CHAPTER XV
THE
INDIVIDUAL AND THE COLLECTIVE
WANG MIAOYANG
Today,
communication and dependence between countries and nations are an irreversible
world wide trend. It reflects not only material production but Spiritual
production as well. Truly the spiritual products of different nations have
become common wealth and, as indicated by Marx and Engels, should be seriously
considered. In the developed capitalist countries many are interested in
traditional Oriental spiritual culture. Also in relatively under-developed
countries, even including all socialist countries which are developing policies
of reconstruction and opening and seeking to elevate their productive forces,
many are anxious to import from Western spiritual culture. In the initial stages
cultural conflicts emerge more prominently than does cultural selection. Only by
facing the conflicts rationally is it possible to make reasonable choices. To a
certain extent, the deepest conflict in culture is the conflict between
different concepts of values. This conceptual conflict of values focuses upon
the opposition between individualism and collectivism.
In
fact the contradiction between individualism and collectivism is a long-term
problem in the world. A Russian philosopher vividly called it an
"historical mystery." According to Marxism pro-ductive activity is the
most fundamental of all social activities. Therefore, economic relations are the
greatest determinant of all social relations. On the one hand, in the final
analysis, any activity of production, exchange, distribution and consumption, is
indivi-dual. On the other hand, this can be performed only in the collective
because "Man is really a social animal not only as collected in a flock,
but his independence is only in society.1
It is as unimaginable that an isolated man can work outside society as that
isolated men could develop speech without conversation and living together.
The
history of human society tells us that the relation be-tween the individual and
the collective is not as harmonic as people expect; often they contradict each
other. Furthermore, this conflict becomes more prominent with the development of
social pro-ductive force. This contradiction appears first, for the development
of the social collective is realized on the basis of the "maximum waste of
individual development."2 As in the animal and plant kingdoms, among human beings the
benefits of the species always are achieved at the sacrifice of the benefits of
individuals."3
Se-condly, this contradiction manifests the fact that the development of the
social collective is at the expense of a relative divorce of the individual from
the collective to which he belongs. That is to say, the development of the
social collective does not promote the col-lectivization of individuals; on the
contrary it leads to an isolation of the individual. Originally, man expressed
himself as a flock, whe-ther of species or tribe; thus the isolation of man is
an historical result. Under the capitalist mode of production the isolation of
man reached a higher level than before. One is no longer restricted by natural
blood relations and escaped from slavery. He is like a com-pletely isolated free
man under the law. Though human value, freedom and rights are recognized
legislatively this does not mean true freedom of the individual. For most people
these show only that the capitalist mode of production allowed non-freedom in
the essence of the individual to express itself in the form of
"freedom". Hence, the contradiction between the individual and the
collective is expressed directly as the contradiction between an individual
laborer and an "imaginary collective". At any rate the isolation and
freeing of the individual doubtless represent great progress com-pared with the
"collectivisation" in history.
The
progress of history seems to express the perplexing fact that the effective way
to strengthen the collective lies not in streng-thening the collective itself of
the restrictive forces, but the contrary. Superficially, liberal development of
the individual seems to pro-duce a centrifugal force against the collective, but
the objective effects greatly strengthen the activity of the collective. Un-doubtedly,
this strengthening of collective activity does not always produce positive
effects, but often is accompanied by negative effects. For example, material
production in developed Western countries is higher than that in the Oriental
developing countries, but social problems in the area of spiritual civilization,
such as coldness of interpersonal relations and the high rate of divorce are
more serious than in Oriental countries.
The
contradictions between the individual and the collective exist objectively
without exception in socialist countries. The only difference is between their
expressions in different countries. Philosophically, the main fault of the old
system’s political, econo-mical and cultural models is over-concentrated; in
other words, owing to over-restriction of the collective to the individual,
activity itself is restricted. Therefore, "against high concentration"
and "respect individual right" have become forceful slogans for reform
in many countries. In China the most striking development in recent years is
bold importation in almost every corner of social life of competition, the
effective mechanism in commercial economy for promoting individual activity. It
is not accidental that socialist countries direct their attention to how to
initiate the individual’s activity and creativity. Apparently this is the
result of absorbing the successful experience of developed countries. A Russian
philo-sopher, Tolstoy, in his paper "The Socialist Collective and the
Individual" reflects this reconsideration. He notes that the collective is
a strong force which under the conditions of a socialist system ought to be
strengthened greatly. He regrets, however, that it seems unable to stimulate the
individual’s desire for creative work even though conditions favorable to
action depend to a great extent upon the collective.4
Therefore, the contradiction between the individual and the collective has
become a world wide problem, a paradox of the individual and the collective. On
the one hand, the individual cannot be detached from the collective. To perform
activity under favorable conditions the individual ought to leave the
collective, because the more restrictive force of the collective reduces the
individual’s creativity. Under real historical condition how is this
contradiction to be resolved? Can we find a better method for dealing with it?
First,
let us see how Marx discussed this problem; then let us come to our conclusions
in the light of the historical tradition and the concrete situation of Oriental
and Western countries.
The
contradiction between the individual and the collective standpoint is stressed
in Western developed countries, where em-phasis is placed upon individual
values, consciousness, freedom and equality. Philosophically, these mean
individualism. But almost all socialist countries reject individualism and
emphasize col-lectivism. Sometimes individualism even was stipulated as
bour-geois morals and collectivism as proletarian or communist morals. In fact,
both individualism and collectivism are not absolutely bad or good.
Individualism takes the form not only of egoism but also of altruism; it has
reasonable aspects just as collectivism has its unreasonable ones. In the
inhibition of individual activity collect-ivism sometimes expresses itself as
dictatorship, feudalism and the similar evils. Historically, the idea of
collectivism was first put forward not by the proletariat but by bourgeois, i.e.
For example, in 1796 a French bourgeois thinker, Rousseau, first formulated the
idea of collectivism in modern time. He suggested that only if the individual
obeys the "common will" of the collective can he obtain his true
existence and freedom. Therefore, to call collectivism proletarian morals or to
call individualism bourgeois morals is inappropriate.
The
creators of Marxism usually did not discuss individualism and collectivism
abstractly. Talking about the contradiction be-tween "private
interests" and "common interests" or the individual and the
collective Marx said:
Communists
do not use egoism to oppose self-sacrifice and self-sacrifice to oppose egoism.
Theoretically, they do not understand the contradiction either as emotional or
as ideational, but uncover the material roots of the contradiction. Along with
the disappearance of these material roots the contradiction will disappear
naturally.5
So
far as the existential relation of the individual and the society is concerned
mankind has gone through five different social modes: primitive, slavery,
feudal, capitalist and socialist societies. The contradiction between individual
and collective has existed throughout all these societies. Only in the ideal
communist society can the contradiction between individual and collective
finally and naturally disappear. Before then individualism and collectivism are
but two methods which are used to overcome their mutual con-tradiction. In
communist society, as the contradiction between in-dividualism and collectivism
will have disappeared it will be in-appropriate to advocate either of them
one-sidedly. Therefore com-munists do not prefer any moral teaching: "Do
not put forward any moral demands to the people, such as you should love one
another, do not be selfish, and the like. On the contrary they know clearly that
both selfishness and self-sacrifice are necessary forms of personal realization
under certain conditions."6
Thus,
the contradiction between the individual and the col-lective finally comes down
to the realization of individual freedom and development. Marx distinctively
pointed out that communism it-self is not the aim of human development, but is
only a necessary link in the real historical development of the liberation of
mankind;7 it
is a common condition for the development of individual freedom.8
He
divided the stages in the development of mankind into three social forms:
natural economy, commercial economy and communist society. The natural economy
includes the primitive commune, ancient slavery, the feudal system and other
modes of production before the period of capitalist economy. The form of
commercial economy implies capitalism, but at present it includes also
socialism. The higher stage is communist society. Corres-ponding to these three
forms of society are three forms for in-dividual self-realization. First, under
the form of natural economy the main form of individual self-realization is
collectivism. As we trace back in history, we can see the further we go the less
the individual is independent and the more one belongs to a greater collective.
Firstly individuals belonged naturally to the family and its broader form, the
clan, and then to various communes which are formed by the union of clans as a
result of war.
The
appearance of private ownership did not change the fact that individuals
belonged absolutely to the community, but re-enforced that relation which has
grown from primitive natural blood relationships to subsequent subjection to
regimes. The personal dependence of slavery is more cruel than that of
feudalism, but the latter is wider. Peasants are situated not only in a
dependent relation to the landowner, but also in relation to land and
legislation. Hence, Oriental nations which have been through long periods in the
social form of natural economy usually have strong collective consciousness and
weak individual consciousness. Under the social form of natural economy neither
the individual nor the society can develop fully.
Secondly,
under the commercial economy the main form of individual self-realization is
individualism. Since the 18th century this social relation has reached its peak
so that it is possible for the individual to escape from the various relations
of dependence and to achieve relatively full development. Thus it has become
possible to conceive things in terms of the "isolated man", and to
treat problems in terms of the individual. This has enabled great achieve-ments
and promoted the full development of commercial economy, but many problems
remain. Under the social form of the com-mercial economy the individual has
escaped formally from the relation of dependence on the collective, but has
fallen into certain material relationships by which the liberal development of
the individual remains restricted. In fact, in a capitalist society only a few
individuals can achieve true development, the conditions for which are still
lacking for many.
Lastly,
under the social form of a communist economy in the future individual initiative
and the development of freedom will not be empty talk. "There each one’s
development is the condition of the development for the whole people."9 On
the other hand, "Only in the collective can the individual find the way to
the full development of one’s talents."10
Then the form of individual self-realization will change radically; it will be
neither individualism nor collectives, but a completely new form which escapes
the limitations of indivi-dualism and collectivism and includes the reasonable
and active factors of both.
Therefore,
for Marxism, individualism and collectivism are two necessary forms for
individual self-realization under the natural and commercial economies. The fact
that socialist countries over-stressed collectivism is related to the
underdevelopment of their commercial economy which has not fully escaped from
the in-fluence of the natural economy. The form of individual self-reali-zation
for socialist society, as distinct from both capitalist society or communist
society requires further investigation and discussion.
In
the forgoing section we have made a sagittal and over-looked investigation in
the development of individualism and col-lectivism from different economical
forms in the development of human society. Now let us further make comparison of
them against a different cultural backdrop and economy or cross-sectionally.
Philosophically,
individualism is in essence a matter of values. According to Western scholars
the concept of individualism first appeared in France after the French
Revolution. At that time the term was used by some socialists, liberals and
conservatives to describe something which appeared to them to be evil,
antisocial and selfishly impulsive. The term was put forward by a French
political thinker, Alexis de Toqueville. In vol. II of his De la de-mocratie
en Amerique he used this word in its negative connotation to denote a
selfish threat to the society.11 Frenchmen despise individualism due to the collectivist
influence idea of Rousseau, but the concept of individualism is derived from
Lock’s idea of "natural human rights", though the term was not used
at that time. Hence, in English-speaking countries individualism is not looked
down upon but is embraced. The idea was first affirmed in America and the term
was first employed by the famous American poet and philo-sopher, Ralph Waldo
Emerson (1803-1882) in an 1835 paper. "This is the first use of the word
individualism in English."12 The word was
used in an affirmative sense of "individual first" by Emerson and his
followers. Thus, the so-called Western individualism denotes in fact the
English-American individualist tradition. In the tradition it is not completely
either evil, or benevolent.
In
China the first Chinese Encyclopedia published after the Chinese Cultural
Revolution interpreted the entry individualism as: "An individual-centered
idea or theoretical view which is used to deal with society and other people. It
expresses itself in forms of egoism, altruism, liberalism, anarchism, etc."13
Here, individualism can express either the most despicable selfishness or lofty
altruism. Encyclopedia Britannica states the main principles of
individualism as: (1) Man is the center of all values, that is to say, any value
is interpreted in terms of man (not always created by him). (2) The individual
itself is the aim or the paramount value; society is only a means for achieving
the aims of the individual. (3) All individuals are to a certain extent equal.14
This Western indivi-dualism is inherited from Renaissance humanism, the
Enlightenment and the ideological trends of bourgeois revolution. It is the
result of opposition to the authority of God and the feudal emperors.
In
certain historical periods it has motivated social progress by promoting the
individual’s wisdom and capacity to act. To a certain extent, the achievements
of America are based on indivi-dualism, which gives American is a strong sense
of independence and creativity. On the other hand, it leads to apathy in
interpersonal relations, weakening of the agglomerative force between members of
a society, collective and family. Attention is directed to the realization of
the individual’s value and position and to equality. This ego-centric ideology
neglects the contribution due to society.
In
contrast, economic development and the cultural back-ground in China are
manifestly different from those in United States. The influence of the natural
economic form, the hierarchical family system, the family-centered ethics of
Confucianism led in the Han Dynasty to the theory of three dominants figures:
the King over subjects, the father over the son, the husband over the wife. In
the long history of China collective consciousness prevailed and the stress was
upon family and society rather than on the individual’s position and value.
The new socialist China, being established on the basis of the backward
production force from old China, will require a long period to develop a
commercial economy. However, in thirty years since the establishment of new
socialist China collectivism has been over-stressed and individualism has been
completely negated and subject to critique. This extreme one-sidedness in
dealing with individualism reflects a psychology of individual nihilism. Yu
Guangyuan has described its main points as "a negation or devaluation of
individual interest, desire, personality, struggle, etc., and a one-sided
over-emphasis on the `public’ and `collective’. Wide propagation of these
views undoubtedly played an inhibitory role upon the activity of the individual.
These views were the theoretical foundation of extreme leftist policies in
China." The emphasis in China upon the collective consciousness and
collectivism for thousands of years apparently formed a cultural tradition and
ideology which contrasts with the Western tradition of individualism.
CONCLUSION
If
individualism and collectivism as value attitude are investi-gated in terms of
the development of socio-economic forms, their rationality and necessity can be
correctly understood and their de-velopmental trends projects.
In
different countries, owing to the long-term influence of their distinctive
economic development and cultural traditions different traditions regarding
values are formed. In dealing with such tradi-tions a simple attitude of
complete negation or affirmation is not recommended; analysis, comparative
studies and understanding based on social developmental trends are preferred.
This enables one to study and absorb the positive aspects of a tradition and
overcome its negative aspects.
The
common search is for forms of the individual’s future self-realization in
society so that the limitations of individualism and col-lectivism are overcome
and their merits preserved. In the com-mercial economies of highly developed
Western countries col-lectivism should be stressed in order to attenuate the
faults of indi-vidualism. In the commercial economy of relatively underdeveloped
Oriental countries it is necessary to bring the activity and creativity of
individual into play in order to promote the development of the social
collective. Such mutual restriction and supplement between collectivism and
individualism can guide an effective march toward a progressive future society.
NOTES
1.
Karl Marx and Friedlich Engels, Selected Works, vol. 2, Chinese ed., p.
87.
2.
Karl Marx and Friedlich Engels, Complete Works, vol. 25, Chinese ed., p.
105.
3. Ibid.,
vol. 26, II, Chinese ed., p. 125.
4. History,
Society and Individual (Moscow: 1988), pp. 30.
5.
Karl Marx and Friedlich Engels, Complete Works, vol. 3, Chinese ed., p.
275.
6. Ibid.,
vol. 3, II, Chinese ed., p. 275.
7.
Karl Marx, Economy in 1844-Manuscript of Philosophy, Chinese ed., p. 25.
8.
Karl Marx and Friedlich Engels, Complete Works, vol. 3, Chinese ed., p.
516.
9. Ibid.,
vol. 4, II, Chinese ed., p. 491.
10.
Ibid., vol. 3, II, Chinese ed., p. 84.
11.
Encyclopedia America, vol. 15, p. 69.
12.
Ibid.
13.
Encyclopedia Sinica, Philosophy I, 1978, p. 248.
14.
Concise Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3, Chinese ed., p. 406.