[SpaciousBox]

Dear Socialists, hello!

Once again I find myself delving into your subforum with ideological queries. The following is probably going to prove a little divisive amongst some of you, though for others it may be fairly straight forward one way or the other. I am totally open to responses telling me to go read certain things, and can promise you that I will indeed follow those links. I have also recently bought myself a copy of Capital, by a certain Mr Marx, so if you want to answer with reference to that I can go look it up.

Overall though; I want to know your thoughts on the ideas of Individualism, and Socialism, with special attention to how they may appear opposite, and how far they can mix.

To start off, let me define what I am talking about. When I mention “Individualism”, I am talking from a purely ethical and socially liberal point of view. I am not using the term in reference to any form of economic structure. To expand; I am talking about a society which puts importance on the idea that we are all unique, different, and as a result valuable as single people with rights accordingly.

To me, this isn’t something that should necessarily be in opposition to socialism, and for a long time I thought that the two were actually quite compatible. But then I noticed a far stronger trend towards forced collectivisation, the translation of a human being into just another number within that collective, and the wide-spread support for regimes that directly control and in my opinion enslave humans to its cause. A prominent example might be the Soviet Union – championed by many of you here – yet something that historically appeared to exchanged one slave driver for another, in regards to the working class. Surely if socialism is about freeing human kind from exploitation (as liberalism is to us) then you would be standing against a state which treated people as fodder for its collective future, and moving towards a state which valued the right to exist of individual? – Something that by socialistic logic had surely be denied by capitalism.

With that in mind, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on why you consider the individual to be either compatible, or incompatible with socialism. What would this ideology look like? Does it already exist and can you point me in the direction of further reading?

I have often found myself sympathetic to the ideals of socialism – How could you not want a society where everyone looks after each other? – Yet all the so called socialist states that have existed so far have appeared horrendous when it comes to exploitation and oppression of the individual. Would you say you support this as a form of utilitarianism? (Socialism against individualism) Or would you maybe agree with me that these states appear to be socially repressive, as they do not consider individual rights (Socialism with individualism).

I am ethnically individualistic, which won’t be changing anytime soon. It’s a value, not a rational conclusion. But my individualism has set me on a course against free market capitalism, and down a far more left-wing root economically. I am looking to explore this avenue further and maybe discover some socialism that that I might have more in common with than I thought. Over to you!

[Decky]

I would argue that individualism is impossible without socialism.

Lets take your example of the Soviet Union.

How much of a right to individualism did a peasant in the Russian empire (the vast majority of the population) have? They were treated little better than animals (and in the case of horses the animals probably got a better deal).

I would argue that the Soviet Union gave the people more of a right to individual expression (by several orders of magnitude) than they ever had in Czarist times. Do you disagree? Being an illiterate peasant up to your knees in dung in a field for the entirety of your mercifully short life doesn't sound all that great to me.

Unless you have a decent argument against me here your point has already been sunk.

Then we can get into the theoretical stuff.

In capitalism you theoretically have a right to be an individual you can (if you have the money) buy any house that you want or even have it built to your own personal specifications, if you have £10,000s you can go to Salive Row and get one of the worlds best suits made to measure, if you live in the west you can buy loads of consumer shit from the shops (of course millions of workers around the world are toiling for pennies a day to let you do that).

Are you seeing a pattern? You theoretically have more freedom under capitalism but in practice workers become more free when they are in control of the product of their own labour.

Oh and while I don't want to discourage you Das Kapital is not a good place to start. The Communist Manifesto or some essays (value, price and profit etc) would have been better.

[mikema63]

Freedom is an illusion. In the quest for societal freedoms, peoples freedoms must be curtailed.

The easiest to accept is the curtailing of violence, you are not free to kill.

Every societal structure entails that the individual not be able to do certain things within it, you are not free to own private property in a socialist structure, you cannot be free of the wage system under capitalism.

Freedom is the illusion of the matrix, society is a prison that you cannot taste, touch, or see. Without it you will die. Even in the most natural state you are not free to do the impossible, nature is the ultimate slave master.

Individualism is merely a set of specific removals of certain freedoms to create others, collectivism removes other freedoms to create a different set.

You are only choosing the sets of freedoms that you prefer.

[Decky]

Mike you have came along nicely since you arrived.

Capitalism, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

[Julian]

Individualism is compatible with some forms of socialism and not others.

It is possible to identify states which have sought to provide equality before the law and a greater degree of parity in terms of outcomes - which have not infringed human rights. The Scandinavian Countries and other social democratic countries have all made efforts to achieve greater equality.

However Human rights must mean Human rights . A right to respect, access to the law, freedom of speech. Socialism isn't compatible with a position where all individuals have unlimited autonomy. We need laws which celebrate difference and diversity but discourage selfishness.

There are lots of liberal and pluralists socialist strands. an accessible little book is "why not socialism" by G A Cohen.

[mikema63]

By that definition of individualism capitalism is only individualistic for the very few. You don't have any sort of autonomy in capitalism except in whatever commodities you can afford.

[Decky]

By that definition of individualism capitalism is only individualistic for the very few. You don't have any sort of autonomy in capitalism except in whatever commodities you can afford.

It is a rather good definition then isn't it?

[SpaciousBox]

I had hoped to get a few more posters in before I returned to this thread, but a little clarity is possibly needed.

I would argue that the Soviet Union gave the people more of a right to individual expression (by several orders of magnitude) than they ever had in Czarist times. Do you disagree?

I would most certainly not disagree. The revolution and soviet union transformed Russia from a backwards, feudal land of agriculture and caste-oppression into a world super power. That is most certainly not under debate nor question. The problem is within the methodology, and the nature in which Stalinism treated people. I would argue that individualism is only possible in a system that respects the rights of individual, even if it is communitarian based. Allow me to expand using a few examples:

5 year plans:
Lets take Magnitogorsk as a focus point. Upon a quick search, I have utterly lost the statistics I had for it from my uni days, but a lot of people died in order for that plant to be productive. The conditions were terrible, the smoke was awful, and the human element was utterly forgotten in the name of the nations progress. This is a very collectivist and utilitarian focused ideal, which puts statistics ahead of human life - something that does not value the individual.
Great Purges and Party Informing:
Whilst I accept the necessity to remove enemy political groups within the Soviet system, I am challenging the way in which it was done: Arbitrary, based on suspicion, and without the slightest concern for justice or due process. People were tortured under the possible suspicion of their involvement, and a lot of people just vanished without reason. An individualistic society would accept the rights of the individual to not be slaughtered as an innocent for the greater good, and also as having certain rights until the point at which it had been proved they were guilty of an offense. The Soviet Union took a "just in case" policy on anyone they had the smallest suspicion about.
East Berlin:
Police state with a massive surveillance system that held no respect for privacy, individual rights, or once again the idea of due process when it came to justice. This all points towards an idea of the greater good, even at the cost of innocent life, which is very collectivist and holds no respect for individualism at all. There was a lot of fear that the Stazi might come for you, regardless of if you had actually committed a crime or not. The potential risk to the community was considered justifiable, which is again showing no respect for the individual.

Just to point out, I am not asking you to justify this, Decky. I imagine you are in full support of all of these measures, but that is because you are illiberal and a total utilitarian collectivist. Whilst I have not read anything detailed from you on the subject, the bits and bobs I do see make me assume you probably do believe that it is justifiable to remove all individual rights for the good of the community. As a general rule, I think a lot of people might agree that sometimes the collective has to come first, but that is a very different argument to the one in which it always comes first. I am simply showing how this isn't individualism. As for the book, I have been told by others I probably should have started with the manifesto, so maybe I shall do so! Capital is written to be ready by Marxist, which does mean I have to google certain terms that may mean different things to me...

By that definition of individualism capitalism is only individualistic for the very few. You don't have any sort of autonomy in capitalism except in whatever commodities you can afford

Hey Mike. What I hope you may be starting to understand is why I believe modern Liberalism can only be centre or centre-left. As you very correctly point out, you can use your freedom to harm anothers - which clearly is not acceptable. The right doesn't believe in freedom for all, they believe in freedom for themselves. This means the freedom to exploit, the freedom to conquer, and generally the freedom to deny others freedom if it serves their whims. This is a position that stands against everything the liberal doctrines hold dear, and if you actually read the Social Liberal thinkers from about 1850 onwards you notice an ideological progression as this realisation (growing as the roots for modern capitalism grows) comes into being. Liberalism can only mean liberalism for everyone - that is the entire basis for my personal political thought.

Individualism is compatible with some forms of socialism and not others.

It is possible to identify states which have sought to provide equality before the law and a greater degree of parity in terms of outcomes - which have not infringed human rights. The Scandinavian Countries and other social democratic countries have all made efforts to achieve greater equality.

However Human rights must mean Human rights . A right to respect, access to the law, freedom of speech. Socialism isn't compatible with a position where all individuals have unlimited autonomy. We need laws which celebrate difference and diversity but discourage selfishness.

There are lots of liberal and pluralists socialist strands. an accessible little book is "why not socialism" by G A Cohen.

Hi there Julian, this is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about. As mentioned above, I see no issue with restricting the freedom to remove anther's freedom, which is why I am interested in finding out about Liberal forms of Socialism, as Socialism is very much concerned with removing economic repression and in doing so granting freedom. I think there might be some cross-over ground somewhere, though have seen very little of it as many socialist posters support the far more oppressive states that have arisen within it's name.

I wouldn't say Scandinavia is a great example of Socialism however, as I believe their economic system is Neo-Corporatist and as such still capitalist (private ownership is legal, after all.) I may very well have a look at that book, though could you point me in the direction of some easy-reading regarding these cross-over ideologies you speak of?

[mikema63]

center-left liberalism doesn't give real freedom, the freedom to consume isn't much of a substitute for control over your life.

[Decky]

5 year plans:
Lets take Magnitogorsk as a focus point. Upon a quick search, I have utterly lost the statistics I had for it from my uni days, but a lot of people died in order for that plant to be productive. The conditions were terrible, the smoke was awful, and the human element was utterly forgotten in the name of the nations progress. This is a very collectivist and utilitarian focused ideal, which puts statistics ahead of human life - something that does not value the individual.

The issue is that Marxism called for taking control of the means of production in countries that have already had a industrial revolution.

It does this as there is no way of industrialising without it being a brutal ugly experience. It is objectively speaking a bad thing while it is happening (no matter who is doing it) even though it improves things further down the line by expanding the forces of production.

This means that Marxists governments the managed to get into power in nn industrialised countries were forced to compromise on principles just to get things up and running. What is the alternative? Give up and wait for capitalism to do it and then resume party activities a generation or two later?

Great Purges and Party Informing:
Whilst I accept the necessity to remove enemy political groups within the Soviet system, I am challenging the way in which it was done: Arbitrary, based on suspicion, and without the slightest concern for justice or due process. People were tortured under the possible suspicion of their involvement, and a lot of people just vanished without reason. An individualistic society would accept the rights of the individual to not be slaughtered as an innocent for the greater good, and also as having certain rights until the point at which it had been proved they were guilty of an offense. The Soviet Union took a "just in case" policy on anyone they had the smallest suspicion about.

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Or as Stalin said at the time, when a forest is chopped woodchips fly.

Just to point out, I am not asking you to justify this, Decky. I imagine you are in full support of all of these measures, but that is because you are illiberal and a total utilitarian collectivist.

Not at all.

We believe that it is only possible for the individual to be free once the working class are in power. This means we need a temporary period where we are literally at war with capitalism in order to pus the working class in power.

This war calls for certain restrictions but once it is done things will be relaxed. We don't want oppression for oppression sake. Otherwise I would be marching around with a par of jackboots on the other side of the political spectrum.

Remember NATO existed to destroy any chance at world wide working class advancement towards their rightful ownership of the earth. We were literally under siege, during wartime certain restrictions are necessary but we don't believe in them for their own sake.

[Julian]

Perhaps I could be clearer

Socialism requires at least some general acceptance that individual preferences must sometimes be constrained to in favour of the broader social good.

In a non market economy the main instruments for directing individuals towards wider social ends are an education which stresses civic values, political persuasion, various forms of regulation, a system which deliberately allocated resources through an democratic process and other forms of collective intervention in the economy.

So to be clear either you are either a socialist or you are a classical liberal or you have a mix and match approach. There is no loophole although there is plenty of denial

Lets take an issue which may be illustrative. In this hypothetical a small group of people live in a deep valley which will disappear if the Government agree to build a hydro scheme. The scheme has its advantages it will generate enough energy to lift thousands of people outside the valley out of crushing poverty

For a liberal if the the residents of the valley cannot be persuaded (possibly by money compensation) to move their houses then the dam should not be buildt.

For a socialist the wider social interest should carrry greater weight.

The issue at heart here may be that some forms of socialism are better at dealing with these issues in a way which demonstrates respect for the individual. However lets look more closely at the ways that socialists may deal with the issue

The obvious point is of due process, freedom of speech and debate. There does not seem any reason why socialist societies should not emcourage all of these. Thewwy are essential for a socialism which claims to respect individuals

The second point is equality before the law. In other words all peoples interest should be equally treated. This seems obvious but I think it also implies consistency. If one scheme provides compensation but another doesn't it is clearly not fair. People should feel that they are being treated equally and in accordance with a set of laws which are applicable generally.

We should consider the issue compensation. I think it is right that people should be compensated for loss of property, income and for sentimental losses. However, it is wrong to compensate people excessively. If all residents of the valley were given lottery style pay offs. They would probably be happy but that is a cost that people outside the valley have to bear.

Perhaps if we ask why we should compensate people for loss of property, income and other losses. I think we are now asking how individuals should be treated. The best way to consider this is the way that John Rawls approached it. We need to ask what is "reasonable". Everyone should place themselves in the position of the valley dwellers and ask what would I expect if I live lived in the valley. That help us answer what is the best outcome for society. The best outcome for society is one which maximises public goods but also one in which all people are treated fairly.

Books include John Rawls Justice as Fairness a Restatement. The Communist Manifesto is certainly an excellent book but not liberal socialist in outlook.



_

[anticlimacus]

Socialism, in much of its traditional thought, actually has sought to liberate the individual. Individual creativity, individual production, individual choice as opposed to alienation, subordination, slavery is central. What throws liberals off is that socialism ties this necessarily to communal living. We cannot be free individuals without first being a community that shares in the means of production and in the decision making apparatuses of society. We work together to liberate our individuality. Capital serves our humanity as opposed to our humanity serving capital. By putting capital to our own uses we can ensure equality in means, and "give to each according to his contribution, and each according to his need"--and, most importantly, each controls his/her own production and leisure.

[Turning Point]

You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Or as Stalin said at the time, when a forest is chopped wood chips fly

Which is exactly what happened after the October Revolution of 1917. The Bolshevik Party in power found itself in a difficult situation as the revolution was met with hostility from those professing loyally to the deposed Provisional Government; fighting would break out in Moscow, while a march would commence on Petrograd with the aim of reestablishing the Provisional Government's power.

It was during such a critical situation that, by 1918, the press of other opposing parties was suppressed, a 'food dictatorship' was established in the rebellious countryside, and the Constituent Assembly was forcibly dissolved.

Later, the Bolshevik-Left SR coalition crumbled. Multiparty, socialist rule based on the soviets was dead and buried with the swift arrival of the Russian Civil War which peaked in intensity by 1919.

The Kronstadt Rebellion, to say nothing of earlier yet less well-known disputes by sailors against the Soviet government, was crushed. The centuries-old Romanov dynasty was extinguished in one night.

Stalin was right in that regard, that you can't have a revolution or a revolutionary society without 'few wood chips.'

IMHO, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party weren't aiming for a rampant bureaucracy or an oppressive state. Numerous times would Lenin lash out at Tsarist bureaucracy or the overbearing, paternalistic Tsarist autocracy in his writings. Numerous times would Lenin-in-power lash out at the young, emergent Soviet bureaucracy.

The Russian (October) Revolution of 1917 was very much a socialist revolution and, it can be said, the Bolshevik Party was very much a revolutionary organization.

IMHO, furthermore, the reality of the revolution and civil war forced excesses and mistakes on the revolutionaries. And being human, the system created was nonetheless imperfect.

In China mistakes were made in the land reform process. Landlords, rich peasants, and/or supposed enemies of the revolution were beaten or wronged by the Chinese revolutionaries who, as in Russia, made numerous, egregious mistakes and committed excesses.

IMHO, that in no way refutes socialism. Socialism is, like capitalism, an imperfect system.

So no, you cannot have a revolution without breaking a few eggs.

[SpaciousBox]

Rather than quoting the above posters individually, I would instead like to address the issues they collectively cover. From what I can see, there are three primary discussions going on.

The Nature of Revolution (or how to best scramble your eggs)
Let me start of by saying I accept the position that you cannot have a bloodless revolution. I actually believe the Octobre revolution was both progressive and necessary. I would have certainly supported Lenin over the Tsar, and have no particular issue with the idea that a lot of people died in order for that transformation to take place. I am not as niave as to believe the ends do not justify the means - that position is for people very much separated from reality. My concern is what happens afterwards, and how far this can be justified into the future. Let's take Decky's comparison to authoritarianism in other places, such as Fascism. Whilst you argued that Stalinism was not oppression for oppressions sake, this is none the less exactly how it looks from a historical point of you. Fascists would argue that as long as their remains a potential threat to the state, they have the right to control and monitor the lives of all citizens. Would you say the Soviet Union did not take this approach as well? You may sit here and tell me it is justifiable, but that is still the total denial of individual rights on a national level - which tends to be why many Liberals cannot see much difference between Communism and Fascism. It's just a different person telling you who you work for, and a different person deciding if you live or die arbitrarily. I separate this however from the more ideological levels of socialism, which I don't believe are completely incompatible with personal freedoms and civil liberties. I was hoping this thread would be more directed towards that side, but also recognise the discussion in relation to the Soviet Union is useful for the debate. Turning Point would seem to be saying that socialism cannot live up to it's ideological promises - even if Lenin apparently supported more individualism - would this be a failure within human nature? Would that make it impossible for a socialist state to emerge that was not oppressive as well?

Individual rights within the Soviet State
There was a total - and utter - lack of egality. Egality really is a requirement of individualism, especially when it comes to the law. We have heard how certain restrictions within the transitional period were required (and I will accept that) but are you all denying that "justice" within the Soviet Union wasn't arbitrary, inconsistent, and failed to tackle any issues at a level that wasn't utilitarian? This can be seen right within the states founding, as well. Look at Stalin's rise to power. He tricked, cheated, corrupted, and down right lied his way into the leadership role. Do people so easy forget Zinoviev? Kamenev? Trotsky? They were the first, but the nature of the police state made similar acts of corruption common place. I am sure you have all read stories of those who disappeared in the night, or were tortured under suspicion, and you may very well be saying well it was for the greater good. But that is exactly what I am getting at. You simply cannot support these actions, whilst also making a claim that the state supported individual rights. There is not one rule for some, and some for others, if you drag an innocent person from their bed under suspicion and have them tortured or executed then you have no egality, you have no justice, and you have a state that does not protect the rights of the individual. The gulag is the perfect example of this, most people sent to gulags were never given fair trials. It is important to separate this from the actual trials of people who could be proven to be criminal, so keep in mind I am only talking about those who had not committed crimes, or had not been given fair trials.

Socialism and the Individual
It is often put to me that us Social Liberals are in a constant battle between protecting individual rights, and ensuring that social good and justice is done for damaged communities. I fully accept this criticism, and also that it sometimes leaves us at a far more subjective conclusion, or even stale-mate. I fully accept that Socialism solves a lot of problems that we have no answers too, though mostly this is because the socialistic solution is too authoritarian for our liberal side. In the example given by Julian, this would most probably be one that we would address utilitarian(ly). In short, I would probably chose the exact same answer as you put: Community good, with compensation. Is this an answer though that most Authoritarian Socialists would pick? I think not. Decky would most likely sign an eviction notice, then send anyone left to the gulag. Efficient, quick, utilitarian, and collectivist. Most certainly not individualistic however. It may be worth pointing out that collective good and the rights of the individual are not somehow at ends, even in this example. It's all about how you treat the individual - which I believe you understand clearly, Julian. I am just not sure I have bumped into a form of socialism that would agree, which is very much what this topic is about discovering. Rawls is an excellent guide for correct legal matters, and is often used as the foundation for much liberal thought (both left and right).

Anticlimacus: Passionately worded, and I hold no doubts that this is your aim. But when has this happened? The realities of Socialism do not appear to reflect that dream. Would you argue that you cannot protect individual liberty and freedom until capitalism has been crushed globally? What is preventing socialist states (historically and present) from ensuring these rights now?

I am enjoying the frankness in this discussion, and hope my frankness in return is not being taken as aggressive. This is a good debate for us all to have I think, as is really shines a bright light on the links between reality and ideology - something that is very interesting to explore.

[Decky]

Whilst you argued that Stalinism was not oppression for oppressions sake, this is none the less exactly how it looks from a historical point of you. Fascists would argue that as long as their remains a potential threat to the state, they have the right to control and monitor the lives of all citizens. Would you say the Soviet Union did not take this approach as well?

No I wouldn't.

The fascists were defending the German/ Japanese/Italian/ whatever state, you correctly identified this.


The Soviets were defending the international working class (you know like when they stopped every man woman a child between Warsaw and Urals being killed by Germany regardless of what state they were from).

It isn't the same thing.