if the person is for example a shop-owner and not a laborer, she must ask herself what the consumers want her to sell. For a laborer, it is even worse, since they over-work in order to serve the profit incentives of the companies.

Hence, capitalism is indirectly forcing an individual to think: "What characteristics or qualifications do I have which other might ask for".

Actually, I think that is the worst aspect of capitalism, namely that to survive, you must adapt your own unique personality to the machinations of the market and the interests and values of other people (bosses, customers, NGO;s).

[partizan604]

Actually, I think that is the worst aspect of capitalism, namely that to survive, you must adapt your own unique personality to the machinations of the market and the interests and values of other people (bosses, customers, NGO;s).

According to your words capitalism is a voluntary collective slavery for most of the people. But you shouldn't forget that a collectivist system is a system where groups of people are trying to fulfil their collective will and gain their collective needs. Capitalism force an individual to struggle for his own personal needs and material aims.

[Dimentio]

What's the difference?

One is still "forced" to interact and engage in others.

[partizan604]

yes, it is. i've tryed so say that. but others are not interested in that "one".

[Dimentio]

It is repression to be forced to appear as attractive for other people, since it will limit one's ability to enjoy life for it's own sake.

I think it is a more benevolent idea to try to minimise the work needed to be done by human beings, automatise as much as possible, give all individuals an equal income and a minimum of hours they should fulfill.

Eventually, we could abolish monotonous labor whatsoever.

The result would be that humanity as a whole would become a neo-aristocracy which would live in a society where they have access to everything which the infrastructure could produce.

I prefer that before a state where everyone works hard together to survive.

[JazzRemington]

Ideologically I would say that Capitalism is individualist. The main idea behind it is that people can "be their own bosses" meaning that they essentially don't have to rely on others as they would have in a collectivist system.

But yes, in practice Capitalism always ends up being a system where many rely on few, or vise versa in many cases.

[PRC-UTE]

yes, you're right, both because the market and formal democracy are a collectivist form of decision-making, but also because the economic system of industrial capitalism is social. it is only appropriation that is private, which is merely a carry-over from fuedelism.

it's basic marxist theory: the struggle of the social process of labour is locked in an irreconcilable conflict with ownership which is private.

[LSD]

The reason why I think capitalism is a collectivist system, is that the individual would need to subject her own personality and time to serving other people in order to gain an income.

While there is something to that analysis, I think it's problematic to overstretch the meaning of words like "collectivist" or "individualistic".

Save for the purest eremitic autarky, all socities are "collective" to one degree or another. They are also nescessary "individualistic", since all are composed of individuals.

Even Nazi Germany permitted a certain degree of individual rights; for most citizens of the Reich, life under Hitler was still a primarily individual affair.

The reality is that most of this talk of "collectivism" and "individualism" is more political propaganda than serious socioeconomic analysis. Not to mention that "collectivist" can have an entirely different meaning when applied politically then from when applied economically.

After all, liberal republicanism is a deeply collectivist political tradition; and even the most ardent conservatives have no objecton to the government keeping "state secrets" if the "common good" (or "national security") demands it.

At the same time, however, these people are quick to rail against the evils of "collectivism" when it comes to somewhere like Cuba or the former Soviet Union.

It's also incredibly ironinc that, when presented with all the harm that capitalism has done, the primary response offered by capitalist apologists is that capitalism is "nescessary".

Oh, every so often we get Von Mises type capitalists who expound the "moral" virtues of capitalism; but for the most part, the argument given is that absent capitalism, society would "fall apart", that people "wouldn't work" and instead would run around murdering one another.

In other words, that the collective interest of an ordered and productive society is more important than the individual right to not be coerced into working for a wage.

Although I'm sure the folks in OI won't see it in those terms. :D

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:52 pm
Ideologically I would say that Capitalism is individualist. The main idea behind it is that people can "be their own bosses" meaning that they essentially don't have to rely on others as they would have in a collectivist system.

But yes, in practice Capitalism always ends up being a system where many rely on few, or vise versa in many cases.
Capitalism is not an ideology, but a system to organise production and distribute resources.

[JazzRemington]

Well, there's a Capitalist (or bourgeoise) ideology at any rate.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:26 pm
Well, there's a Capitalist (or bourgeoise) ideology at any rate.
There are several bourgeoisie ideologies.

Conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, Christian Democracy, humanism...

The important thing to realise, is that all of them are just tools to justify the status quo.

[Red Militant]

Capitalism is only collectivist in the capacity that we still live in a society, and that does not say much as humans are social creatures, to describe capitalism as collectivist is utter nonsense, capitalism more specifically free market capitalism and its ideas consumerism and competition promote Hyper-Individualism! Whereas Socialism should promote the balance between individualism and collectivism and promote cooperation and leave competition in the sphere of entertainment where it belongs not in social production.

The only thing more disgusting than consumerism and Hyper-Individualism is the wage system itself! Consumerism has created a culture of narcissism, fuck everyone else I want spinners on my SUV, fuck joining a union and struggling together Id rather get promoted, its all about ME not the group. And now that very music that very culture of hip hop that was once about speaking out against the man and fighting the power has done more to embrace and propagate the consumerist ideologies of The Man than any other music culture in this country, Bling Bling culture has spread like a fucking cancer and is a threat to Class Consciousness.
"Cause I'm All wipe Me Down" "Money Cars Cash Hoes" its Money this and Cars That. I want to turn on the radio and hear rhymes about real shit not this Bling Bling BullShit.

Capitalism cannot be described as collectivist it is based on private property, and it promotes the Cult of the Individual, yes it is collectivist to an extent but it cannot be summed up as collectivist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think you're on to something here Serpent my friend.

Let's see:

Capitalism collects all your dough....

Capitalism collects all your dignity....

Capitalism collects all your freedom....

Sounds pretty collectivist if you ask me! :lol:

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 29, 2007 07:23 pm
Capitalism is only collectivist in the capacity that we still live in a society, and that does not say much as humans are social creatures, to describe capitalism as collectivist is utter nonsense, capitalism more specifically free market capitalism and its ideas consumerism and competition promote Hyper-Individualism! Whereas Socialism should promote the balance between individualism and collectivism and promote cooperation and leave competition in the sphere of entertainment where it belongs not in social production.

The only thing more disgusting than consumerism and Hyper-Individualism is the wage system itself! Consumerism has created a culture of narcissism, fuck everyone else I want spinners on my SUV, fuck joining a union and struggling together Id rather get promoted, its all about ME not the group. And now that very music that very culture of hip hop that was once about speaking out against the man and fighting the power has done more to embrace and propagate the consumerist ideologies of The Man than any other music culture in this country, Bling Bling culture has spread like a fucking cancer and is a threat to Class Consciousness.
"Cause I'm All wipe Me Down" "Money Cars Cash Hoes" its Money this and Cars That. I want to turn on the radio and hear rhymes about real shit not this Bling Bling BullShit.

Capitalism cannot be described as collectivist it is based on private property, and it promotes the Cult of the Individual, yes it is collectivist to an extent but it cannot be summed up as collectivist.
"Cult of the individual"?

Materially speaking, you must be socially competent and try to make yourself interesting for others on a market. I envision a system where we do not have to interact to survive.

[Red Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:25 pm


Materially speaking, you must be socially competent and try to make yourself interesting for others on a market. I envision a system where we do not have to interact to survive.
By "Cult of the Individual" I am Not referring to "Cult of Personality" but I am referring to the psychological impact that free market capitalism and consumerism have had on peoples mind and I don't mean this as some sort of brainwash, I mean that peoples minds are partly a product of they're environment.

I am not sure what you are saying, in the first line?
I envision as a final goal the balance between the individual/personal and the collective/social. I am not an enemy of individualism but of Hyper-Individualism.
I your last line are you referring to Association(Max Stirner)?

[Hit The North]

Materially speaking, you must be socially competent and try to make yourself interesting for others on a market. I envision a system where we do not have to interact to survive.

Then you envision an impossible petite bourgeois utopia.

As others have pointed out, human beings are inherently social and depend upon their interaction with others in order to form and maintain their humanity. We have no language unless we interact with the language of others; no culture unless we interact with the cultures around us; we produce nothing unless we produce alongside others.

It's not social interaction which is a problem but the quality of that interaction.

It's possible that you're just expressing your alienation.

[Dimentio]

I am not against socialisation, I am against assimilation.

People may still socialise together if they would want to, but in the technocratic society, there should eventually be little need of adaptation to work, since work will be jsut a tiny fragment of reality.

[Red Militant]

I am still unsure are you referring to Max Stirners concept of Association and if so,
How can Stirners Concept of Association and a Technocracy be compatible?,
Because does not Technocray require Authority and a Top Down structure something Stirner stood firmly against?

[gilhyle]

Stirner's concept of the Union of the Egoists is not very coherent.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 30, 2007 05:58 pm
I am still unsure are you referring to Max Stirners concept of Association and if so,
How can Stirners Concept of Association and a Technocracy be compatible?,
Because does not Technocray require Authority and a Top Down structure something Stirner stood firmly against?
Modern technocrats are asserting a holonic, flat model. Of course, it is important how work is structured, but it is also important how much there is of it.

I would hate to be a cleaner no matter if it is in a capitalist or a socialist society. That work is worthy for machines.

[Red Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:03 pm
Stirner's concept of the Union of the Egoists is not very coherent.
Why do you say this?
As for Hyper-Individualism I do not find Stirner's concept of Individualism and Association to be explicitly hyper-individualist, he is one of my favorite theorists.
This may sound contradictory of me after my rant against hyper-individualism but not if you grasp what I'm really saying a balance between individualism and collectivism and the harmonization of the two.

[Luís Henrique]

I have seen many leftists who believe that our struggle against capitalism is a struggle of "the collective" against "the individual". I don't believe in this; capitalism certainly demands an individualist ideology, but also a collectivist one. You can't work in a capitalist factory if you aren't able to be part of a collective!

"Capital" in itself is a collective entity; if not, it would have to be referred to as "capitals". But one of the key ideas of "The Capital" is that the deep unity of all capital must be understood, beyond its superficial continual internal strife.

So I don't think things can be reduced to such hypostastic dichotomy. We aren't partisans of "the collective", nor the cappies are partisans of "the individual". Nor the other way round. It has to do with which kind of individuals, and which kind of collectives, we support (and the cappies, on the other side, support).

The capitalist ideology, however, requires that the collectivist aspects of capitalism be usually hidden (but not always; Fascism, for instance, is a kind of capitalist ideology that puts more emphasys in the collective than in the individual). So capitalist ideology worships "the individual", an "individual" that cannot possibly exist in a capitalist society (when they try to become earnest about it, such as in "libertarian" ideology, the anti-capitalist - and in that case, reactionary - aspects of individualism soon become apparent).

But we are individuals, and necessarily part of collectives. The idea that we can be isolated individuals has nothing to do with socialism. We do have to do things to please others; human life has no meaning if it is not devoted to the pleasure of others, and a normal human being cannot have pleasure except together with others.

Luís Henrique

[co-op]

Its always amusing to see multi-millionaire capitalists described as 'self-made men'. This of course the ludicrous idea that somehow, with super-human effort, one man has been able to create the all the huge wealth he posseses by his own efforts alone. We here of course fully understand that wealth is created by labour and thus by the workers alone. This leaves the rich capitalist with the irony of having actually physically created none of the wealth he owns.

We as workers cooperate every day with each other to produce all the wealth the world has and we see that cooperation stunted by the lack of control we have over the workplace and the wealth we produce. How many times do you see a job advertisment with the statement "must be able to work as part of a team." Production is a collective undertaking and that is why the ideologies of communism and anarchism exist. Workers brought together have a common enemy, and they develop the desire and understanding that they can produce and also manage and control without the individualist capitalist hand stealing the product of their collective efforts.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 31, 2007 03:19 pm
"Capital" in itself is a collective entity; if not, it would have to be referred to as "capitals". But one of the key ideas of "The Capital" is that the deep unity of all capital must be understood, beyond its superficial continual internal strife.

It's impossible for individualism to truly exist under capitalism; ultimately all people are subject to the whims and illogical dictates of the market.

only socialism can create a society of individuals: socialism is man's positive self consciousness.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by co-[email protected] 01, 2007 04:26 pm
We as workers cooperate every day with each other to produce all the wealth the world has and we see that cooperation stunted by the lack of control we have over the workplace and the wealth we produce. How many times do you see a job advertisment with the statement "must be able to work as part of a team." Production is a collective undertaking and that is why the ideologies of communism and anarchism exist. Workers brought together have a common enemy, and they develop the desire and understanding that they can produce and also manage and control without the individualist capitalist hand stealing the product of their collective efforts.
yes comrade, you hit the nail on the head.

industrial economies are by their very nature collective efforts. it's only accumulation that is private which we must change.