The Individual - Why the Individual must be free

[Commissar Dawkovich]

Hello,

You may call me a 'cappie', I prefer to merely use the term conservative or just a righty.

This post is basically to discuss why The Left seems to ignore the importance of the individual and spends all its resources upon a cumbersome state network that leads to the stifling of independent liberty, both socially and economically. Before I continue, I would like to point out that in times of war, the State must be protected. Without the State (in my case UK) you cannot enjoy the freedoms you currently posess and run the risk of living under a far more oppressive regime.

Firstly, it is my belief that the left cannot stand individuals maknig the most of themselves and enjoying a great material return. It doesn't seem to matter that the 'poor' in that country (such as the UK in the 80s) are in fact better off and enjoying a much sperior standard of living, the fact remains that the left can't take increased gains for the higher members of the social ladder (once again, despite the poor being better off as a result).

Secondly; equality. Equality is NOT desirable. People are not born equal in term of intellectual or physical capabilities and 'equality', to be just that, must be based around the lowest members of intellectual or physical ability. The logical outcome to this is a backward and redundant economy and society. Assuming we are not focussing on the actual members of society, then we must be looknig at the organs instead. I shall look at education education. In order for education to be 'equal' the only possible method that can be used is to bring the quality of all schools to a mere average, taking resources and staff from superb schools to shore up those that are failing. Whilst this may lead to a better spread of intellectual achievement across the State, the ramifications at the higher end of the ladder are disasterous. Without the education system to produce scientists, doctors, political scientists and the like, society, industry and science will simply stagnate, whislt other societies that allow their citizens to reach their full potential advance into new phases of technological and social achievement.

Intelligent response please, no flaming

[Wenty]

well comrade, the political compass qu. begs. Are the businessman and the manufacturer more important than the writer and the artist.?

[Commissar Dawkovich]

Mmmmmm,

I would say that to the State the industrialist and the manufacturer are the most important. The products of these people will then benefit the individual through the market - the worker is paid and then spends etc...

As for the importance to the individual, I have to say that the writer and the artist are most important. After all, man cannot live on bread alone. the writer and artist will give the individual enjoyment and expression. This will of course benefit the state by providing with a heritage, a cultural backdrop that all other states can identify.

To put this in context, I shall use Medieval and Elizabethan England. To the State the most important things at that time were the wool trade and later exploration. This trickled down to the individual as is mentioned above. Of course. To the individual the important things were not how much wool was being sold for, but instead the enjoyment that could be gained from Chaucer and Shakespeare. These writers, playwrights and of course artists etc... then go on to give England it's culture and international recognition. Ask someone to name a famous British historical personality and it is likley that Shakespeare or Chaucer will come up.

I hope I've made that clear enough to understand

[GUTB]

Past the specious definition of individuality and the false conception of freedom that lies underneath it (as has been examined by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky many times), the reliance on such backwards and barbaric distinctions as physical differences for defense of the class society can be seen.

Those that sink to such intellectual depths in order to pull out the most base level, unscientific and irrational systems of human behavior, are inveriably reactionists of every sort -- nationalists, racists, theocracists, fascists, etc. Their primary link in common is the reaction against the enlightened human evolution into a higher social order with the tools pulled out from the blackest recesses of man's animal mind. Such reactionaries are the "saftey mechanism" for the current social order, and rely on things not easily erased by championing certain feelings such as ego over one's race or nation, fear of God, reverence for rulers, and so on and so forth.

As with exploitation that stems from it, the final victory over the class partition will lead to the final extinction of barbarism and backwardness.

[James]

the individual.

What do you see as being the individual? The needs? The rights? The wants?

I say that mass capitalism is restricting many individuals, to the benifit of the few.

Of course people should be rewarded according to their effort and input - in a communist state, this would happen. The scientist would, still be paid more than the bin man. (guys, don't jump on me for this - i'm simplifying it)

anyways. Look at history. Time and time again people say "communism doesn't work, history shows us this"

But i say "but what about capitalism? Is the gap between the rich and poor growing? or getting smaller? Are more and more people dieing each day from greed in far away places?" What about THOSE individuals. And what is the ultimate affect? Take a look at sep 11th...i believe something happened to many individuals, because a few wanted to make some more money...
_____________

Do you believe that a team should work as such, or do you think that each should go off, and exploit each's personal "talents", only to be left short of the finish line?

Yet; If they had worked as a team they would have made it, but of course it may have taken longer, been harder work, and the glory won't be for just one individual. But many individuals.

I'm too tired to carry on. Welcome anyway. Just don't get all abusive, if anyone starts on u, i'll slap em or something. Where abouts do you live in Britain? (i live here too - what crap weather at the mo eh!)

(Edited by James at 1:04 am on Oct. 22, 2002)

[Hattori Hanzo]

the individual...

"Individualism must be destroyed"
-Che Guevara

Individuals in Capitalism bring an end to the capitalist society, but a new type of human and society occurs under socialism. Individuals have to unite, not to support some huge beuracracy, but to create socialism

[Commissar Dawkovich]

Those that sink to such intellectual depths in order to pull out the most base level, unscientific and irrational systems of human behavior, are inveriably reactionists of every sort -- nationalists, racists, theocracists, fascists, etc.

Please explain to me how it is possible for there to be total equality when the simple fact is that people are born different. Playing the race card isa low move, I have made no reference at all to race, but the differences that are prevelent amongst all races - that of intellectual and physical variation - as well as emotional and the like, but that is not needed for this discussion.
It's also interesting to note that 'fascism' in its original sense was connected with race in no way at all. Mussollini came to power in......1924? It was not until 1938 that the first race laws (against Jews) were introduced, thanks to our friendly Austrian midget.


As with exploitation that stems from it, the final victory over the class partition will lead to the final extinction of barbarism and backwardness.

How do you define barbarism and backwardness? Focus on the individual will logically lead to the advancement of society as a whole. Individuals reach their full potential in terms of (lets say) science, are greatly rewarded for it and then their developments go on to benefit the people as a whole. Communism can only lead to the smothering of individuals who try to break lose and follow their own trains of thought. There is no room for technological advancement outside of what the state permits and if the state is too concerned with everybody being as equal as possible, this won't be very much.

In my eyes, Commuinism has always lead to a far more barbaric way of life than that in Capitalist countries. I accept that Communism that is found in China and the USSR is not what MArx envisaged, but perhaps it is the logical conclusion to such a system?




But i say "but what about capitalism? Is the gap between the rich and poor growing? or getting smaller? Are more and more people dieing each day from greed in far away places?" What about THOSE individuals. And what is the ultimate affect? Take a look at sep 11th...i believe something happened to many individuals, because a few wanted to make some more money...

some interesting points, but I think that the gap between the rich and the poor doesn't matter. as long as the poor are getting richer there should be no majr problem. This happend under Magaret Thatcher. She was attacked for allowing the gap to widen, but the fact was that the poor were in fact much better off than they had been in 1979.
September the 11th - I believe this was a result of the American spin on Capitalism. Just as Nazism was an 'interpretation' of Fascism, the US 'finger in every pie' Cpaitalism is one that leads directly to active opposition. 19th Century Britain could get away with it, she was undoubtedly the mostp owerful single nation on the planet, but in todays world nuclear weapons and the like can himble even the mightiest giants.

Just as Communism will work if everyone adopts it, Capitalism too will work. The difference is that Capitalism gives an immediate and direct reward - much more attractive to human nature.

As a by word, I just want to make it clear that I am not a fascist. I have simply offered some sort of 'defence' as Nazism is much different to Fascism - the annihilation of 6 million Jews for example

Hi James, I'm from Bristol and yes, its pissing it down here too. Thanks for the promise of defence if anyone starts on me ;). It's funny really, a lot of my friends are actually full on socialists!


(Edited by Commissar Dawkovich at 10:20 am on Oct. 22, 2002)

[Wenty]

i agree with capitialism being more favourable for human nature definetly. Communism takes effort doesn't it, with good ole cappie you can just sit back and go 'mmm money man sweet!'. Commissar, who of your friends are socialists? Name them please...

[James]

CD;

I think something that everyone must realize - is that people will never change their opinion, each individual believs himself/herself to be correct. And there is simply nothing you can do about it in most casses. I think this is one of those arguments.

For example, everything that i say, you can easily turn around, with facts etc, and the reverse is true.

I'm not saying stop - i just had to say this before i go to the time and effort of making a proper reply...coming soon...

[Iepilei]

The destruction of the individual has already commenced, through means of the glitz and glam of advertising and marketing. But I've yet to see how any of these clothing materials or cars or houses define me as a person. Your not what you own - I believe a person is worth a lot more than that.

The destruction of the individual, as defined by the right-wing is the taking of properties away from those who worked to found them. Much like, as I've said before, the removal of the crown from the heads of the leaders who fought to create and defend their kingdoms. Nowadays, we disallow the private ownership of government and government funded buildings - schools and offices and what not. No man is to control these because they fall under the power of the people, the governed.

To take the factories away from the wealthy is no more than taking the castle from the king. As we grow larger, and more educated the thought of upper-classed control grows less desireable. Increasing education brought upon the fall of the throne and the founding of America - and its become evident that the more educated a mass becomes, the more driven towards democracy they become.

No learned person wants a a power over them, unless they are the ones to be in power.

But in a monarchy, or a freemarket system... not everyone can be the king, and not everyone can be the boss. That's where democracy and socialism come in.

It's our individualism that will ultimately motivate us to do away with the heirarchy of man, for you see everyone contributes in some way. You look down upon the labourers, or those who contribute through body, not mind, but let me tell you that your society would be nowhere without these people. They build the structures you enjoy and provide the food on your plates. Because this is their calling, does not mean they deserve less.

You must remember that a team is derieved of a large group of individuals.

(Edited by Iepilei at 9:31 pm on Oct. 22, 2002)

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

has it never occured to anyone that in his name, the beginer of this thread shows he thinks he is above the rest 'commisar' , then takes the piss out of it 'dawkovich', my point is, why go on about individualism when you very tag evelvates you above the rest ?

[Hattori Hanzo]

James makes an excellant point

True pride is met when the individual fullfills a debt to society by working for socialism and for the general welfare of one's nation

[Commissar Dawkovich]

Some interesting points.

The first thing I'd like to say is to Sovietsky Souyuz. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but for starters, my name is 'Dawkins', hence the 'Russianification' of it to 'Dawkovich'.

Secondly, I picked the title 'Commissar' simply as it relates to the Soviet Union, the most faous example of 'Communism' in action. I am not trying to imply that I am 'better' than anyone else, if I was, why would I use a title of one of the most fanatical groups of people from the Ideology I am opposed to? If it were the case I would use 'Prime Minister' or 'Field Marshall' perhaps.

Anyway, from what I've read it seems that most peole are keen to point out that Socialism still keeps the individual 'above the water mark' as it were and that it is Big Business that is destroying the Individual. My response is that Socialism will, as a natural consequence lead to the destruction of the individual as people are forced to accept everyone, such as murderers and rapists back into society. Perhaps this is more of a 'Liberal' form of thinking, but I have seen it appaear in several examples of socialism. Big business on the other hand, only seems to destroy the individuality of those who are willing to let it go. If you want to keep your individuality then you simply reject the advertising that is thrown at you. The difference between the two is that one is forced upon you, the other is voluntary.

True pride is met when the individual fullfills a debt to society by working for socialism and for the general welfare of one's nation

Surely greater pride is accomplished when the individual fulfills a debt/duty to society when working in a right-wing state, where it is not expected of him or her to perform it. Robert Edward Lee said that 'Duty is the sublimest word in our language', I believe that it can only be sublime as long as it is totally voluntary and is not 'expected' of you or forced upon you.

[alphaq]

"The free development of the individual is the precondition to the free development of all" - Marx

I would like to reiterate what others have said in that socialism is in fact the ultimate form of individualism. If one is to agree that the advance of the democracy of the state over totalitarianism is a victory for the individual, then one must also agree that the advance of the democratization of the workplace (i.e., worker's control of production) over the "dictatorship of capital" as such, is a also (and ultimately a deeper) victory for the individual. The people who exert the greatest influence in our lives (our bosses, our teachers, etc) exist by mere "dicate". If one is to believe in the individual, then we must fight to give each individual the freedom of choice over not only who we work for but also how we work. Socialism is in the end not about equality, it is about democracy, and specifically it is about the development of substantive democracy above and over mere formal democracy as exists Capitalist countries. Equality (equality of choice, not equality of existence) neccessarily flows from socialist democracy. Substantive democracy gives us greater control over our own lives, and that is the greatest gift we can make to the advance of the individual.

Capitalism exists with one primary motive, and that is the profit motive. All other effects (formal democracy, so called "upward mobility", the increased living standards of the poor, and individualism) are subsidary. Thus, Capitalism places profit over the individual, with the understanding that certain benefits will "trickle down" that will as an after effect foster individualism. Socialism, on the other hand, places human need above and beyond any other motive. That the betterment of the individual becomes a neccessary consequence of human need is much more viable than the notion that the cold and unbiased pursuit of profit will lead to this betterment.

With this being said, however, I should point out that the USSR, Cuba, China, etc are NOT socialist states (in my opinion, at least - I tend to adhere to the "state capitalist" theory). The perverted interpretation of socialism that the world knows as Stalinism was an attempt to destroy the individual. I am also wary of pronouncements such as Che's aforementioned quote (as much as I love Che), since any attempt to make the individual subservient to the whole is extremely dangerous for humanity.

At the same time, any attempt to make the whole subservient to the individual (and specifically, to very few individuals, as in Capitalism) is also extremely dangerous for humanity. Socialism and specifically Marxism recognizes this, and as such a socialist state is one in which individuals will need to cooperate, not as a means of benefit for greater society (although that will be the effect) but for the advancement of the individual.

The individual will only be free when he rules for himself, and is not ruled by capital.

(Edited by alphaq at 7:42 am on Oct. 24, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

"I would like to reiterate what others have said in that socialism is in fact the ultimate form of individualism."

Laughable!

[IzmSchism]

I think history has proven that certain things just don't work, no matter how idealistic and utopian you wish to think. The individual ultimately answers to the individual. No set of government policies and objectives will ever intersect the individual to the point where the individuals mind is silenced. The only thing that will, in my own idealistic thoughts is that the issue of morality will override into a single stream of ultimate good. But we all know that that is a bunch of horseshit, so amen, praise the lord, whatever we will always run around chasing our idealistic tails until we vomit. Stalin thought he could think for people, and knew what was ultimately best for the Russian people, so he implemented the Gulag to serve as the mediator. Nixon and Kissinger thought they knew what was best for the individual by destroying peace talks with north and south Vietnam, but absolute mayhem triumphed. Ultimately someone has got to think for the State in a non individual land, but this question seems to be the running question in my life so ultimately I have no good answer.

[alphaq]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 9:03 am on Oct. 24, 2002
"I would like to reiterate what others have said in that socialism is in fact the ultimate form of individualism."

Laughable!


Good argument.