Is socialism/communism (understood as a mode of production and set of social relations) an individualist or collectivist system? The reason I'm asking is I often see socialism/communism described as an inherently collectivist ideology, yet the writings of Marx and Engels seem to hint otherwise.
— Karl Marx
— Friedrich Engels
Other urls found in this thread:
plato.stanford.edu
twitter.com
Collectivism and individualism are empty and meaningless labels, which are used specifically for certain ideologies to simply accuse anyone who aren't them.
The basic motivation in Marxism is self-interest, as correctly noted by Engels.
Otherwise, Marxism describes a complex relation between society and individual, and the limits that exist on freedom.
I would characterise communism as radically individualist but the individualism/collectivism dichotomy is often a false one and ends up being ill-defined rhetoric.
You'd have to specify what something being individualist means and what something being collectivist means, then we could see where communism is under those particular definitions.
I don't think there's any contradiction between individual and collective, between one and many. There is no collective without individuals and there is no individual without the collective.
In the commiefesto Marx says that the communist society is one where "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".
Both.
It's a false dichotomy. The individual can't realize their full potential without a functioning community. Education, infrastructure, and security are all social necessities that the individual requires to flourish.
If the goal of communism is egoism, why not become a capitalist instead? Or otherwise some person who desires to exploit others for their own gain – why not do that? Why not enslave the entire world for your own ego?
Because the capitalist is still ruled by the impersonal market imperatives of capital.
Because it is impossible? Because despotic societies are kneecapped, and you are kneecapped too by having to constantly suppress others and watch your back?
I think it's feasible to conceive that there are many capitalists who are the ones who control capital itself. If you could achieve control of the entire world and its capital production, would that not be more satisfying for your ego than communism, to have all others serve you? We have capitalists alive today who do such things on a smaller scale, but those who are increasing in their power. Again, why are we trying for communism instead of becoming the porkies ourselves?
We're all subjects to the logic of capital. No single person can control it or exist outside of it. The capitalist's own actions are disciplined by economic imperatives that demand they act accordingly to a limited field of possible behaviours that are informed by hegemonic ideological principles.
you're a retard.
Basically this, OP.
One area where I think it's easy to see how individualism/collectivism means different things to different people is "idpol leftists" or "SJWs". (I'm gonna makes some generalization of this group to demonstrate a point, I'm aware that "SJWs" aren't a homogenous group of people with only one specific set of beliefs.)
Most communists would probably say that the problem with these people is that they are too focused on themselves as individuals. Constantly emphasizing all they ways in which they are different from everybody else, putting "latinx disabled gender queer vegan maoist, she/they pronouns please" in their twitter profiles and immediately ostracizing/judging anyone who doesn't "get" them, accidentally used a "bad" word, isn't sensitive enough, etc., making it completely impossible to build any kind of broad mass movement for socialism.
Liberals though (I'm thinking mainly of "classical liberals" like Dave Rubin, Sargon, Sam Harris), would say that the problem with SJW's is collectivism and "tribalism". That they expect special treatment for belonging to an oppressed group, and judge others for belonging to an "opressive" group (like white people, men, etc) instead of who judging them based on their character and their actions.
I would say that both critiques are correct in a way, but one identifies the problem as too much individualism while the other identifies the problem as a lack of individualism.
It's not like capital is some chaotic force nobody has control over though – there are those who clearly manipulate it and greatly profit from it already at the expense of a great many others, and it's also that many of them die after long lifetimes of doing this. Capital is something that these individuals tame to have it accord to their own means and desires, however limited the actions are they do in order to accomplish that.
It would be less stable, however the cost of maintaining the proletariat on a leash would seemingly be not all that great. In China, for instance, there is a great deal of repression going on, however the ruling class remains to be solidly in power as they have largely quelled any sizable opposition. Why not extrapolate that model to the world, adding in propaganda, indoctrination, severe punishments, and the like for even more control and stability for that order?
Not that user, but it is. That's why capitalism is so destructive — capital obeys its own logic of market imperatives and individual actors (even government leaders or multinational CEOs) have limited control over it.
Both.
Also Karl and Engels owe more credit to Stirner than anyone will ever admit.
I will even concede that Marx wasn't entirely wrong in all of his criticisms of Max, despite being outside the scope of the original text, but Marxist treating Stirner as the great Satan of the left has always felt like a mistake.
Surely, though, with absolute or great power they would be able to control the flow of capital such that they may decide on the presence of economic bubbles, recessions, and the like? What would be examples of what would be something that would be uncontrollable by someone in a position of international economic power?
Guys enough. We all know that Stirner is Engels' persona.
That their life is circumscribed to a relation with the market.
That sounds boring.
Dunno about OP, but from where I sit, Capitalism is anything but Democratic, as only those in possession of Capital can play at that table.
Free Enterprize is basically limited to Wildcat Service Entrepreneurs and Kickstarter Tech groups.
Individualism. Capitalism and statism is inherently collectivist.
You can go with the nice Saloth Sar or with the faggot Marx. I've already chosen.
Chaya is that you?
you tell me, friendo
Individualism vs. collectivism is a cold-war meme. The idea derives from the idea that the West is Democratic and that derives from free enterprise and thus makes the west individualistic whereas the East is seen as being authoritarian, derived from socialism and thus makes the east collectivism (which according to the West is contrary to individualism).
This idea of collectivism vs. individualism is easily undermined when you point out all the social institutions in the West that are inherently undemocratic (such as the workplace, the church, etc) and the added fact that many allies to the USA have been authoritarian, pro-capitalist states.
This.
B-b-but people want to be free! In the commie union you didn't want rights, so that's why it fell apart!
look up communitarianism you brainlets
Collectivism.
Duh.
Communitarianism is crypto-reactionary, anti-socialist garbage for confused liberals and exhausted conservatives.