In other words it would have been quite consistent for Thatcher to condemn individualist behavior even while asserting individualism as a social theory (society does not exist, only individuals and families).
Unless you keep those two senses of "individualism" distinct you make a hash of whatever it is you are trying to say.
It is alos possible to deny the existence of "the individual" but approve of individualism in behavior.
Carrol
Carrol
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Mike Ballard Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:48 PM To: lbo lbo Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] A Draft: "Individualism" vs "The Individual"
Communism means individualism. Not narrow individualism, the 'hooray for me, devil take the hindmost' individualism. Capitalist or narrow individualism is based on a negative dynamic for freedom: My freedom is your un-freedom. We need communist individualism, an individualism firmly based on the principle of equal political power amongst all men and women. Nobody should have more political power than anyone else in a classless association of free producers. This principle, consciously enforced by the association of free producers themselves in a spirit of solidarity will ensure that people attempting to impose political power over others are shunned by consensus, up to and including exclusion from the society for periods of time.
"Thus things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the existing totality of productive forces, not only to achieve self-activity, but, also, merely to safeguard their very existence. This appropriation is first determined by the object to be appropriated, the productive forces, which have been developed to a totality and which only exist within a universal intercourse. From this aspect alone, therefore, this appropriation must have a universal character corresponding to the productive forces and the intercourse.
"The appropriation of these forces is itself nothing more than the development of the *individual capacities* corresponding to the material instruments of production. The appropriation of a totality of instruments of production is, for this very reason, the development of a totality of capacities in the *individuals* themselves."
from THE GERMAN IDEOLOGY by Marx
Hi-ho, Mike B) *************************************************
Carrol Cox
I need a better Subject line, but this one will do for a start.
Margaret Thatcher's claim, Society does not exist, only individuals and families, is NOT incompatible with "Anti-Individualism." In fact, with rare exceptions bourgeois thinkers have been opposed to "individualism" as an ethical standpoint. Consider, for example, John Kennedy's demand, "Ask not what America can do for you; ask what you can do for America." That proposition incorporates _both_ Thatcher's 'metaphysical' argument _and_ a rejection of an individualist ethic. Moreover, _individualism_ as an ethical position long predates the rise of capitalism. Thersites in the Iliad asserts an individualist morality and the only answer he receives is a severe beating by Odysseus: no one attempts to refute him in argument. I know of no pre-capitalist text that does not recognize "self-interest" as a possible principle of conduct, though most reject it, as do most bourgeois writers.
^^^^ CB; Yes, individualism originates as ideology with class exploitative society in the exploiting class, not with capitalism. Since writing begins with exploitative society ( in Mesopotamia; first writing in wedge form is some type of exchange of private property and commodities), so once we have "texts" , we have writing, exploiters developing individualist ideology. The history of _written_ society is a history of class struggles ( See Engels footnote to the first sentence of the _Manifesto of the Communist Party_. NB: Marxism announces the end not only of capitalism , but of all class exploitative society. It is a mega-worldhistoric revoution, overthrowing the form of society going back to the Greeks and even Mesopotamians. Marx and Engels make it clear that this is part of their thesis. It is the end of the Realm of Necessity, which dates to the first class exploitative societies, written history.
^^^^^
Most bourgeois fiction incorporates both a spontaneous (or 'unconscious) acceptance of Thathcer's position _and_ a fierce anti-individualist ethic. One particularly moralistic commentator on PL speaks of the social relations that the individual must enter into. That is, for the bourgeois moralist condemnation of ethical individualism is grounded in acceptance of the "dot-like existence of the mere free worker in bourgeois society" as simple reality. All _moral_ rejections of capitalism are, then, grounded in an acceptance of the fundamental ideology of capitalism.
^^^^^ CB: Indeed. The "dot-like" existence of the mere free worker is also the metaphor of Newtonian particles. Or the bourgeois individualist metaphysics is an analogy to Newtonian partcular physics.
Overall, the philosophical error of Thatcher and the Left moralists who Carrol correctly criticize for having Thatcher's basic metaphysic is the error of placing the part before the whole. The Whole is more than the sum of its parts in human society. The Individuals are the parts and society is the whole. The Whole is not the sum of the individuals or the parts. The Whole, society, is prior to the parts, individual humans.
^^^^^^^^
Carrol *********************************************************************** Wobbly Times http://wobblytimes.blogspot.com/
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk