Individualism vs. Community: Absolute Values?

[_MeDotOrg]

It’s been drilled into us from right wing talk radio for the past 30 years: Socialism is evil. First, a definition of terms: What is Socialism?

Too often anything that is NOT Laissez-Faire Capitalism is lumped together as “the other”: Communism, Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Maoist, Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Stalinist, Collectivist, Statist. Many times the terms are used interchangeably. The reality is that between the poles of true Laissez-Faire Capitalism and Communism are many shades of economic theory and policy where the vast majority of the world lives. The most populous nation on earth, China, now has a unique blend of Communism and Capitalism, but no social democracy.

The Classic Communist state is governed by a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, a one-party system. All the means of production are owned by the workers. In laissez-faire (from the french ‘allow to do’) capitalism there is minimal interference between government and business. The most popular hybrid between Communism and Laissez-faire Capitalism is Democratic Socialism.

Put politics aside for a moment, and just look at two philosophical extremes:: Communism and Objectivism.

Marx said:‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ In Marxism, the collective group has the ultimate power, controlling the means of production with a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.

To help put Marxism into perspective, ask yourself what is at the opposite end of absolute Collectivism? The answer is absolute Individualism. Individualism as a philosophy is perhaps best codified by Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. (If ‘codifying individualism’ isn’t an oxymoron):

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

You get the feeling Ayn never served as President of the Relief Society.

Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were both atheists and materialists. Both were extremists. Marx said the collective is the ultimate value. Rand contended the individual is the highest value. Ironically Objectivism and Communism suffer from the same delusion: They both believed that people are capable of behaving in a way that is consistent with a Utopian ideal.

Listen to Ayn Rand’s description of laissez-faire capitalism:. “It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. “

This woman never played 3-card monte.

Seriously, I think the central fallacy of objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism is the assumption that if government doesn’t have the power, then individuals are more free. But the assumption that the power of control the government is not exercising does not coalesce somewhere else, is demonstrably untrue. The history of capitalism abounds with examples of power coalescing: in monopolies, price fixing and scams against the general public too numerous to mention. (Or all right, I’ll mention one from the past month. The Libor Scandal.)

Hobbes points out that through cooperation among men, rights are relinquished in order to obtain new rights.

Ayn Rand should pay heed to the warning of Adam Smith: "Men of the same profession never gather together except to conspire against the general public.”

Conversely Marx was totally unrealistic in his assessment of people’s ability to voluntarily relinquish power. Marx said that after the dictatorship of the proletariat had achieved its goals, ‘the state would wither away and die’.

What started as a legitimate revolution against Czarist despotism birthed a political system, that under Stalin, was less about the proletariat and more about dictatorship.. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Sorry, Karl. Your ‘vision thing’ didn’t work. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. To paraphrase Edna St. Vincent Millay, history isn’t one damn thing after another, it’s one damn thing over and over.The pattern has been repeated in ideologically extremist states from Cambodia to North Korea.

The Objectivist doctrine is that there should be a complete separation of state and economics. No modern state has been (brave/foolish - pick your adjective) enough to try.

Not that some people don’t keep pushing. We come pretty close when Republican strategist Grover Norquist says: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size to where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

How eloquent. Reminds you of James Madison, doesn’t it? But what kind of a country do we have if the power of Corporations dwarfs the power of the Government?

Mitt Romney said “Corporations are people, my friend”. Yes, corporations are people, as every Oil Company commercial invariably reminds us after an oil spill. Parades on the 4th of July are people. Church congregations are people. Totalitarian governments are people. Genocidal armies are people.

Can we just stipulate that all nouns of assemblage referring to people are people?

Marcus Aurelius suggests “Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?" What is the nature of a corporation? Is it transparent? Is it democratic? How is power derived in a corporation?

Corporations are not democratic institutions. They are, by in large, plutocracies. They are governed by wealth and power.

What democratic societies need to be aware of is unregulated concentrations of power, whether they be in government or business or any other institution. Using the mistakes that government makes as a rationale for taking away their authority leaves unanswered the question:: Where does that authority then go? Answer: It goes to structures that are NOT democratic, authorities that do NOT answer to the public, institutions that are NOT transparent. And yet when you suggest that this might be the case you are accused by some as being “Un-American.’

So now we’re back to an earlier question: Are we individuals or a community?

The answer is both. And that dual nature of our existence should inform our government and our economic systems.

I would say that the same principle that the founding fathers used within government is valid at large: Balance of power. Balance between the individual and the collective.

There is no magical, absolute, one-size-fits-all answer. This is not an issue like slavery, where the nation will become ‘all one thing, or all the other” Like human beings themselves, the answer is complicated and messy. People looking for the comfort of absolute answers should look elsewhere.

[_bcspace]

If one wants to be in line with LDS doctrine, the community, guided by individuals, makes services and wealth available only to the truly needy without forcing people to provide or stealing from them ala Socialism and the welfare state. From the doctrine on the Law of Consecration:

President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.)

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-200-j-l-l.asp

[_MeDotOrg]

If one wants to be in line with LDS doctrine, the community, guided by individuals, makes services and wealth available only to the truly needy without forcing people to provide or stealing from them ala Socialism and the welfare state.

I applaud the Church's efforts on behalf of the poor. I know people who have benefited from their charity and generosity.

There are people who do not belong to religious institutions that will provide them with charity. Even if your religious beliefs encompass helping the poor of your own faith, there are still poor deserving of our compassion.

Pacifists pay for defense spending, pro-lifers pay for abortion counseling, environmentalists pay for oil depletion allowances, free-marketers pay for farm subsidies. You can call any government that uses your money for things you don't want a form of 'socialist slavery'. The alternative would be to have everyone think exactly the same thing (the totalitarian 're-education' ideal) or no government at all.

[_ajax18]

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

This seems like a true statement to me regardless of which socioeconomic system you find yourself under. Two people on a cold mountain, you have a coat, the other does not. Are you happier giving your coat away so the other person is happier or are you happier wearing the coat? The dilemma is that one of you will be cold. If I had to be honest with myself and ask, which decision would make me happier, I'd say keeping my coat on. Of course that makes me selfish too, but that's psychological and one can block out guilt. The freeze of the mountain will be felt regardless of your chosen psychological state.

Would you say I'm the anomaly and the most people would be happier giving up his coat? I see a lot of people willing to seize someone elses coat and give that coat to the poor, but their own coat? I've rarely seen that. Self interest is the bottom line because we are invidual beings. I think most people do act out of self interest 98% of the time. What good is community to the individual if you're freezing or even dead?

People looking for the comfort of absolute answers should look elsewhere.

The law needs to be consistent and fair. If it can't be that, all it has left to extract from its subjugates must be through force and power, the same results but with different people at the winning and losing ends.