Only liberals use 'individuals' as a unit of analysis

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
lem_
Only liberals use 'individuals' as a unit of analysis
Printer-friendly version

this sounds like BS to me.

but i see the discussion getting out of control so i will start a new thread.

heidegger was a nazi (not very liberal)

lem_
"he is as clearly the enemy

"he is as clearly the enemy of his own individuality as of the individuality of others"

- debord.

LBird
Solipsism

Since you always seem to be insulting when you're offered an explanation, I'll leave you with your own (individual) thoughts.

lem_
ah what i'm sorry i insulted

ah what i'm sorry i insulted you like once or twice over a month ago.

ok leave me alone, i don't care hah hah - though i suppose it's a shame not to find out what you think

 

oh and PS the irony of someone so enmeshed in working out what's wrong with everything anyone ever says, complaining about "individuals" :-)

lem_
i am not an individualist

i am not an individualist IMHO

perhaps more than you - but then i am not on a mission to do anything except learn and discuss things.

lem_
i really dislike the word

i really dislike the word "boss" in terms of class analysis.

if marxism is a sound alternative to progressive liberalism [which i think it really is], then we are kinda slaves. do slaves complaining about "bossy" slave owners ?

 

 

and as to populaism: even with "democracy" - it's not like individuals can be barbarous, is it ?

 

ETA it's not solipstsic at all what i've said, and that's a poor analysis of liberalism by all accounts.

working people believe in a tonne of stuff besides the democratic vote, some of it not good and a little more of that isn't true. 

IME it's the bourgeoisie that is without beliefs and so able to exploit populist movements.

lem_
the great equalisation in

the great equalisation in capitalism is capital, isn't it?

"according to marx, the fundamental relation in capitalist society, the exploitation of labour, is based on the equality of exchange"

catoriadis in criticism of sartre.

ETA each according to their... need.

that's not each class, or each claim. surely it's each individual

schalken
A suggestion

Lem, mate, you might find more success in generating discussion if you spent more time thinking about how to translate your ideas into words. It's clear you have a lot of questions and insights, but often we only get them as sort of confusing fragments.

For instance, in this thread, which starts without any sort of introduction or explanation, you have six posts to lbird's one. And yet, for all that volume, I'm not sure what you mean to say -- except that you disagree with lbird and have some quotes that use words that lbird used.

 

 

lem_
really? i am always baffled

really? i am always baffled when people say they don't understand what i say.

is the following incomprehensible?

> i really dislike the word "boss" in terms of class analysis.

> if marxism is a sound alternative to progressive liberalism [which i think it really is], then we are kinda slaves. do slaves complaining about "bossy" slave owners ?

OK so put it this way - individuals will still exist in communism IMO. each according to their need may sound highly communal [i.e. not involving individual desire etc.], but what about from each accoridng to their ability? i feel that with the abolition of the division of the labour, that maxim will read as an obligation to utilise [both by individuals and groups] abilities.

 

anyway i apologise if you really can't understand what i've said. i think that would be down to cross posting.

lem_
> have some quotes that use

> have some quotes that use words that lbird used

that isn't a helpful thing to say IMHO. actually, i "have some quotes" from marxists that use words that LBird says only liberalas use.

but whatever.

schalken
Reply

lem_ wrote:

really? i am always baffled when people say they don't understand what i say.

is the following incomprehensible?

> i really dislike the word "boss" in terms of class analysis.

> if marxism is a sound alternative to progressive liberalism [which i think it really is], then we are kinda slaves. do slaves complaining about "bossy" slave owners ?

OK so put it this way - individuals will still exist in communism IMO. each according to their need may sound highly communal [i.e. not involving individual desire etc.], but what about from each accoridng to their ability? i feel that with the abolition of the division of the labour, that maxim will read as an obligation to utilise [both by individuals and groups] abilities.

 

anyway i apologise if you really can't understand what i've said. i think that would be down to cross posting.

If you don't mind my saying so, I think we both might have been too hasty in posting. Looking back at lbird's post, I realize that *perhaps* you misinterpreted what he meant to say. And for my part, instead of trying to clarify things, I simply went off on you for making lots of posts that I didn't understand (e.g., the bit about Heidegger). Sorry for that.

I don't want to speak for lbird, but I (rightly or wrongly) I interpret his comment as a simple reminder that "humanity" isn't merely a mass of seven billion equal, independent individuals, but a society in which there are many social connections between individuals, the primary one of these being class. Furthermore, I take it that he believes that marxists analyze society starting from the basis of these class differences.

That doesn't sound objectionable to me. Does it to you?

And yes, individuals will exist under communism. To quote Marx and Engels's The German Ideology:

Marx and Engels wrote:

nly in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class. The illusory community, in which individuals have up till now combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class over against another, not only a completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In a real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association.

lem_
hey, i wanted to apologise to

hey,

i wanted to apologise to you both. i didn't mean to be insulting, i think it's an issue with the medium that it's easy for everyone to miss the tone, and that spirals.

it's an interesting idea IMHO whether communism will ever involve individualism of any sort, or that would be an end to it. i would guess that communist individuality [however distant] would not be at all like that of liberalism, in the same manner that morality [like solidarity] e.g. isn't.

but i'm not claiming that liberal individuality is preferable to more communalist capital. i think the main threat to the revolution [and i think the revolution will be manifest at some point before it becomes impossible] is probably democratic - a passive mixture of both. politicians aren't workers, right?

lem_
ah dead thread :-( i think

ah dead thread :-(

i think individuals make the truth. i think that groups prove it.

this is all i think [about this]

lem_
"communism abolishes … all

"communism abolishes … all religion and all morality, rather than constituting them on a new basis"

i think this means all moral arguments are abolished; and not reaffrimed via different conditions and human needs or nature.

i would even suggest - that maybe human nature, which is turned over in communism into a more ideal form, is a moral quality. i.e. that communist people are truer to bouregoise morality than the bourgeoisie - but not ideologically (moralism - moral arguments), but in scientific critique.

that the communist says "no" to bourgeoise moral arguments, but is still moral (and indeed more so).

lem_
i think the danger to the

i suppose i'll be a political individualist anyway, that as long as barbarism seems more likely i can't hope for anything more.

ah well, you were right LBird sorry i'll get out your way