File: secI7.html

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 8.0-2
links: PTS
area: main
in suites: potato
size: 7,880 kB
ctags: 313
sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (574 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 34,850 bytes
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<TITLE>I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<H1>I.7 Won't Libertarian Socialism destroy individuality?</h1>
<p>
No. Libertarian socialism only suppresses individuality for those who are 
so shallow that they can't separate their identity from what they own. 
However, be that as it may, this is an important objection to any form
of socialism and, given the example of "socialist" Russia, needs to be 
discussed more. 
<p>
The basic assumption behind this question is that capitalism encourages 
individuality, but this assumption can be faulted on many levels. As 
Kropotkin noted, <i>"individual freedom [has] remained, both in theory and 
in practice, more illusory than real"</i> [<b>Ethics</b>, p. 27] and that <i>"the want 
of development of the personality [leading to herd-psychology] and the lack 
of individual creative power and initiative are certainly one of the chief 
defects of our time."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 28] In effect, modern capitalism has
reduced individuality to a parody of what it could be (see section <a HREF="secI7.html#seci74">I.7.4</a>). 
As Affie Kohn points out, <i>"our miserable individuality is screwed to the 
back of our cars in the form of personalized license plates."</i>
<p>
So we see a system which is apparently based on "egoism" and "individuality"
but whose members are free to expand as standardized individuals, who
hardly express their individuality at all. Far from increasing individuality, 
capitalism standardizes it and so restricts it - that it survives at all
is more an expression of the strength of humanity than any benefits of
the capitalist system. This impoverishment of individuality is hardly 
surprising in a society based on hierarchical institutions which are 
designed to assure obedience and subordination. 
<p>
So, can we say that libertarian socialism will <b>increase</b> individuality or
is this conformity and lack of "individualism" a constant feature of the
human race? In order to make some sort of statement on this, we have to
look at non-hierarchical societies and organisations. We will discuss 
"primitive" cultures as an example of non-hierarchical societies in section
<a HREF="secI7.html#seci71">I.7.1</a>. Here, however, we indicate how anarchist organisations will protect 
and increase an individual's sense of self.
<p>
Anarchist organisations and tactics are designed to promote individuality. 
They are decentralised, participatory organisations and so they give those 
involved the "social space" required to express themselves and develop their 
abilities and potential in ways restricted under capitalism. As Gaston Leval
notes in his book on the anarchist collectives during the Spanish Revolution,
<i>"so far as collective life is concerned, the freedom of each is the right
to participate spontaneously with one's thought, one's will, one's initiative
to the full extent of one's capacities. A negative liberty is not liberty;
it is nothingness."</i> [<b>Collectives in the Spanish Revolution</b>, p. 346]
<p>
By being able to take part in and manage the decision making processes which
directly affect you, your ability to think for yourself is increased and
so you are constantly developing your abilities and personality. The
spontaneous activity described by Leval has important psychological impacts.
As Eric Fromm notes, <i>"[i]n all spontaneous activity, the individual embraces 
the world. Not only does his [sic] individual self remain intact; it becomes 
stronger and more solidified. <b>For the self is as strong as it is active.</b>"</i> 
[<b>Escape from Freedom</b>, p. 225]
<p>
Therefore, individuality does not atrophy within an anarchist organisation
and becomes stronger as it participates and acts within the social 
organisation. In other words, individuality requires community. As Max 
Horkheimer once observed, <i>"individuality is impaired when each man decides 
to fend for himself. . . . The absolutely isolated individual has always been 
an illusion. The most esteemed personal qualities, such as independence, 
will to freedom, sympathy, and the sense of justice, are social as well as
individual virtues. The fully developed individual is the consummation of a
fully developed society."</i> [<b>The Eclipse of Reason</b>, p. 135]
<p>
The sovereign, self-sufficient individual is as much a product of a healthy
community as it is from individual self-realization and the fulfillment of 
desire. Kropotkin, in <b>Mutual Aid</b>, documented the tendency for <b>community</b> to
enrich and develop <b>individuality.</b> As he proved, this tendency is seen 
throughout human history, which suggests that the abstract individualism of
capitalism is more the exception than the rule in social life. In other
words, history indicates that by working together with others as equals 
individuality is strengthen far more than in the so-called "individualism" 
associated with capitalism. 
<p>
This communal support for individuality is hardly surprising as 
individuality is a product of the interaction between <b>social</b> forces 
and individual attributes. The more an individual cuts themselves off 
from social life, the more likely their individuality will suffer. This 
can be seen from the 1980's when neoliberal governments supporting the 
"radical" individualism associated with free market capitalism were 
elected in both Britain and the USA. The promotion of market forces 
lead to social atomisation, social disruption and a more centralised 
state. As "the law of the jungle" swept across society, the resulting 
disruption of social life ensured that many individuals became 
impoverished ethically and culturally as society became increasingly 
privatised.
<p>
In other words, many of the characteristics which we associate with a 
developed individuality (namely ability to think, to act, to hold ones
own opinions and standards and so forth) are (essentially) <b>social</b> skills
and are encouraged by a well developed community. Remove that social 
background and these valued aspects of individuality are undermined by
fear, lack of social interaction and atomisation. Taking the case of 
workplaces, for example, surely it is an obvious truism that a hierarchical
working environment will marginalise the individual and ensure that they 
cannot express their opinions, exercise their thinking capacities to the 
full or manage their own activity. This will have in impact in all aspects
of an individual's life.
<p>
Hierarchy in all its forms produces oppression and a crushing of 
individuality (see section <a HREF="secB1.html">B.1</a>). In such a system, the <i>"business"</i> side
of group activities would be <i>"properly carried out"</i> but at the expense
of the individuals involved. Anarchists agree with John Stuart Mill when
he asks, under such <i>"benevolent dictatorship,"</i>  <i>"what sort of human beings
can be formed under such a regimen? what development can either their 
thinking or their active faculties attain under it? . . .Their moral
capacities are equally stunted. Wherever the sphere of action of human
beings is artificially circumscribed, their sentiments are narrowed and
dwarfed."</i> [<b>Representative Government</b>, pp. 203-4] Like anarchists, Mill 
tended his critique of political associations into all forms of associations
and stated that if <i>"mankind is to continue to improve"</i> then in the end
one form of association will predominate, <i>"not that that which can exist
between a capitalist as chief, and workpeople without a voice in the 
management, but the association of labourers themselves on terms of equality,
collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, 
and working under managers elected and removable by themselves."</i> [<b>Collected
Works</b>, book II, p. 205]
<p>
Hence, anarchism will protect and develop individuality by creating the
means by which all individuals can participate in the decisions that affect
them, in all aspects of their lives. Anarchism is build upon the central
assertion that individuals and their institutions cannot be considered in
isolation from one another. Authoritarian organisations will create a
servile personality, one that feels savest conforming to authority and
what is considered normal. A libertarian organisation, one that is based
upon participation and self-management will encourage a strong personality,
one that knows his or her own mind, thinks for itself and feels confident in
his or her own powers. 
<p>
A libertarian re-organisation of society will be based upon, and encourage, 
a self-empowerment and self-liberation of the individual and by participation 
within self-managed organisations, individuals will educate themselves for 
the responsibilities and joys of freedom. As Carole Pateman points out, 
<i>"participation develops and fosters the very qualities necessary for it;
the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so."</i>
[<b>Participation and Democratic Theory</b>, pp. 42-43] 
<p>
Such a re-organisation (as we will see in <a HREF="secJcon.html">section J</a>) is based upon the 
tactic of <i><b>direct action.</b></i> This tactic also encourages individuality by
encouraging the individual to fight directly, by their own self-activity,
that which they consider to be wrong. As Voltairine de Cleyre puts it:
<p>
<i>"Every person who ever thought he had a right to assert, and went boldly and
asserted it, himself, or jointly with others that shared his convictions,
was a direct actionist. . . Every person who ever had a plan to do anything, 
and went and did it, or who laid his plan before others, and won their 
co-operation to do it with him, without going to external authorities to 
please do the thing for them, was a direct actionist. All co-operative 
experiments are essentially direct action. . . [direct actions] are the 
spontaneous retorts of those who feel oppresses by a situation."</i> [<b>Direct
Action</b>]
<p>
Therefore, anarchist tactics base themselves upon self-assertion and this 
can only develop individuality. Self-activity can only occur when there is
a independent, free-thinking self. As self-management is based upon 
the principle of direct action (<i>"all co-operative experiments are essentially
direct action"</i>) we can suggest that individuality will have little to 
fear from an anarchist society.
<p>
For anarchists, like Mill, real liberty requires social equality. For <i>"[i]f
individuals are to exercise the maximum amount of control over their own
lives and environment then authority structures in these areas most be
so organised that they can participate in decision making."</i> [Pateman, 
<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 43] Hence individuality will be protected, encouraged and 
developed in an anarchist society far more than in a class ridden, 
hierarchical society like capitalism. It is because wonders are many, and 
none is more wonderful than individuality that anarchists oppose capitalism 
in the name of socialism -- libertarian socialism, the free association 
of free individuals. 
<p>
<a name="seci71"><h2>I.7.1 Do "Primitive" cultures indicate that communalism defends individuality?</h2>
<p>
Yes. In many so-called primitive cultures, we find a strong respect for 
individuals. As Paul Radin points out, <i>"If I were to state... what are the 
outstanding features of aboriginal civilisation, I... would have no 
hesitation in answering that... respect for the individual, irrespective 
of age or sex"</i> is the first one. [<b>The World of Primitive Man</b>, p. 11]
<p>
Murray Bookchin comments on Radin's statement as follows, <i>"respect for the 
individual, which Radin lists first as an aboriginal attribute, deserves 
to be emphasized, today, in an era that rejects the collective as destructive 
of individuality on the one hand, and yet, in an orgy of pure egotism, has 
actually destroyed all the ego boundaries of free-floating, isolated, and 
atomised individuals on the other. A strong collectivity may be even more 
supportive of the individual as close studies of certain aboriginal societies 
reveal, than a 'free market' society with its emphasis on an egoistic, but 
impoverished, self"</i> [<b>Remaking Society</b>, p. 48]
<p>
This individualization associated with "primitive" cultures was also noted
by Howard Zinn when he wrote that <i>"Gary Nash describes Iroquois culture. No 
laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or courts or 
jails - the apparatus of authority in European societies -  were to be
found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet boundaries
of acceptable behaviour were firmly set. Though priding themselves on the
autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a strict sense of right
and wrong..."</i> [<b>Columbus, the Indians and Human Progress, 1492-1992</b>]
<p>
In addition, Native American tribes also indicate that communal living and
high standards of living can and do go together. The Cherokees, for 
example, in the 1870s, <i>"land was held collectively and life was contented 
and prosperous"</i> with the Department of the Interior recognising that it 
was <i>"a miracle of progress, with successful production by people living
in considerable comfort, a level of education 'equal to that furnished by an
ordinary college in the States,' flourishing industry and commerce, an
effective constitutional government, a high level of literacy, and a state
of 'civilization and enlightenment' comparable to anything known: 'What
required five hundred years for the Britons to accomplish in this direction
they have accomplished in one hundred years,' the Department declared in
wonder."</i> [Noam Chomsky, <b>Year 501</b>, p. 231]
<p>
Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited "Indian Territory" in 1883 and
described what he found in glowing terms: <i>"There was not a pauper in that 
nation, and the nation did not owe a dollar. It built its own capitol, in 
which we had this examination, and it built its schools and its hospitals."</i> 
No family lacked a home. [Cited by Chomsky, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 231]
<p>
(It must be mentioned that Dawes recommended that the society must be 
destroyed because <i>"[t]hey have got as far as they can go, because they own 
their land in common. . .there is no enterprise to make your home any better 
than that of your neighbors. There is no selfishness, which is the bottom of 
civilization. Till this people will consent to give up their lands, and 
divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, 
they will not make much more progress."</i> The introduction of capitalism -
as usual by state action - resulted in poverty and destitution, again 
showing the link between capitalism and high living standards is not clear 
cut, regardless of claims otherwise).
<p>
Undoubtedly, having access to the means of production ensured that members
of such cultures did not have to place themselves in situations which could
produce a servile character structure. As they did not have to follow the
orders of a boss they did not have to learn to obey others and so could
develop their own abilities to govern themselves. This self-government 
allowed the development of a custom in such tribes called <i>"the principle of 
non-interference"</i> in anthropology. This is the principle within of defending 
someone's right to express the opposing view and it is a pervasive principle 
in the "primitive" world, and it is so much so as to be safely called a
"universal". 
<p>
The principle of non-interference is a powerful principle that extends 
from the personal to the political, and into every facet of daily life. 
Most modern people are aghast when they realize the extent to which it is 
practiced, but it has proven itself to be an integral part of living 
anarchy (as many of these communities can be termed, although they would
be considered imperfect anarchies in some ways). It means that people 
simply do not limit the activities of others, period. This in effect 
makes absolute tolerance a custom, or as the modern would say, a law. But 
the difference between law and custom is important to point out. Law is 
dead, and Custom lives (see section <a HREF="secI7.html#seci73">I.7.3</a>).
<p>
As modern people we have so much baggage that relates to "interfering" with
the lives of others that merely visualizing the situation that would
eliminate this daily pastime for many is impossible. But think about it.
First of all, in a society where people do not interfere with each other's
behavior, people tend to feel trusted and empowered by this simple social
fact. Their self-esteem is already higher because they are trusted with
the responsibility for making learned and aware choices. This is not
fiction, individual responsibility is a key aspect of social responsibility.
<p>
Therefore, given the strength of individuality documented in tribes with
little or no hierarchical structures within them, can we not conclude that
anarchism will defend individuality and even develop it in ways blocked
by capitalism? At the very least we can say "possibly," and that is enough 
to allow us to question that dogma that capitalism is the only system based 
on respect for the individual.
<p>
<a name="seci72">
<h2>I.7.2 Is this not worshipping the past or the "noble savage"?</h2>
<p>
No. However, this is a common attack on socialists by supporters of 
capitalism and on anarchists by Marxists. Both claim that anarchism is
"backward looking", opposed to "progress" and desire a society based on
inappropriate ideas of freedom. In particular, ideological capitalists
maintain that all forms of socialism base themselves on the ideal of the
"noble savage" and ignore the need for laws and other authoritarian social
institutions to keep people "in check."
<p>
Anarchists are well aware of the limitations of the "primitive communist"
societies they have used as example of anarchistic tendencies within 
history or society. They are also aware of the problems associated with
using <b>any</b> historical period as an example of "anarchism in action." 
Take for example the "free cities" of Medieval Europe which was used by 
Kropotkin as an example of the potential of decentralised, confederated
communes. He was sometimes accused of being a "Medievalist" (as was
William Morris) while all he was doing was indicating that capitalism
need not equal progress and that alternative social systems have existed
which have encouraged freedom in ways capitalism restricts.
<p>
Again it is hardly surprising to find that many supporters of capitalism 
ignore the insights that can be gained by studying "primitive" cultures
and the questions they raise about capitalism and freedom. Instead, they 
duck the issues raised by these insights and accuse socialists of 
idealising "the noble savage." As indicated, nothing could be further from the 
truth. What socialists point out from this analysis is that the atomised
individual associated with capitalist society is not "natural" and that 
capitalist social relationships help to weaken individuality. All the 
many attacks on socialist analysis of past societies is a product of
capitalists attempts to deny history and state that "Progress" reaches its
final resting place in capitalism.
<p>
Moreover, as George Orwell points out, such attacks miss the point:
<p>
<i>"In the first place he [the defender of modern life] will tell you that it
is impossible to 'go back'. . .and will then accuse you of being a medievalist
and begin to descant upon the horrors of the Middle Ages. . .As a matter of
fact, most attacks upon the Middle Ages and the past generally by apologists
of modernity are beside the point, because their essential trick is to 
protect a modern man, with his sqeamishness and his high standard of comfort,
into an age when such things were unheard of. But notice that in any case
this is not an answer. For  dislike of the mechanized future does not imply
the smallest reverence for any period of the past. . .When one pictures 
it merely as an objective; there is no need to pretend that it has ever 
existed in space and time."</i> [<b>The Road to Wigan Pier</b>, p. 183]
<p>
We should also note that such attacks on anarchist investigations of past
cultures assumes that these cultures have <b>no</b> good aspects at all and so
indicates a sort of intellectual "all or nothing" approach to modern life.
The idea that past (and current) civilisations may have got <b>some</b> things 
right and others wrong and should be investigated is rejected for a
totally uncritical "love it or leave" approach to modern society. Of course, 
the well known "free market" capitalist love of 19th century capitalist 
life and values warrants no such claims of "past worship" by the supporters 
of the system.
<p>
Therefore attacks on anarchists as supporters of the "noble savage" ideal
indicate more about the opponents of anarchism and their fear of looking 
at the implications of the system they support than about anarchist theory.
<p>
<a name="seci73"><h2>
I.7.3 Is the law required to protect individual rights?</h2>
<p>
No, far from it. While it is obvious that, as Kropotkin put it, <i>"[n]o
society is possible without certain principles of morality generally
recognised. If everyone grew accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men; if
we never could rely on each other's promise and words; if everyone
treated his fellow as an enemy, against whom every means of warfare is
justified - no society could exist."</i> [<b>Kropotkin's Revolutionary 
Pamphlets</b>, p. 73] 
<p>
This does not mean that a legal system (with its resultant bureaucracy,
vested interests and inhumanity) is the best way to protect individual
rights within a society. What anarchists propose instead of the current
legal system (or an alternative law system based on religious or "natural"
laws) is <b>custom</b> - namely the development of living "rules of thumb" 
which express what a society considers as right at any given moment.
<p>
However, the question arises, if a fixed set of principles are used to 
determine the just outcome, in what way would this differ from laws?
<p>
The difference is that the "order of custom" would prevail rather than the
"rule of law". <b>Custom</b> is a body of living institutions that enjoys the
support of the body politic, whereas <b>law</b> is a codified (read dead) body
of institutions that separates social control from moral force. This, as
anyone observing modern Western society can testify, alienates
everyone.  A <b>just outcome</b> is the predictable, but not necessarily the
inevitable outcome of interpersonal conflict because in a traditional
anarchistic society people are trusted to do it themselves. Anarchists 
think people have to grow up in a social environment free from the 
confusions generated by a fundamental discrepancy between morality, and 
social control, to fully appreciate the implications. However, the essential 
ingredient is the investment of trust, by the community, in people to come 
up with <b>functional solutions</b> to interpersonal conflict. This stands in 
sharp contrast with the present situation of people being infantilized by 
the state through a constant bombardment of fixed social structures removing
all possibility of people developing their own unique solutions.
<p>
Therefore, anarchist recognise that social custom changes with society. What
was once considered "normal" or "natural" may become to be seen as oppressive
and hateful. This is because the <i>"conception of good or evil varies 
according to the degree of intelligence or of knowledge acquired. There is
nothing unchangeable about it."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 92] Only by removing the
dead hand of the past can society's ethical base develop and grow with
the individuals that make it up (see <a HREF="secA2.html#seca219">section A.2.19  </a> for a discussion of
anarchist ethics).
<p>
We should also like to point out here that laws (or "The Law") also restrict 
the development of an individual's sense of ethics or morality. This is 
because it relieves them of the responsibility of determining if something 
is right or wrong. All they need to know is whether it is legal. The morality 
of the action is irrelevant. This "nationalisation" of ethics is very
handy for the would be capitalist, governor or other exploiter. In addition,
capitalism also restricts the development of an individual's ethics because
it creates the environment where these ethics can be bought. To quote
Shakespeare's <b>Richard III</b>:
<p>
<i><ol>
<b>"Second Murderer :</b> . . .Some certain dregs of conscience are yet within me.
<br>
<b>First Murderer  :</b> Remember our reward, when the deed's done.
<br>
<b>Second Murderer :</b> Zounds! He dies. I had forgot the reward.
<br>
<b>First Murderer  :</b> Where's thy conscience now?
<br>
<b>Second Murderer :</b> O, in the Duke of Gloucester's purse."</i>
</ol><p>
Therefore, as far as "The Law" defending individual rights, it creates the
necessary conditions (such as the de-personalisation of ethics, the existence
of wealth, and so on) for undermining individual ethical behaviour, and so
respect for other individual's rights. Individual rights, for anarchists, 
are best protected in a social environment based on the self-respect and
sympathy. Custom, because it is based on the outcome of numerous individual
actions and thought does not have this problem and reflects (and encourages 
the development of) individual ethical standards and so a generalised
respect for others.
<p>
Tolerance of other individuals depends far more on the attitudes of the
society in question that on its system of laws. In other words, even if
the law does respect individual rights, if others in society disapprove 
of an action then they can and will act to stop it (or restrict individual
rights). All that the law can do is try to prevent this occurring. Needless
to say, governments can (and have) been at the forefront of ignoring 
individual rights when its suits them. 
<p>
In addition, the state perverts social customs for its own, and the 
economically powerful's interests. As Kropotkin argued, <i>"The law has 
used Man's social feelings to get passed not only moral precepts which
were acceptable to Man, but also orders which were useful only to the
minority of exploiters against whom he would have rebelled"</i> [quoted by
Malatesta in <b>Anarchy</b>, pp. 21-22]
<p>
Therefore anarchists argue that state institutions are not only unneeded
to create a ethical society (i.e. one based on respecting individuality)
but activity undermines such a society. That the economically and politically
powerful state that a state is a necessary condition for a free society and
individual space is hardly surprising. As Malatesta put it:
<p>
<i>"A government cannot maintain itself for long without hiding its true nature
behind a pretense of general usefulness. . .it cannot impose acceptances
of the privileges of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of
the rights of all"</i> [<b>Anarchy</b>, p. 21]
<p>
Therefore, its important to remember why the state exists and so whatever
actions and rights it promotes for the individual it exists to protect the
powerful against the powerless. Any human rights recognised by the state 
are a product of social struggle and exist because of pass victories in 
the class war and not due to the kindness of ruling elites. In addition,
capitalism itself undermines the ethical foundations of any society by
encouraging people to grow <i>"accustomed to deceiving his fellow-men"</i> and
women and treating <i>"his fellow as an [economic] enemy, against whom every 
means of warfare is justified."</i> Hence capitalism undermines the basic 
social context within which individuals develop and need to become fully
human and free. Little wonder that a strong state has always been required
to introduce a free market - firstly, to protect wealth from the increasingly
dispossessed and secondly, to try to hold society together as capitalism
destroys the social fabric which makes a society worth living in.
<p>
<a name="seci74"><h2>I.7.4 Does capitalism protect individuality?</h2>
<p>
Given that many people claim that any form of socialism will destroy
liberty (and so individuality) its worth while considering whether 
capitalism actually does protect individuality. As noted briefly 
<a HREF="secI7.html">above</a> the answer must be no. Capitalism seems to help create a
standardisation which helps to distort individuality and the fact that
individuality does exist under capitalism says more about the human 
spirit than capitalist social relationships.
<p>
So, why does a system apparently based on the idea of individual profit
result in such a deadening of the individual? There are four main reasons:
<p>
1) capitalism produces a hierarchical system which crushes 
self-government in many areas of life (see sections <a HREF="secB1.html">
B.1</a> and <a HREF="secB4.html">B.4</a>). This, naturally, represses 
individual initiative and the skills needed to express ones own mind; 
<p>
2) there is the lack of community which does not provide the necessary 
supports for the encouragement of individuality (see section <a HREF="secI7.html">I.7</a> and <a href="secI7.html#seci71">I.7.1</a>); 
<p>
3) there is the psychological impact of "individual profit" when it becomes 
identified purely with monetary gain (as in capitalism); 
<p>
4) the effects of competition in creating conformity and mindless obedience 
to authority.
<p>
These last two points are worth discussing more thoroughly, and we will do
so here. 
<p>
Taking the third point first, when this kind of "greed" becomes the guiding aspect of an individual's life (and the society they live in) they usually 
end up sacrificing their own ego's to it. Instead of the individual dominating 
their "greed," "greed" dominates them and so they end up being possessed by 
one aspect of themselves. This "selfishness" hides the poverty of ego who 
practices it. 
<p>
As Eric Fromm argues:
<p>
<i>"Selfishness if not identical with self-love but with its very opposite.
Selfishness is one kind of greediness. Like all greediness, it contains
an insatiability, as a consequence of which there is never any real
satisfaction. Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an
endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction. . .
this type of person is basically not fond of himself, but deeply dislikes
himself
<p>
"The puzzle in this seeming contradiction is easy to solve. Selfishness
is rooted in this very lack of fondness for oneself. . .He does not have
the inner security which can exist only on the basis of genuine 
fondness and affirmation."</i> [<b>The Fear of Freedom</b>, pp. 99-100]
<p>
In other words, the "selfish" person allows their greed to dominate their
egos and they sacrifice their personality to feeding this new "God." This
was clearly seen by Max Stirner who denounced this as a <i>"one-sided, 
unopened, narrow egoism"</i> which leads the ego being <i>"ruled by a 
passion to which he brings the rest as sacrifices"</i> (see section 
<a HREF="secG6.html">G.6</a>). Like all "spooks," 
capitalism results in the self-negation of the individual and so the
impoverishment of individuality. Little wonder, then, that a system 
apparently based upon "egoism" and "individualism" ends up weakening 
individuality.
<p>
The effects of competition on individuality are equally as destructive.
<p>
Indeed, a <i>"culture dedicated to creating standardized, specialized, 
predictable human components could find no better way of grinding them
out than by making every possible aspect of life a matter of competition.
'Winning out' in this respect does not make rugged individualists. It
shapes conformist robots."</i> [George Leonard, <i>"Winning Isn't Everything.
It's Nothing"</i>, p. 46, <b>Intellectual Digest</b>, October, 1975, pp. 45-47]
<p>
Why is this?
<p>
Competition is based upon outdoing others and this can only occur if you
are doing the same thing they are. However, individuality is the most
unique thing there is and <i>"unique characteristics by definition cannot
be ranked and participating in the process of ranking demands essential
conformity."</i> [Aflie Kohn, <b>No Contest: The Case Against Competition</b>, 
p. 130] According to Kohn in his extensive research into the effects of
competition, the evidence suggests that it in fact <i>"encourages rank 
conformity"</i> as well as undermining the <i>"substantial and authentic kind 
of individualism"</i> associated by such free thinkers as Thoreau. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 130, p. 129] 
<p>
As well as impoverishing individuality by encouraging conformity, competition 
also makes us less free thinking and rebellious:
<p>
<i>"Attitude towards authorities and general conduct do count in the kinds of 
competitions that take place in the office or classroom. If I want to get 
the highest grades in class, I will not be likely to challenge the teacher's 
version of whatever topic is being covered. After a while, I may cease to
think critically altogether. . . If people tend to 'go along to get along,'
there is even more incentive to go along when the goal is to be number one.
In the office or factory where co-workers are rivals, beating out the next
person for a promotion means pleasing the boss. Competition acts to 
extinguish the Promethean fire of rebellion."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 130]
<p>
In section I.4.11 (<a HREF="secI4.html#seci411">If libertarian socialism eliminates the profit motive, won't creativity and performance suffer?</a>) 
we noted that when an artistic task is turned 
into a contest, children's work reveal significantly less spontaneity 
and creativity. In other words, competition reduces creativity and so 
individuality because creativity is <i>"anti-conformist at its core: it is
nothing if not a process of idiosyncratic thinking and risk-taking.
Competition inhibits this process."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 130] 
<p>
Competition, therefore, will result in a narrowing of our lives, a failing
to experience new challenges in favour of trying to win and be "successful."
It turns <i>"life into a series of contests [and] turns us into cautious,
obedient people. We do not sparkle as individuals <b>or</b> embrace collective
action when we are in a race."</i> [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 131] 
<p>
So, far from defending individuality, capitalism places a lot of barriers
(both physical and mental) in the path of individuals who are trying to
express their freedom. Anarchism exists precisely because capitalism has
not created the free society it supporters claimed it would during the
struggle against the absolutist state.
<p>

</BODY>
</HTML>