Insofar as millions of families live under conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of the other classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants, and the identity of their interests forms no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not constitute a class. They are therefore incapable of asserting their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority over them, an unlimited governmental power which protects them from the other classes and sends them rain and sunshine from above. The political influence of the small-holding peasants, therefore, finds its final expression in the executive power which subordinates society to itself.
Marx, 18th Brumaire of Louis NapoleonCaesar, Planet of the Apes
depends on what you mean. pursuit of one's self-interest is fine, and not actually avoidable.
misidentification of your individual self-interest as seperate from that of others is bad. The key is that "individualism" and "collectivism" aren't actually opposites.
If individualism is taking a shower, brushing your teeth and going to school then it's not a bad thing.
If individualism is blaming individuals for collective failures then its bad. Margaret Thatcher is infamous for saying "there is no such thing as a society".
Eg. Look at jobs. Let's say the market demands 100 jobs but the amount of people who want a job is 150. Then there is nothing any individual can do to ensure that there is full employment. 50 people will remain unemployed without collective action. The neoliberal "solution" would be to train the unemployed, turning it into an individual not having skills. However, training doesn't create more jobs because jobs are determined by various other factors like total demand for goods backed by ability to pay. You are just swapping people in and out of employment. One person gets a job another loses it, at the end 50 people stay jobless.
The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."
J.V Stalin, Anarchism of Socialism.
There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?
On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits.
They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have the class of the poor, the exploited class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labour power to the capitalists which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism, and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?
J.V. Stalin, Marxism vs. Liberalism
But I have some experience in fighting for socialism
Love how understated he is in his writings.
The capitalists will say : Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another.
I wonder if he knew about the business plot already at this time, or if it's your standard communist Cassandra powers
Well the investigation into the buisness plot was being spun up at the time this piece came out. It's always possible Soviet intelligence had a clue what was going in, but without conclusive evidence it's hard to say.
I'd chalk it to bit of both.
Was lookin' at this thread, thinkin' "all the bullshit amercanism spews about LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, the individualist bullshit, all the stuff you could actually want or need from that is achieveable through collectivism eventually anyway" and it turns out some old guy with a big moustache came to that conclusion decades before I was born.
Doing shit that is for your benefit, fuck everyone else results in poor outcomes for society.
My life exists on the backs of millions of people I'll never meet. All of my personal and political actions impact them. If I serve myself at their expense, I degrade the ecosystem I'm dependent on. Rugged individualism is a marketing gimmick for weak and afraid misanthropes to turn them toward reactionary politics the same way hippie shit is.
strips us of our humanity and turns us into subhuman insectoid creatures incapable of thought.
Ah yes, because the states definitely doesn't have that problem.
To keep it simple, humans are a social species. Perhaps the most social in existence, given we developed language, sciences, and civilization...all of these have a base assumption of social relations.
It's a false dichotomy to pretend that the struggle is between the individual vs collective. Because the average individual is always part of society, and society functions for the sake of its members. The two developed interrelated, from before humans were biologically humans.
Ignoring this fact and portraying it like you need to choose one is wrong. This is the problem of idealism. Idealism just picks and chooses some idea because it sounds good at the time eg. "individualism" but refuses to acknowledge the historical context and dynamics.
A dialectical view would reveal that people tending towards individualism are reacting to the current dynamic which only appears like individualism vs collectivism. But stepping back and looking at this dynamic shows it's not really an eternal duel between dualities. They're not even dualities.
That's why we can predict a new stage in history, not just another move in a duel. Socialism is not collectivism getting its turn after individualism has its day. It's breaking past this false duality when people realize individualism in a vacuum doesn't work.
Because individualism goes against our biology, against human nature, and against the literal definition of society. Individualism is not natural for humans. Society cannot exist in a world where it's everyone for themselves. Humanity did not get to the good places we are by individualism; in fact I would argue that all of the bad parts of society sre because of individualism.
Being against individualism doesn't mean we all have to be the same person, it just means that we acknowledge that other people exist with other perspectives and wants and needs, and we cooperate with them and they cooperate with us.
Marx, 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Chapter 7:
The small-holding peasants form an enormous mass whose members live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with each other. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse. The isolation is furthered by France's poor means of communication and the poverty of the peasants. Their field of production, the small holding, permits no division of labor in its cultivation, no application of science, and therefore no multifariousness of development, no diversity of talent, no wealth of social relationships. Each individual peasant family is almost self-sufficient, directly produces most of its consumer needs, and thus acquires its means of life more through an exchange with nature than in intercourse with society. A small holding, the peasant and his family; beside it another small holding, another peasant and another family. A few score of these constitute a village, and a few score villages constitute a department. Thus the great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homonymous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes.
Brace Belden, TrueAnon, Episode 88:
https://youtu.be/w8D6QuLdZfYI found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Cui bono? Who benefits from the myth of individualism? We are not really individuals existing in a vacuum, we live together with billions of other humans on this planet. Are you able to choose to pay your landlord? Are you able to choose not to work for your boss? Sure you can choose not to pay a landlord or not work for a boss, but you have to pay some landlord and work for some boss because that's how capitalism works. Your individual responsibility, it turns out, is everybody's responsibility. Except the capital holders. What happens if we suddenly realize we are a collective?
Because we live in a society and are social animals. The only way to achieve something big is by cooperating with other people. Big groups of people working together are able to achieve amazing things. Individuals cannot even really built a modern house,by themselves. It is a collective societal effort that allows for modern homes to be constructed( for example).
Come to think of it, I doubt I could even build a mud house on my own. Even the individual bricks needed to build a completely bare bones "house" are also a huge collective effort of humanity.
A good way of looking at it is that it fucking sucks to do hard or complicated shit by yourself.
The two negative uses of the term here:
-
When liberals offer solutions they're often about placing "personal responsibility" on individuals to fix fundamentally systematic problems they can never fix. For example, plastic recycling. They offer an individualistic solution that's really meant to pass the buck on litter and pollution from producers (owner class) to consumers (more working class).
-
The romantic mythology of men as islands etc etc. False ideas of independence and strength as a single person or family that's basically self-sufficient. Turns out, we live in a society. But the individualistic myth lives on and tells people that being a selfish asshole is good in and of itself.
-
"Individualism" is one of the cursed internet words
This didn’t suddenly just appear now, it’s fundamental to liberalism, which is the ideology of capitalism.
Because we aren't living in some videogame world, we're all here together and our actions affect one another. If we want to build a functional, fair and equitable society for all, we need to work together towards a common goal in an organized way. The capitalist mythology where everyone can get rich and live a luxurious life if they grind hard enough is mathematically impossible, the very word 'rich' implies the inequality of society, being rich is being rich at the expense of everyone else. Capitalist individualism also changes the way people think about society and the world, real solidarity between the members of society cannot exist in a society which needs greed and selfishness to survive. The kind of person capitalism breeds by its very nature is the "your pain is my survival" kind.
All that said, communists are not against personal traits and people having a different character. That is not the individualism we're against. The individualism we're against is the illusion that everyone must fight for themselves individually and somehow still have a society that is not brutal and cannibalistic. People by their very nature are different in their own special ways, have their own interests and lives, have things they're good and bad at. If anything, socialism increases a person's ability to reach for their personal interests because it breaks the class barriers for them. For example, in capitalism a bourgeois person has the money and time needed to do anything they like in their spare time, but a worker who is paid just enough to survive, who has barely enough time to do their own house work, who is drained of energy by the time they get home, obviously do not have that same ease as with the bourgeois person. In socialism all workers can get from society just as much as they give to it, the surplus value which capitalism exploits no longer exists. That's how Soviet people massively improved their cultural level in a very short time span after the revolution, the arts and science etc. that Soviet society produced can still be noticed today.
