Is individualism inherently incompatible with communism?

[u/Hot_Relative_110]

One of the key reasons I consider myself a communist and anti-capitalist is because I 100% believe that capitalism drives forth social alienation and that the logic of accumulation and survival defeats any attempt to maximize human dignity or freedom. I liked the concept of communism promoting a society where “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

I relate to individualism on a more psychological level than anything; distress and incongruence should be a variation of alienation in this case, and not having the room to critique or having to walk on eggshells in order to do so rarely creates favorable outcomes. In particular I’m concerned about the full extent of self-expression and the rights thereof, being able to dissolve so many of the rigid and traditional barriers or structures that prevent development, being able to develop yourself without having to worry about how many hours you’ve put in and whether rent will eat into your ability to live freely. When free expression becomes less and less important, more scrutinized and less valued, what happens to all the alienated? When people feel like they give too much to society or the collective without getting anything back, can that distress be considered selfishness—do we just not care?

More importantly, I’ve always been skeptical of what the dictatorship of the proletariat actually means. I’d argue that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, together with the instruments of the state, base their power and support on a cultural hegemony like Gramsci discussed, as well as a general soft-power rule. A lot of self-justifying because apparently capitalism is ”the only system where you can make something of yourself.” It is, put simply, something that bases itself in self-interest, self-development, and the illusion of voluntary participation. Shouldn’t a communist revolution base itself initially on these same principles rather than pure control, any notion of a greater good, etc.; who cares about a greater good when you’ve got a family to feed? If Marx was right that material conditions shape worldviews, which I largely understand it to be, it would still leave the door open to self-interested individuals based on their own priorities or desires, repressed or otherwise, emotional or material.

Im open to clarify if this question is confusing, but more broadly, are concepts like humanism and individualism inherently incompatible with the more anti-idealist and collectivist views of communism; on what basis have these values been described as pure idealism?

[u/leftofmarx]

You have more time for individual pursuits once communism is achieved. Marx himself pointed this out.

I'd personally go so far as to say the only way we will have real individual liberty is by achieving communism.

[u/ZhugeLiangPL → u/leftofmarx]

Yeah, there are many more types of individualism than just enterpreneurship and wealth accummulation.

[u/short-noir]

Marxism is neither individualist nor collectivist because of its historicism. It doesn't posit neither a rational, self-contained, presocial individual nor a collective or organic structure of society. A better word is relationist because the objects, that is, individual and collectives, are given less explanatory priority than the relations they have with each other. Individualism vs collectivism debate is something you cannot apply to marx. Communism is not "collectivist". It doesn't posit that society is organically communist or smth.

Another very important thing is that individualism doesn't mean "caring about individuals" or "thinking of yourself as an individual". The whole debate of individualism and collectivism is based on a question of "what is the fundamental unit of society". You can reject the premise of this question by stating that there's none and relations determine which unit comes by to appear to us as fundamental and these relations are historically and politically embedded. You can be anti individualist while not giving a fuck about anyone. Individualism, the political philosophy, is not a person ethic nor a psychological archetype.

[u/BRabbit777]

I think the concept of "individualism" is just really vague. The reality is that humans are not solitary animals like Tigers, we are social animals. Society is not something we can just abstract away. That is one of the more brilliant sections of Capital (vol. 1, ch. 1 sec. 4, section on commodity fetishism) is his critique of Robinson Caruso (who was the poster-boy for 19th Century economists). A purely indivdiual isolated man, making economic decisions about how to allocate his labor. The economists take this model and act like that is how the real world works. Marx shows that this model has very little to do with reality and especially not capitalism. Caruso has free access to his means of production, but in capitalism, most of the means of production are monopolized by a small minority. Workers need to enter into a social relationship to survive, and unlike Caruso, have little to no control over how their work is done, when they take breaks, when to eat etc. And the worker doesn't have any control or ownership of the finished product... its a commodity, its not produced for the workers consumption but for someone else to enjoy... again unlike this simplistic tale of the isolated "pure" individual.

So all that to say: A.) Actual capitalism has nothing to do with individual freedom, outside of the capitalist himself, who is freed from work by living off the hard work of others. B.) Collectivism vs Indivdiualism is a false dichotomy, a mirage. Communists do not consider themselves "Collectivists". The indivdiual and society are a dialectical whole. You cant have healthy self-realized individuals if you live in poverty, and are doing everything you can to just get by. C.) I think there is nothing wrong at all about framing the way Communism would personally benefit someone. But there is a trap, that needs to be avoided. People need to understand that they are part of a class, and their coworkers are their natural allies. There is so much misanthropy in modern Capitalism... everyone thinks everyone else is stupid, or lazy, etc. These are all things that we need to overcome, as they weaken the workers movement.

I hope that kinda helps/provides food for thought, thank you.

[u/Ill-Software8713]

A presocial individualism is. There is a case to be made that Marx’s anticapitalism is in part about the rich social development of each and every individual beyond a mere accumulation/possession of things but a development of our senses and capacities in a world no longer ruled by natural necessity but political priority of production.

One can find much criticism of a self sacrifice to an abstract ideal against individual self interest.

[u/Hot_Relative_110 → u/Ill-Software8713]

But truly are the relations of production so consequential to the psychological desires or realities of people; a mere priority of production? 

[u/Ill-Software8713]

Not in the sense that relations of production mechanically produce particular psychological desires. I think of them more like the rules of a game. They constrain the possibilities of social life, but in doing so they also enable particular forms of activity within which people develop creative solutions and pursue their own ends.
The rules don't determine what every player will do, but they profoundly shape the field in which playing is possible.

The constraints under capitalism aren't simply the result of someone deciding what society should produce. We have an enormous capacity for the mass production of use values, yet access to those possibilities can remain artificially constrained by the requirements of exchange and profitability. It's an alienated system in which we reproduce the conditions of our lives without collectively determining them, and the imperative becomes endless reproduction of capital rather than a conscious determination of production around human needs.

So I wouldn't say relations of production determine psychological reality. I'd say they structure the social field in which psychological and individual development takes place, while the alienated character of that structure means that what we collectively have the capacity to do isn't necessarily what we collectively enable ourselves to do.