Communism Utilitarian?

[twoms]

Is communism based on Utilitarianism? I am taking a "formal" undergrad philosophy class (Philosophy of Ethics), and the professor told me that he's never heard of utilitarianism being linked to communism before. This was after I made a statement linking the two.

 

From what I can understand about the two so far, it seems that Kant values the individual at the expense of the group while utilitarianism values the group at the expense of the individual. Is that not individualist anarchism and communism respectively?

 

If communism is different than utilitarianism then the only thing I can think of is that I'm bringing my bias of what the outcomes of communism are instead of the stated intentions of communism - somehow making my statement false.

 

So, in short, am I wrong in my argument that communism stems from utilitarian ethics?

 

Thank you for time, thoughts, and feedback.

[vahleeb]

Hi twoms,

 

It might look like that but, in fact it isn't. Both are equally wrong, though. Most likely your prof thinks that about communist, but is a full-on utilitarian so by associating the two you're creating a "trigger warning" in his own mind.

 

Utilitarianism is basically the most good to the most people.

 

Communism is not that. Ideological communism is everything is shared among everyone, "from each according to ability to each according to their needs". It might seem that it is akin to utilitarianism because in the system of communism that defines the two opposing classes (the workers and the private owners) the class that communism preaches to and awards all its benefits to is more numerous. Communism has an effect that is akin to utilitarianism in a certain way, but there is no philosophical link between the two systems.

[dsayers]

Is communism based on Utilitarianism?

No. The proposition that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories only offers utility to those in power.

[twoms]

Thank you for those distinctions. That makes perfect sense, vahleeb. There are some goals and outcomes that kind of happen to look utilitarian, but they aren't because of any overarching utilitarian ideas.

 

dsayers, your statement about utility only being for those in power is right on. It's almost as if there are "multiple instances of egoism" from the ruling class. Does utilitarianism claim to be able to be universalized?

 

Thanks again, gents. I have a much better understanding of how utilitarianism relates to communism. Glad I wasn't completely off the mark.

[dsayers]

Does utilitarianism claim to be able to be universalized?

Not at all. This is the fundamental flaw in the utilitarian approach: it's subjective and therefore is ineligible for universality. This is why the moral consideration is paramount (it's objective).

[Aspiring Skywriter]

Communism is about as utilitarian as I am, I would say. It introduces many non-utilitarian such as fairness of wages (talking about the exploitation of workers and so on), but definitely supports utilitarian solutions to those problems (ends justify means, etc.).

 

 

So, "Kinda" is correct. 

[twoms]

Ok I thought so, dsayers. Thanks again for the clarity you've provided.

 

Skywriter, that makes perfect sense. There is some Kantian dignity for the workers in communism, but sometimes there are horrible consequences with the group is more important to the individual.

 

So, I basically made a fallacy in the form of a slippery slope. Is that incorrect?

 

This has been incredibly helpful. You guys are awesome!!

[rosencrantz]

Communism describes class structures using a dialectical method. A communist can describe the relative utility for a system and will then go on to tell you that there are inherent problems with it. Capitalism produces more and ever cheaper goods which is a good thing but at the same time it causes crises because the profit margin goes back more and more. Furthermore, since each class has a different interest there can be no common util that increases the happiness both for the bourgeois and the proletariat.

[Libertus]

If the ideology of communism is not based on pragmatism, then it should be based on moral axioms. But which ones?

[vahleeb]

If the ideology of communism is not based on pragmatism, then it should be based on moral axioms. But which ones?

That should be "moral" in quotation marks since it's obviously fake morality.

 

I'd say the following qualify as the "moral" tenements upon which communism is based:

 

- there is no personal right to private ownership

- business owners (it was applied to factory owners at the time of communism's inception) are exploiting their workers by pocketing the profits instead of sharing them evenly among their worker base (because ownership is immoral from the argument above)

- no one can be asked to contribute more than what they can contribute

- no one should be left in need

 

Did I miss anything?

[Guest Gee]

Prospect theory.

[Libertus]

> there is no personal right to private ownership

 

Except for personal property, which is tooootally different and not arbitrary at all

[rosencrantz]

If the ideology of communism is not based on pragmatism, then it should be based on moral axioms. But which ones?

 

False dichotomy. Marx envisioned his theory to be like a physical theory. According to him, history progresses in ways that can be studied and predicted. According to communists you cannot stop the historical development as you can't stop gravity from working.

[Libertus]

Marx introduces Communism as a hypothesis first (by analysis of history) and an ideology (how things should be) later. And that is just Marxian communism, there are many other brands that are prescriptive and not just descriptive. Communism today isn't just what Marx originally imagined.

[rosencrantz]

and an ideology (how things should be) later

 

In the Marxist sense, Communism is not an ideology because require superstructures and different classes at odds with each other. Without superstructure and with no classes there cannot be an ideology in the Marxist sense. 

In the end of The Communist Manifesto, Marx describes his vision for the future. It seems that he assumes that the crash of capitalism and socialism left so many machines over that production will be plentiful. It a sense, it's a post scarcity world.

[vahleeb]

> there is no personal right to private ownership

 

Except for personal property, which is tooootally different and not arbitrary at all

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that everything is "owned" in common.

[Libertus]

It doesn't make any sense but communists advocate for a dictinction between "personal" and "private" property - the former is totally cool and encompasses things that we allow e.g. prisoners to have: clothes, an extra set of clothes, a pair of boots, a toothbrush - basic necessities but nothing beyond. The latter are everything the community deems "means of production" and everything that is not totally necessary for survival. It comes down to: you're allowed to keep what we allow you to keep. If we (the "community") decide that someone else needs your car more than you do, we'll redistribute it.

[vahleeb]

I get it now, thanks Libertus. And yes, you're right. It makes no sense at all.