Individualism and the "Worker's State"

[Decolonize The Left]

It has come to my attention since returning to this forum that there is a prevailing belief within many of the communists, Marxist-Leninists, and others, that within the post-revolutionary state (I use the Marxist definition here, meaning the organ of proletarian repression against the capitalist class) that the class consciousness of the workers would provide some sort of class identification surpassing that of the individual.

What I take this to mean is that the working class, or proletariat, would view themselves as a whole - thereby identifying with their class interest over and above that of their own personal situation.

I have two subsequent questions:
1) Is this the case? If not, could you please clarify the theory behind this 'worker's state' and class consciousness"?
2) Is this not highly problematic in the following ways? The first being that it highly resembles (in theory at least) the sort of national identification which has taken place in many fascist nations over the period of the past 100 years. The second being that it implies (at least it seems to me that it does) some sort of governing body which would then direct the actions of this working class consciousness - for hasn't this almost always been the case in the past (a larger identification with the nation, class, etc... is accompanied by a "leader" directing the actions of the mass).

Your comments are appreciated.

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think this belongs in Theory.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think this belongs in Theory.

My apologies, would someone with that ability move it please?

- August

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB should do that, I think.

[Hit The North]

Hey ho... off to theory we go.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hey ho... off to theory we go.

Thank you.

- August

[Hyacinth]

I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say that class consciousness would provide “identification surpassing that of the individual”. But, in any case, the development of class consciousness means, as far as I understand, that the workers would come to realize that they share a common interest in overthrowing capitalism. Beyond that, though, individual differences would persist. It isn’t as though magically upon the realization of class consciousness everyone will subordinate their personal interests to the general will (or anything of that sort). In fact, the attainment of class consciousness is merely the realization that it is good *for you* as a worker to overthrow capitalism, that is all, so there is no conflict between personal interests and class interests (in this case). The attainment of class consciousness is discarding the false consciousness of believing that the continued existence of capitalism is in your personal interest.

All that having been said, I fail to see how class consciousness resembles nationalism at all. Nor how it implies the need for leadership. I think you have to make the connection more explicit if you wish to have the issue addressed.

[Rawthentic]

Communist class consciousness does surpass the individual, by principal and necessity.

This consciousness is a realization of the historic goals and missions of the proletariat, and it does require self-sacrifice and dedication to this mission. Without it, without this spirit, we cannot make revolution or continue socialism. During the period when China had communist leadership, there was a struggle between revisionists and communists in terms of production. The revisionists advocated for material incentives to guide production, because the workers "wanted more", thud downplaying consciousness and communism, and having more regard for things rather than people in socialist construction. Mao said that what was needed was "politics-in-command", that building socialism, having our eye on communism, and the selfless spirit of "serve the people" was what was needed. The masses are the ones that make history, not the productive forces.

In the event of a revolutionary movement or in socialist society (because communist consciousness does not arise in a vacuum but through struggle and rev leadership) this consciousness would be led, of course.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, thanks for the replies. I will address them subsequently and in order.

Hyacinth:

I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say that class consciousness would provide “identification surpassing that of the individual”.
I realize that this was unclear - my apologies. In shorthand, identity refers to the "who" of an individual. Individuals have names, and personal identities which stem from this basic differentiation. Yet individuals can identify above and beyond themselves. Nationalism, for example, demands that individual identities come second to that of the "nation" (and in many cases the state). When this happens, the individual is lost amidst the tides of supra-identification. Actions lose their moral tangibility because the individual is no longer responsible - he/she is acting as the mass, as the nation.

When I was comparing this to my impressions of the 'worker's state' I was referring to the supra-identification of the individual to the proletariat. In other words, I fear that we are proposing that the individual sees his/herself not as an individual, but as a member of a greater organization - the working class. My fear here stems from the degradation of moral fabric which results from responsibility being shifted from the individual to the collective. I hope this is clearer than before, if not, please request clarification and I shall do my best.


But, in any case, the development of class consciousness means, as far as I understand, that the workers would come to realize that they share a common interest in overthrowing capitalism. Beyond that, though, individual differences would persist.
If this is the case, then my fears seem benign. But I am hesitant to accept your definition as the consensus of the left, for I have read many other posts from other members holding much more strict understandings of class consciousness.

Rawthentic:

Communist class consciousness does surpass the individual, by principal and necessity.
I hope so, for the sake of the revolution.


Mao said that what was needed was "politics-in-command", that building socialism, having our eye on communism, and the selfless spirit of "serve the people" was what was needed. The masses are the ones that make history, not the productive forces.
Unfortunately, I am not interested in what Mao had to say. His proto-capitalist nation is not something I should like to strive towards - I have no desire to hide under the banner of communism while exploiting millions.


In the event of a revolutionary movement or in socialist society (because communist consciousness does not arise in a vacuum but through struggle and rev leadership) this consciousness would be led, of course.
I am aware that class consciousness cannot spring out of a vacuum. This seems obvious, as it must be a slow and continuous process. But I do not see how it follows from this that "consciousness would be led, of course."

- August

[Hyacinth]

I realize that this was unclear - my apologies. In shorthand, identity refers to the "who" of an individual. Individuals have names, and personal identities which stem from this basic differentiation. Yet individuals can identify above and beyond themselves. Nationalism, for example, demands that individual identities come second to that of the "nation" (and in many cases the state). When this happens, the individual is lost amidst the tides of supra-identification. Actions lose their moral tangibility because the individual is no longer responsible - he/she is acting as the mass, as the nation.

When I was comparing this to my impressions of the 'worker's state' I was referring to the supra-identification of the individual to the proletariat. In other words, I fear that we are proposing that the individual sees his/herself not as an individual, but as a member of a greater organization - the working class. My fear here stems from the degradation of moral fabric which results from responsibility being shifted from the individual to the collective. I hope this is clearer than before, if not, please request clarification and I shall do my best.
Thank you, that does clarify things.

Though, I’m inclined (and you seem to agree) that the conception of class consciousness that I have given doesn’t seem to lend itself to this sort of ‘supra-identification’ (as you call it). Nationalism, and the like, tend to construct and mythologize national identities, and this construction occurs from the top-down; that is, the ruling classes see it fit to construct such an identity in order to pacify the masses and ease class tensions. I can potentially see the danger of something similar occurring with the identity of proletariat but only in the context of a class society, i.e. for instance the USSR. In fact, not only would I say that class consciousness doesn’t necessitate leadership, but that having leaders permits for the possibility of the sorts of abuses that you fear.


If this is the case, then my fears seem benign. But I am hesitant to accept your definition as the consensus of the left, for I have read many other posts from other members holding much more strict understandings of class consciousness.
I would be curious to see how others conceive of class consciousness and how it differs from my conception.

[Rawthentic]

Unfortunately, I am not interested in what Mao had to say. His proto-capitalist nation is not something I should like to strive towards - I have no desire to hide under the banner of communism while exploiting millions.A well substantiated claim, of course. What an ignorant way of dismissing a legitimate and important point to hides ones...ignorance. :closedeyes:


But I do not see how it follows from this that "consciousness would be led, of course."Well, in order for the masses to have consciousness, they need to be led by a revolutionary organization (core) in mass struggles to expose the system. I meant to say that there would be communist leadership in this whole process (because consciousness is a continuing process).

[Decolonize The Left]

Though, I’m inclined (and you seem to agree) that the conception of class consciousness that I have given doesn’t seem to lend itself to this sort of ‘supra-identification’ (as you call it). Nationalism, and the like, tend to construct and mythologize national identities, and this construction occurs from the top-down; that is, the ruling classes see it fit to construct such an identity in order to pacify the masses and ease class tensions. I can potentially see the danger of something similar occurring with the identity of proletariat but only in the context of a class society, i.e. for instance the USSR. In fact, not only would I say that class consciousness doesn’t necessitate leadership, but that having leaders permits for the possibility of the sorts of abuses that you fear.

Point well-taken.


A well substantiated claim, of course. What an ignorant way of dismissing a legitimate and important point to hides ones...ignorance. :closedeyes:

Fair enough - you are correct that I dismissed your point. I shall address it now. You write of class consciousness, that Mao claimed it was:

the selfless spirit of "serve the people" was what was needed. The masses are the ones that make history, not the productive forces.Does this not seem contradictory to you? How can you declare that 'we' - the enlightened? - must maintain a "selfless spirit of "serve the people"", and yet follow with the claim that it must be the masses who make history? Are you saying that we must make the history which will then be made by the masses?


Well, in order for the masses to have consciousness, they need to be led by a revolutionary organization (core) in mass struggles to expose the system. I meant to say that there would be communist leadership in this whole process (because consciousness is a continuing process).

I disagree. It seems far more logical to claim that in order for the masses to have class consciousness, they need merely to arrive at that class consciousness in some way or another. I see no reason why there must be a revolutionary organization to guide them...

Furthermore, to return to your earlier post.

Communist class consciousness does surpass the individual, by principal and necessity.

This consciousness is a realization of the historic goals and missions of the proletariat, and it does require self-sacrifice and dedication to this mission.You claim it doesn't surpass the individual, yet you speak in of the "historic goals and missions of the proletariat." (Italics added) The proletariat is not the individual, though the individual may be classified under such a term. My claim is that unless it is the individual who has the "historic goal and mission" - the revolution is bound to failure. My further claim is that it is all-to-easy to speak of 'the proletariat,' or the 'working class,' and to commit abuses in those names. But it is always individuals acting, always individuals responsible, and this is often overlooked.

- August

[Hit The North]

My further claim is that it is all-to-easy to speak of 'the proletariat,' or the 'working class,' and to commit abuses in those names. But it is always individuals acting, always individuals responsible, and this is often overlooked. All you're really saying here is that collectives are made up of individuals. Nevertheless, in order to speak of collectives, these individuals must be acting in a manner which is not purely reducible to their individual action; they must be acting collectively. Class consciousness is a form of this: precisely when individuals form bonds of solidarity and action in pursuance of a perceived class interest. It is not necessary - and, in fact, not usually the case -that the entire class (the sum of individuals belonging to this class) thinks or behaves in this way.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Hyacinth:
In fact, not only would I say that class consciousness doesn’t necessitate leadership, but that having leaders permits for the possibility of the sorts of abuses that you fear.
Except that unless class consciousness falls like rain on the heads of everyone, then class consciousness will be unevenly distributed. Those who are more class conscious than others will, on that basis, form a leadership within the class - a vanguard, in fact.

[N3wday]

Thank you for the thread August. I've been pondering the relationship between the individual and collective a bit recently. This compliments that well.


It seems far more logical to claim that in order for the masses to have class consciousness, they need merely to arrive at that class consciousness in some way or another. I see no reason why there must be a revolutionary organization to guide themHere you need to identify what you mean by "the masses". Are we talking about industrial workers? Peasants? The larger parts of society? That term means many different things depending on who you talk to (and what political trend they identify with).

I think the way we deal with this situation is far different under different conditions.

Take the peasants in China. After the revolution they certainly had gained a certain degree of class consciousness. They struggled against feudal landlords and organized themselves for a number of years. Many of them were responsible for self organizing the most 'advanced' communes. But others directly after receiving land began to amass wealth and exploit other poor peasants who were less crafty with the gains they won through the revolution.

Did their consciousness develop the same way as the urban proletariat in Russia?

How much more (institutionalized) leadership from a progressive force did the peasants need than the Russian workers? (and I'm saying progressive because I don't want this to degrade into a discussion about whether China was actually Communist or not. I would love to talk about that, but I'm more interested in this topic right now).

I think of lot of this boils down to the question (to put it very crudely) are Communists going to be rebels or not? Identifying with the working class or collective society (internationally) is not a bad thing at all. To puts ones individual interests below that is really important (after all we're not going to be riding around in Mercedes after the rev). But the question for me is how should society be organized the create the material conditions for people to think as individuals but act in the interests of the collective (assuming they have developed 'class consciousness').


Nevertheless, in order to speak of collectives, these individuals must be acting in a manner which is not purely reducible to their individual action; they must be acting collectively. Class consciousness is a form of this: precisely when individuals form bonds of solidarity and action in pursuance of a perceived class interest. It is not necessary - and, in fact, not usually the case -that the entire class (the sum of individuals belonging to this class) thinks or behaves in this way.Bob hits the nail on the head here. Nationalism (generally, but not always) creates a false sense of unity on a national level bringing people together to act collectively. But they certainly lose much of their individual identity (and class consciousness?) during this period.

Can people act collectively (on a regular basis) while maintaining a strong sense of individuality? I believe so, but I think there are certain conditions that need to be met in order to fulfill this vision - self organized media for example.

***

I realize much of my post is restating points already made but that helps me organize my thoughts :).

[N3wday]

Except that unless class consciousness falls like rain on the heads of everyone, then class consciousness will be unevenly distributed. Those who are more class conscious than others will, on that basis, form a leadership within the class - a vanguard, in fact.
*Nods

[trivas7]

In shorthand, identity refers to the "who" of an individual. Individuals have names, and personal identities which stem from this basic differentiation. Yet individuals can identify above and beyond themselves. Nationalism, for example, demands that individual identities come second to that of the "nation" (and in many cases the state). When this happens, the individual is lost amidst the tides of supra-identification. Actions lose their moral tangibility because the individual is no longer responsible - he/she is acting as the mass, as the nation.


This is something I think about a lot. In philosophic terms this individualism you speak of is a chimera in Marxist terms. For Marx the individual is the ensemble of her social relationships, the individual as a member of a historically mediated class is the realization of her species-being. So I agree with Rawthentic that class consciousness is a realization of the historic goals and missions of the proletariat, and it does require self-sacrifice and dedication to a historic mission. The realization of class consciousness is the loss of false individualism in this sense.

OTOH, as Eric Hoffer and others have warned there is always dangers involved in the possibility of authenic loss of individual moral conscience, opportunism, etc. that comes with subjugating one's self to a group. IMO there is no easy resolution, and one accepts it as part of being human.

[Rawthentic]

Thanks Bob and n3day (hey man!) for expanding on this thread, what you said is basically what I think as well.

[Decolonize The Left]

Great responses all, thank you. I will address them in order:


All you're really saying here is that collectives are made up of individuals. Nevertheless, in order to speak of collectives, these individuals must be acting in a manner which is not purely reducible to their individual action; they must be acting collectively. Class consciousness is a form of this: precisely when individuals form bonds of solidarity and action in pursuance of a perceived class interest. It is not necessary - and, in fact, not usually the case -that the entire class (the sum of individuals belonging to this class) thinks or behaves in this way.

I fail to understand how there exists something beyond their individual interests/decisions to identify with a concept. "They must be acting collectively" - ok, but what does this mean? That they are acting in such a way that it is not reducible to their individual actions? My point is that group actions, collective actions, class actions, are always reducible to individual actions.


Except that unless class consciousness falls like rain on the heads of everyone, then class consciousness will be unevenly distributed. Those who are more class conscious than others will, on that basis, form a leadership within the class - a vanguard, in fact.

And it most certainly 'fall like rain on the heads of everyone.' I understand the uneven dispersal of class consciousness, this does not concern me. But the formation of "a leadership within the class - a vanguard, in fact" is highly disturbing. Perhaps I am side-lining my own thread (:lol:), but does the formation of hierarchy within a movement to abolish hierarchy seem contradictory?


Here you need to identify what you mean by "the masses". Are we talking about industrial workers? Peasants? The larger parts of society? That term means many different things depending on who you talk to (and what political trend they identify with).

I think the way we deal with this situation is far different under different conditions.

This is indeed in need of clarification. By "the masses" I was referring to the large proportion of society, which Marxists rightfully label "the proletariat." I also include segments of the lumpen, and petty-bourgeoisie in this group (masses), as I see no reason why they will not support the cause.

And you are correct that all situations must be approached on a circumstantial basis. But my main question was one of theory, not practical action.


But the question for me is how should society be organized the create the material conditions for people to think as individuals but act in the interests of the collective (assuming they have developed 'class consciousness').

Excellent and interesting question. Perhaps a new thread is in order? :)


Can people act collectively (on a regular basis) while maintaining a strong sense of individuality? I believe so, but I think there are certain conditions that need to be met in order to fulfill this vision - self organized media for example.

Of course people can act collectively while maintaining a strong sense of individuality. My question is precisely related to this: what happens when the 'collective' identification of the individual surpasses the individual identification, and is this not implied within class consciousness? (Note: this has been addressed in several responses, I was merely re-iterating)


This is something I think about a lot. In philosophic terms this individualism you speak of is a chimera in Marxist terms. For Marx the individual is the ensemble of her social relationships, the individual as a member of a historically mediated class is the realization of her species-being.

Fine, but no matter how much one argues that the 'individual is the ensemble of her social relationships,' she is still the locus of sense-making ability which makes her, "her" (as opposed to "you," or "me").


So I agree with Rawthentic that class consciousness is a realization of the historic goals and missions of the proletariat, and it does require self-sacrifice and dedication to a historic mission. The realization of class consciousness is the loss of false individualism in this sense.

However grandiose ("historic mission") you wish to make the striving for freedom and equality is your choice. Could you please elaborate on what form of individualism is lost through class consciousness? You said it was "false individualism" but I fail to see what you are referring to.

- August

[Hyacinth]

Except that unless class consciousness falls like rain on the heads of everyone, then class consciousness will be unevenly distributed. Those who are more class conscious than others will, on that basis, form a leadership within the class - a vanguard, in fact.
Inevitably, as you say, there will be an uneven distribution of the degrees of class consciousness among the elements of any class. I have no issue with a vanguard where a vanguard is conceived merely as the most advanced element of the proletariat in terms of class consciousness, and where the role of this vanguard is agitational and educational. I suspect that we aren’t so much in disagreement here (though correct me if I’m wrong), I just take issue with the use of the word ‘leadership’, in that in my mind it has the connotations of having people giving orders out to others, etc.

[trivas7]

Fine, but no matter how much one argues that the 'individual is the ensemble of her social relationships,' she is still the locus of sense-making ability which makes her, "her" (as opposed to "you," or "me").

I have no idea what you mean by the individual as "the locus of sense-making ability". The meaning of the individual and individualism is historically and socially mediated, e.g. traditional Buddhist culture knows no "individual", this is for the most part a Western construct.



However grandiose ("historic mission") you wish to make the striving for freedom and equality is your choice. Could you please elaborate on what form of individualism is lost through class consciousness? You said it was "false individualism" but I fail to see what you are referring to.

By false individualism I mean the glorification of the individual that runs rampant in modern bourgeois dominated culture. It makes people into socially autonomous atoms juridically, worships celebrity and turns corporations into legal entities -- in short, no class-consciousness and human solidarity. Horatio Algiers, and all that rot.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have no idea what you mean by the individual as "the locus of sense-making ability". The meaning of the individual and individualism is historically and socially mediated, e.g. traditional Buddhist culture knows no "individual", this is for the most part a Western construct.

By "locus of sense-making ability" I mean only the following: a human being is both constructed and constructing. By constructed I mean exactly what many have detailed, that humans are historically and socially conditioned, and subject to circumstance. By constructing I mean that human beings have the ability to reflect and change their social and historical setting. In other words, they have the ability to make sense of their situation, and hence to change it. Hence no matter the arguments of constructed individuals, the individual is always capable of change - it's what makes us human.


By false individualism I mean the glorification of the individual that runs rampant in modern bourgeois dominated culture. It makes people into socially autonomous atoms juridically, worships celebrity and turns corporations into legal entities -- in short, no class-consciousness and human solidarity. Horatio Algiers, and all that rot.

I understand your meaning now, thank you for the clarification. Indeed, this sort of false individualism is highly dangerous and destructive.

- August

[Hit The North]

... and where the role of this vanguard is agitational and educational. and organizational - otherwise the agitation and education is liable to be wasted.

I just take issue with the use of the word ‘leadership’, in that in my mind it has the connotations of having people giving orders out to others, etc. And yet, your objections aside, there will always be some elements of the class that take the initiative and lead. In the 1880s in Britain, it happened to be young women who made a living manufacturing matches, alongside unskilled dock workers and gasworkers. In the 1980s it was the mining communities. There were ordinary men and women during that dispute who suddenly found themselves and emerged as leaders. At that point they were the vanguard of the class. At that point there was nothing any university educated socialist could tell them about state oppression and the absolute necessity for class solidarity. I was active during that dispute (a university educated socialist myself) and was happy on the mass pickets to take orders from those who knew what they were doing.


Originally posted by AugustWest:
I fail to understand how there exists something beyond their individual interests/decisions to identify with a concept. "They must be acting collectively" - ok, but what does this mean? That they are acting in such a way that it is not reducible to their individual actions? My point is that group actions, collective actions, class actions, are always reducible to individual actions. Well, you're advocating what is known as methodological individualism: that all collective behaviour is reducible to the behaviour of individuals. In your version, it is self-interest which guides the individual and, therefore logically must be the motive force in any collective action in which those individuals participate.

Obviously there is a fusion of individual self-interests; which I suppose could serve as a good definition of the collective interest. But there will be instances in which the collective interest and one's individual self-interest will conflict. Overcoming this conflict in favour of the collective interest would be one way of exhibiting class consciousness (as distinct from individual consciousness).

As other posters have mentioned, class consciousness entails some self-sacrifice - such as striking in someone else's interest (a not uncommon trait of the working class). Coming back to the Miners Strike mentioned above, if the power workers had come out in solidarity with the miners, Thatcher would have been crushed and the capitalist offensive would have been halted. But they didn't. They lacked the class consciousness. To be fair, it wasn't class consciousness that got the miners striking in the first place, it was a direct threat to their livelihood. Nevertheless, once the dispute started, class consciousness intensified rapidly.

The relationship between being an individual and acting collectively is an intoxicating one. Anyone who has been involved in a collective campaign will recognise how intensely individualistically empowering it is to be part of a collective struggle.


but does the formation of hierarchy within a movement to abolish hierarchy seem contradictory? Sometimes hierarchy has a purely instrumental benefit. As a revolutionary socialist I want to end class hierarchy; I'm not too sure this means all forms of hierarchy. I mean, it probably does, but... I mean, it's not an a-priori resolved matter for me - I'm not an anarchist.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well, you're advocating what is known as methodological individualism: that all collective behaviour is reducible to the behaviour of individuals. In your version, it is self-interest which guides the individual and, therefore logically must be the motive force in any collective action in which those individuals participate.

Indeed I am. Do you find my analysis incompatible with communism/anarchism?


Obviously there is a fusion of individual self-interests; which I suppose could serve as a good definition of the collective interest. But there will be instances in which the collective interest and one's individual self-interest will conflict. Overcoming this conflict in favour of the collective interest would be one way of exhibiting class consciousness (as distinct from individual consciousness).

In such an instance (whereby the individual and collective interests conflict), I would prefer to refer to the outcome as a synthesis of interests, in the best possible situation of course, rather than an "overcoming." For, as I have argued, it is impossible for the individual to have their interests "overcome" by the collective interests. All that has happened is the individual has substituted, or synthesized, their own interests to adopt a new position.


As other posters have mentioned, class consciousness entails some self-sacrifice - such as striking in someone else's interest (a not uncommon trait of the working class).

It certainly does. But this self-sacrifice only occurs on a material level. On an ideological level, should someone put 'themselves on the line' (to speak in common terms), they are doing so (hopefully) with the understanding of class consciousness.


Sometimes hierarchy has a purely instrumental benefit. As a revolutionary socialist I want to end class hierarchy; I'm not too sure this means all forms of hierarchy. I mean, it probably does, but... I mean, it's not an a-priori resolved matter for me - I'm not an anarchist.

Class hierarchy is merely an institutionalized form of hierarchy. All hierarchy stems from the individual belief that one is "better" than another in some unjustified fashion. As far as I'm concerned, it seems as though abolishing class hierarchy is one method of abolishing all forms of hierarchy - thereby returning individuals to their common ground of equality in freedom.

- August

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by AugustWest:
Indeed I am. Do you find my analysis incompatible with communism/anarchism?

It does tend to be an analysis favoured by the right. But my main objection is that collectives don't behave the same way as individuals. It's not even the case that individuals act the same in collectives as they do by themselves. Ever been at a football match or on a demo or in a riot? Crowds have there own dynamic. Institutions have their own operational logic. Besides, approaches stemming form methodological individualism tend to begin from a very simplified and isolated notion of the self-interested individual. But if I merge my interest with your interest, it is no longer my own self-interest.


All hierarchy stems from the individual belief that one is "better" than another in some unjustified fashion. Some hierarchies are based on technical differentiation. If we want to build skyscrapers after the revolution, some form of hierarchical association might be necessary from planning through to construction.

[Decolonize The Left]

It does tend to be an analysis favoured by the right. But my main objection is that collectives don't behave the same way as individuals. It's not even the case that individuals act the same in collectives as they do by themselves. Ever been at a football match or on a demo or in a riot? Crowds have there own dynamic. Institutions have their own operational logic. Besides, approaches stemming form methodological individualism tend to begin from a very simplified and isolated notion of the self-interested individual. But if I merge my interest with your interest, it is no longer my own self-interest.

I'm aware that methodological individualism is common among libertarians, 'free-market' enthusiasts, 'pull yourself up by the bootstrap' folks, and those who wish to advocate preserving a hierarchical, exploitative, system. This is quite clear. Yet I do not see why it is incompatible with the theories/philosophies of communism and anarchism.

You are correct that collectives do not behave the same way as individuals. Or, rather, individuals within collectives do not behave the same way as individuals outside of collectives. I was in no way claiming that individual behavior is static regardless of surrounding environment, etc... What I am taking objection to is the notion that there exists something called "collective" above and beyond the individual's beliefs, etc...

Crowds, etc... have what is called 'mob mentality.' This is the problematic nature of large groupings of people whereby individuals identify over an beyond themselves, thereby removing themselves of the responsibility for their actions. It is this tendency that I am wary of in reference to the 'worker's state.'

Furthermore, I fail to understand how one "merges one's interest with another." Is this not a more abstract way of saying one integrates the values/beliefs/interests of another into one's own value/belief/interest system. It is still your interest, it is merely shared by others.


Some hierarchies are based on technical differentiation. If we want to build skyscrapers after the revolution, some form of hierarchical association might be necessary from planning through to construction.

These need not be "hierarchies." We need not "rank" individuals in order to have efficient operations. Rather, the most efficient way to build a skyscraper would be to have all individuals understanding of the larger project so that work and positions are fluid. If you are referring to some workers deferring to others when issues of specialization are concerned, I would agree though I see no reason why this must be a hierarchy.

- August

[trivas7]

Some hierarchies are based on technical differentiation. If we want to build skyscrapers after the revolution, some form of hierarchical association might be necessary from planning through to construction.
Isn't it a given that in advanced high-tech society hierarchy is mandated? The integration of productive forces demands this, no? Co-ordination means some will be doing the managing and someone will be managed; skills differ, etc.

[N3wday]

I'm not ready to weigh back in quite yet, but I wanted to briefly thank everyone for keeping this discussion high level amidst the ideological differences. I've only been exploring revleft a little while and have too often see very promising threads degrade.

[dksu]

Yeah, this is definitely an interesting topic, hope it keeps up =O.

I think there's a difference between the kind of pernicious nationalism you correctly fear and the concept of class consciousness in that the latter expresses an actual social relation where as the former does not (indeed it often works towards the end of concealing actual social relations, and reveals actual social relations only if analyze the historical forces at work in the conception of particular states, and thus 'nationalism' as an ideology). 'Proletarian' is a descriptive term that applies to real social relations, and thus describes a real aspect of the individual, or at least one of the key aspects of the 'ensemble of social relations' that comprise him. Nationalism, on the other hand, seeks to unite people not on the basis of reality, but along the lines of 'the people of country x' - that is, along bases that distort class distinctions in the course of protecting a bourgeois fiction.

I should note that I'm relatively new to Marxism compared to a ton of the people on this board, so my point may be kind of useless ;p. In any case, I don't think that this answers a lot of questions - just thought I'd toss it in there in case it's at all relevant...

[Chapaev]

Individualism arises and consolidates only in antagonistic class formations. The grounds for it develop as individuals acquire independence and as historical forces acquire an alienated and impersonal form of existence in opposition to the immediate existence of individuals. Relations under the bourgeois system are of this sort. These relations give rise to the point of view of the lone, isolated person and create the appearance of a primordial separation of the individual from any social whole, although the separation is, in fact, the result of a prolonged process of sociohistorical development. The fundamental contradiction of individualism consists in the fact that it presupposes the individualization of socially developed cultural riches in order for the individual to assert himself, but at the same time it refuses to recognize the social origin, nature, and orientation of this very individualization.

The full development of an independent individual can only be realized in association with a genuine collectivity and through it, consequently, only through the elimination of all surrogate collectivities. In the struggle for communism, the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all.

Communist education is aimed at completely overcoming all survivals of individualism, such as acquisitiveness, arrogance, opposition to the collective, and egoism and at achieving an all-round, fully developed personality, dedicated to communist ideals, with a sense of deep responsibility, a morally concerned activism, and a creative attitude toward all aspects of social life.