|
Clarity on this point is very significant. Individuality and individualism are two different matters. Capitalism extracted the individualism from individuality
It is not a coincidence that individualism was the domain in which real socialism was defeated most badly. This is because its greatest delusion, and probably its greatest treachery and injustice, concerned the matter of the individual human being. If real socialism was abandoned in a hurried fashion for capitalism despite all of its mistakes, this - no matter how deservedly it may be criticised - indicates that the sensitivity to the individual and the individual’s rights, along with the provision of certain concrete measures, was one of the reasons for this preference. The individual’s freedom is one of the issues that should not be left solely to capitalism. Let us keep in mind that during its departure from the Middle Ages, and throughout the Renaissance, capitalism started to gather strength by promoting the individual, who began to recognise himself.
Clarity on this point is very significant. Individuality and individualism are two different matters. However much individuality is important, individualism is a matter that should be avoided just as much. Capitalism extracted the individualism from individuality. These two concepts lead to very different ends. Socialism cannot be possible without individuality. One cannot become either a consistent democratically minded person or a socialist whilst having a feudal character that is a remnant of the Middle Ages, or the individualism of a capitalist character that co-exists this. Individuality is a very comprehensive matter. Western civilisation covered a great distance on this matter. Individuality primarily questions the process that lasted hundreds of thousands of years, and employed all sorts of methods, and that resulted in the individual’s dissolution into a society that knew no boundaries. Seeking answers to questions concerning the extent and benefits of socialisation, and at which point it becomes meaningless and harmful, is an important task. Answers to the question of what the benefits would be, and the harms, of fully belonging to a society, tribe, religious or secular order will give a more realistically idea of the significance of individuality. Slave society’s answer was the annihilated individual, who was unable to own even his own shadow, and who was alienated from itself to the degree that she or he was buried alive in the monarch’s grave upon the king’s death. The slave society mentality broke the individual’s will to such an extent that it simply turned it into a tool and a material existence subjected to ownership.
The feudal age and feudal society softened the level of slavery. Yet the hegemony of dogmatism was very powerful. The fate of the human was determined before his birth. A deep fatalism paralysed the mind and spirit. There was no need to think and create. The most revered will had determined everything anyway. There was no need to waste effort. Whatever had been decided would have to happen. The luck secured would be the amount that god had determined. The fatalism that had mortal effects throughout the period, during which the Middle Eastern civilisation became especially conservative, was born thus. In fact, this logic can be retraced to the point where Plato’s philosophy was being converted into theology. In the name of Islam and Christianity initial ideas turned into dogmas as the consequence of theology. This led the way to a mortal effect that prepared the ground for freezing the mind and dulling the spirit for thousands of years. This was the essence of dogmatism.
During its emergence, western individuality fought mercilessly with church dogmatism. The formerly progressive philosophies of Aristotle and Plato were converted into the stereotyped dogmas of blind faith, in order to receive submissive humans through the church and mosque.
Even if it was to a limited degree, dogmatism was transcended by the progress of scientific methods and the birth of the Renaissance. Humanity began to break dogmas like a bursting dam, engulfing the world, becoming creative, loving and becoming itself. Using the powers unfolded by the birth of the individual, capitalism wielded individualism as a weapon, in order to launch a new beginning. This time individualism developed to such an extent that leashing it became a problem, and whilst the god kings had been singular they now became thousands. The pendulum went from one extreme to the other. Despite this what happened was one of the greatest revolutions in the history of humanity. The individual, who was liberated from the shadows of artificial gods and all kinds of dogmas, gathered such a speed that restricting individualism and leashing the profit crazy capitalist became a big problem. The balance was lost. There was a desperate need for counter precautions. Otherwise the capitalist individualism would have torn to pieces the society that symbolised the accumulation of atomised labour for hundreds of thousands of years. At this point socialism became an indispensable historical need.
Socialist ideas, and the development of scientific socialist theories, were the product of this historical necessity. Once the narrow class approach was transcended socialism would have played this historical role against capitalism on behalf of the whole society, and would express its strength to stand against capitalist individualism in the vital interests of humanity.
However, exactly at this point, the reaction against individualism and profit mindedness brought along with it the undermining of the significance of individuality. Real socialism in particular regarded individuality as the propaganda game of western civilisation. It regarded individuality and human rights matters as material for ideological attacks, and felt the necessity for rigid precautions against such concepts. This stance was one of the most significant reasons for real socialism’s dissolution on individuality and individual rights. In the end it received a blow in this domain and the course of its collapse was accelerated.
It is possible to further develop criticisms directed against real socialism in various areas. The intention of these attempted criticisms, presented as outline definitions, is of course to clarify concepts such as the socialist individual and society. Despite the negative aspects suggested about real socialism, it is nevertheless true that the transformation of the age of history it intended was conversion of a utopia into a concrete, practical matter. Whilst the disintegration process points to errors, it also sheds light on what the correct solutions should be. The collapse elements were utopianism, which had a powerful historical foundation, and her twin sister vulgar materialist philosophy. It is obvious that both approaches could not represent scientific socialism. On the contrary, the more that scientific socialism transcends all sorts of dogmatic utopianism, and purifies dialectical materialist philosophy from vulgar materialism, the better the ‘ideological identity’ of humanity, the indispensable guidance for action and life that follows the path of the new departure of civilisation, can be established in an able and practical way. With the new ideological identity, individuality and social existence, freedom and equality can be balanced on the basis that the technology provides, and the intended social transformations can play their role in a permanent fashion in the openings of the new civilisation. Scientific socialism will assume this role by establishing itself as the left wing of modern democratic civilisation. Humanity will believe in the existence of democratic civilisation, comply with its requirements, and the victory of scientific socialism will be secured in the awareness that the most esteemed motto of humanity ‘from each according to their ability and to each according to their need’ cannot be achieved unless modern democratic civilisation is achieved and its requirements are complied with.
|
|