me:
> >> On the other hand, Western-style possessive individualism (a.k.a.
> >> anti-social personality disorder) does seem to have arisen with
> >> capitalism, somewhere between 1600 and 1700. (The first well-known
> >> book with this sort of ideology is Hobbes' LEVIATHAN, published in
> >> 1660.) Possessive individualism suggests a different kind of
> >> "political freedom" than democracy does.
David Shemano writes:
> Do you really believe that "Western-style possessive individualism" did not
> exist before 1600? Or do you mean that there was no ideological defense of
> the behavior before Hobbes, which is a different point? <
On the latter point first: I used the phrase "well-known" because I
_don't know_ of any other defenders of possessive individualism before
Hobbes, though they may exist. Though I try to know the history of
philosophy and political theory, it's not my specialty, so I may have
missed it.
Nonetheless, I think that Hobbes' use of the concept fits the way
history usually works: a real-world phenomenon arises -- or begins to
rise -- and then philosophers start rationalizing it. I doubt that
anyone read Hobbes or Locke and then said "wow! I coulda been a
possessive individualist!" starting a chain-reaction (or contagion) of
self-centeredness.
People usually look to philosophers for rationalizations of what
they're already thinking or doing. Two meanings of "rationalization"
fit here: the philosopher justifies the actions and thoughts _and_
sands off the rough edges, making them more coherent for people.
On the former point: I'm using C.B. Macpherson's definition of
"possessive individualism": To the him, someone embracing this kind of
individualism (1) sees an individual as essentially the proprietor of
his own person and capabilities, while (2) owing absolutely nothing to
society for them.
A possessive individualist sees his possessions and personal
attributes as merely measures of his success, without any obligation
to "give back" to society. In the tradition of John Locke, he does not
steal or violate others' rights under current law. Though he wants as
much as possible, a possessive individualist is a free-rider rather
than a thief. (This assumes, of course, that Locke's assertion that
property rights are "natural" is accepted. If property rights are a
social creation, then the line between a free-rider and a thief
fades.)
By the way, the possessive individualists _do_ give back. But instead
of doing so as part of a democratic society, they follow the Bill
Gates model: First, they grab for all the lucre they can, by crook or
by hook. Then, they try to avoid even a minimal amount of public
responsibility by avoiding taxes as much as possible. Next, the "give
back" in a way that they have as complete personal control over as
possible, so that charity involves the philanthropist's personal taste
(attitudes, ideology) as does buying a yacht. In fact, it may involve
buying a yacht. A "charitable foundation" combines these last two
parts. The grab for lucre step is maximized to allow the maximum
philanthropy (along with maximum consumption -- the philanthropist
balances costs and benefits in order to balance philanthropy and
personal consumption).
This "possessive individualism" is different from other kinds of
nastiness, brutishness, and shortness seen in other countries and
historical eras. Clearly such leaders as Attila "the Hun" were greedy
in a lot of ways. But they saw themselves as integral links in the
chain of kinship, tribal relations, and kinship, while interpreting
these chains in religious terms. (Locke and Hobbes also used religious
terms, but these were jettisoned later. Hobbes may not have believed
in them at all, using religion as a tool for persuasion.) Attila, I
think, was like many or most in the pre-capitalist era: he saw an
essential unity of "what's in it for me" and "what's in it for my kin,
my tribe, my ethnicity." That does not mean that old Attila didn't do
really well for himself and his immediate kin, but he justified almost
everything in terms of society. "Giving back" and "what's in it for
me" were united as part of the seemingly seamless web of social
relationships.
Note that this was not just a matter of personal attitudes on Attila's
part. He was in reality part of a web of kinship obligations and the
like. The glue that held his armies together was kin, tribe, ethnic,
and religious in nature. If he did not "give back" to his community
(kin, tribe, etc.) his whole enterprise would collapse. Attila's
personal attitudes meshed well with the society he operated in. That's
a key reason for his success.
BTW, from what I understand, such "barbarians" as Attila have received
a horribly bad rap. Partially this has been done by exaggerating the
virtue of the self-described "civilized."
BTW2, the attitudes I ascribe to Attila still apply to our captains
and generals of industry, within their corporate organizations: they
see their own greed in terms of what's good for their organizations.
("I am the corporation," a modern Louis XIV might say.) They also feel
a strong sense of solidarity with other rich people (to defend their
entitlements) at the same time they compete them.
Possessive individualism really comes to the fore in financial
markets, among the "masters of the universe," among self-styled
entrepreneurs, among swindlers, etc. It often doesn't work in
practice, since the vast majority of real-world people aren't truly
possessive individualists. (Philosophical categories rarely fit the
real world exactly.) The exception is the sociopaths, i.e., those with
anti-social personality disorder. Of course, the philosophy of
possessive individualism that's embodied in our system of capitalism
gives major material rewards to the latter. This encourages others to
imitate them.
Michael P. mentions > a very attractive type of individualist
communitarianism [that] existed in Italy in the 13th century until the
tyrants took over the city states. Machiavelli [1469–1527] reflected
the tyrannical period.<
I don't know enough about this subject, but "individualist
communitarianism" seems to involve a strong sense of individualism
_and_ a commitment to one's community. This kind of attitude has
prevailed in relatively small communities which enjoyed a lot of
equality internally. (As in ancient Athens, which had a similar
attitude, there was a large class of outsiders (slaves, women,
foreigners, etc.) who were not seen as part of the community.)
With the shrinkage and destruction of old-style bourgeois city-states
in Western Europe and their submersion in a larger capitalist economy,
the communitarian side faded too. As capitalism grew, first in
product and financial markets, then with the creation of markets for
labor-power, the "what's in it for me"/"screw society" attitudes grew
in force among the ruling classes and then trickled down to other
classes.
Machiavelli, if I understand him, was not simply a guy telling the
prince what to do in order to promote his (Machiavelli's) career. He
also was a north-Italian patriot, hoping that he could harness the
tyrants for the "public good."
--
Jim Devine / "In every [stock-dealing] swindle every one knows that
some time or other the crash must come, but every one hopes that it
may fall on the head of his neighbor, after he himself has caught the
shower of gold and placed it in safety. Après moi le déluge! is the
watchword of every capitalist ... " -- K. Marx
