Skip to main content

Is freedom truly realized in communism?

 “Why is the concept of “freedom” not appropriate for a society in which I can live ‘free’ from rule and exploitation?”

The contradiction between freedom and communism lies in the absoluteness of the individual will expressed in the concept of freedom. 

The absoluteness of the will is the way in which private property owners relate to each other. The individual will counts absolutely, it has freedom to dispose over its own property, and excludes all others from its property. Its sociality comes to it as an unconscious force of nature. This absoluteness of the individual will, which inevitably stands against members of society, cannot exist in communism, because in communism production is carried out collectively with the means of production held in common and the product is also consumed by all. Accordingly, the labor of the individual will exists as a part of the total social will. On the one hand, as a part of this, it determines it; on the other hand, however, it also relativizes itself in it.


Also, in communism, your individual will won’t necessarily count absolutely. There you live in a society which, on the one hand, benefits your interests, however at the same time you must also qualify and limit your will. The utilization of the productivity which a society stands on implies that your will does not count in it absolutely. 


This is of course self-evident. However, it also nicely shows the idiocy of freedom which can seem reasonable only in capitalism. How is this supposed to work, that a will counts absolutely in a society? 1. As with Robinson Crusoe when there are no other wills, thus no society. 2. If a society is subjected to a single will. A god-like autocrat who subordinates all other wills to his absolute power, which is nothing other than a power fantasy. 3. Or in a capitalist society where all members of society want a social power which places their will in the right against other wills. One’s own will is thus qualified simultaneously against other legitimate wills.


The peculiar thing is not that the individual will is qualified in a society, but that this qualification occurs as its absolute validity is enforced. The qualification of individual wills against each other occurs through the authorization of individual wills. Therefore, society exists in capitalism as a negative relation of individual wills against each other. On the one hand, in capitalism people of course depend on each other. However they exercise this always mutually against one another. Their disposing will is used as a means for extorting social power. The ideal of freedom suits only such a society, thus of a will which counts absolutely against others and at the same time does not want to bend to the extortion of other wills. 


It is clear that in a reasonable society where social production is about meeting needs, a single will can't count absolutely. Why in a democracy does freedom count as a higher value? Because it perfectly describes the willing relationship of private property owners to each other. Freedom perfectly describes the negative relation of wills to one another. By virtue of my proprietary will, I exclude all other members of society from the possession of my property. Freedom is therefore sensible in a society in which individual wills in principle relate to each other antagonistically. Mutual exclusion as private property owners is the content of the antagonism. In a communist society, individual wills do not relate to each other antagonistically, but complementarily, as part of a general social will which has as its purpose the production and reproduction of the members of society.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

From the world of science (I) The thing about the transition

If  a scientist were to present the following insight as a result of his research: "  Water is for washing  , faleri and falera, and can also be used for brushing teeth; water is needed by the dear livestock, falera and faleri, and the fire brigade also needs water very much... and Hawaii, the South Sea island, would be a dreary palm brush." While his originality might not be questioned, his academic qualifications would certainly be challenged, and even the greatest exam pressure wouldn't prevent students from considering such material banal or nonsense. This is not the case, however, when the same academic expresses similar views about political parties. "It is the political parties that, against this backdrop, make an election decision with alternatives possible in the first place, and thus the core of a democratic process. The parties influence opinion formation and the emergence of the electorate's will with their political concepts and pronouncements; they ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ghost Hunting - On the history of ideas about anti-communism

A rough and dirty translation from an article "Gespensterjagd -- Zur Ideengeschichte des Antikommunismus" from Gruppen Gegen Kapital Und Nation (Groups Against Capital and Nation). Original can be found here: https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/gespensterjagd-zur-ideengeschichte-des-antikommunismus/ “A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of communism."“ All the powers of old Europe have united in a holy hunt against this specter,” wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto — and that, contrary to other claims in that work, is a pretty true statement. Hatred and fear of radical change in civil society is as old as its revolutionary implementation itself. At the latest with the French Revolution, which did not operate in a religious disguise like the Dutch and English revolutions, and which was much more radical in its theoretical justification than the American one, the fear of the “Red Terror” arose (before “La Grande, by the way. “Terreur” really started in ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Goethe Prize for Ernst Jünger:

 Translated from MSZ 5-1982 FOR MERIT! Democratic rulers—like all rulers—have always enjoyed adorning themselves with the works, or even personal acquaintance, of various artistic and intellectual luminaries. Not that they personally found the works particularly appealing. Their aim is to imbue the exercise of state power with a veneer of culture and humanity. Thus, a good German can elevate the dreariness of everyday democratic life with the certainty of belonging to a cultural nation. Depending on its current concerns, democracy selects the intellectual figures that best suit its agenda. While during the heyday of reformist ideals, the likes of Grass and Böll were showered with honors and cocktail parties in Bonn, this year one of the republic's most prestigious literary prizes—the Goethe Prize of the City of Frankfurt am Main—went to Ernst Jünger, a World War I and II front-line officer and writer. Contrary to rumors, this is not a misuse of the birthplace of the first German de...
Post a Comment
Read more