The inclusivity of collectivism and individualism.
The charge that individualism is about me, me, me might fall flat where they to realize it is concerned with them and their own rights as well. It encompasses all individuals, and any constituent part of any collective they can ever imagine.
Collectivism demands that the individual subordinates himself to a group, which, minus that individual, is invariably some kind of faction.
In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice.
Are there any objections to this?
Collectivism demands that the individual subordinates himself to a group, which, minus that individual, is invariably some kind of faction.
In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice.
Are there any objections to this?
Comments (105)
Yes, it seems like a false dichotomy to me. Like you must choose individualism or collectivism. I think you can use either or depending on what goals or paradigms each is best suited for. So my objection is that you seem to be demanding a choice between the two, whereas I would prefer not to become beholden to a single tool so I can use the best tool for the job.
with one youll be violating someones rights while with the other you wont.
Rights? As defined by what?
The freedoms we afford to other individuals.
Because the others have no rights or they have all rights?
Whose we?
Can we not choose when and where to afford these rights, or take them away? For example, if someone is jailed because they committed a crime, they lose their right to whatever restitutions (fine, jail etc) we have decided they lose.
So another thread based on delusional assumptions. Sweet. :up:
Yes. Men afford others rights and they also take them away.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivism
Ok, so sometimes we decide to take rights away and sometimes we do not. Sometimes we do collectivism and sometimes not, depends on whats best. This was what I meant by best tool for the job. I think my objection stands, I would not want to to restrict myself to one tool or solution (sort of has the stink of dogma doesnt it?) and instead use individualism or collectivism as the situation calls for.
Roads, for example. Each individual making their own roads according to their own standard would be confusing and lead to potential conflict at every crossing. We can come to some arrangement to share the roads, maybe. Agree to all drive on the right or something, might work ok most of the time, 'til someone wants to assert their individuality.
Whats best is what concerns me. For the individualist one would violate anothers rights if he violates the rights of an individual. For the collectivist one would violate anothers rights should he violate the rights of the group.
Rousseau suggests that the general will is paramount, and that the will of all, which is the sum total of particular wills, should conform to it. In order to determine what the general will is, though, Rousseau has to make absurd calculations in order to determine whats best.
So whats best in your eyes?
I agree, what is best is the question. Just to reiterate my point one last time, what isnt best is doing things only one way.
Whats best is going to depend on context. Gotta know the job to know which tools best. So thats a very robust question. I think whats best will depend in whats valued though so it depends on ones values. The tricky part is conflicting values, those must be balanced.
So I guess my quick and dirty general answer would be that whats best is a balanced, adaptable and non dogmatic approach. In the context of what I think youre getting at I would say its best to achieve a balance between individualism and collectivism
Based on your OP, I think we disagree? You would want individualism to take precedent whenever the two come into conflict?
Yeah. I think one satisfies the desires of both, while the other is incalculable, leads to factionalism, is self-contradictory and dangerous. One is just and the other isnt. For these reasons I would choose one principle rather than the other, and I cannot see myself wavering between them.
Fair enough.
I'm just not sure how this observation is significant. Maybe you could share what it means to you.
On the far end of the spectrum of individual freedom, we have, say, feudal Europe, where there aren't any cities to speak of. There are individual manors which are so isolated they're like tiny worlds until themselves. All industry takes place in these small holdings and there's little in the way of trade. Travel is so dangerous that you'll have to be armed. The only libraries are in monasteries, which have thick walls to withstand raiding.
You can see from this picture that a lack of any collectivism, or as you say, submission, means that might always makes right. There are no civil rights because there is no government capable of assuring them.
Collectivism comes to Europe in the 1000's. Trade routes open back up and communities of free tradesmen come into being. These communities build cathedrals, which stand as symbols of collectivism. The cathedral is the town hall, the university, the theatre, and of course, the house of God with windows that let light in from the outside world in a marked contrast to the dark, closed monasteries. Rule of law isn't here yet, but civil society has appeared which will act as the foundation for forms of government that can ensure rule of law and human rights.
The world we live in has both of these as its heritage. The pendulum keeps swinging.
It means to me that individualism is more inclusive, that it concerns itself with more human beings, even all human beings, whereas collectivism is exclusive, that it inevitably pits individuals against other individuals.
I cannot see from your picture that a lack of collectivism leads to might means right.
If true, you should be able to give an example of this in practice.
What we're left with is the same old all over again - individuals bossing other individuals around.
That the altruistic spiel that accompanies collectivist rhetoric is merely window dressing becomes apparent as soon as they are presented with a dissident. Their answer will always be the same: "If you don't like it, you may leave!"
Strictly speaking, no. A collective of some sort is required for the defense of civil rights.
See Britannica.
Not really. A strong argument against collectivism is that information is used more effectively in a free market. Concern for the welfare of both individuals and society is in play in this theory.
Striking out against it as selfish assholedness is a waste of time. Counter the argument by pointing out why it's wrong, or even if it's right, why there's a better idea.
But collectivism isnt.
How did we end up with a collective with no collectivism?
Chairman Mao makes this explicit in his diagnosis of The Party discipline, of which he sees the failure of the minority to submit to the majority as one of its primary defects. A minority is a faction. A majority is a faction. Either way the interests of each and all are subordinated to the interests of the Party.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm
I suspect through family and kinship.
In a number of ways the English North American colonies were deeply divided and distrustful of one another. The South had a different type of economy from the North, along with slavery, the small colonies were defensive about being bullied by the larger ones, and for whatever reason, Massachusetts and NY just hated one another.
Family ties? No.
Not to mention the wars on the First Nations, colonialism, manifest destiny. Collectivism, through and through.
American collectivism came originally from the need for defense.
I suppose that I should have specified that my interest is in an example of the inclusive practice of individualisms affording primacy to each and every individual.
:up: :up:
Quoting NOS4A2
Libertarian socialism¹ (s.g. economic democracy²).
If you're interested ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism (1)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy (2)
If everyone is an individual, and the individual is given primacy, it follows that no one is excluded.
Though I can can see a benefit in both, the question of what happens to those who do not wish to conform to those ideals remains a problem.
Right, Im curious how this works out in practice. Can you not give an example?
Any declaration of universal human rights.
Its true. I just dont know the answer to that question for those particular arraignments.
So, for example, if you declare a particular universal right you are expressing your primacy? Wouldnt everyone need to agree with whatever right that you declare and also agree to your primacy?
You are expressing every individuals primacy. If you realize the primacy of the individual you afford him rights and defend those rights against infringement. Im not sure everyone has to agree to that.
:lol:
Youre not sure about all this? You claimed it was true in theory AND practice, yet you dont seem to be able to come up with a practice example, and now youre unsure.
In the other hand: if the collective is effective, both sides win, the individual and the group. It is worthy to be part of a mass which works and helps you out to improve as a citizen. When I say "effective", I mean that they act together with similar goals such as manufacturing cars, vaccines, or improving the pillars of democracy. The act together because they are aware that this is the only way to be stronger. For example: Asian countries as Japan, China or South Korea. The individual doesn't exist there, but the group or collective is unstoppable due to their efficiency. One good case to look for is the Fukushima accident. Only a efficient system/mass as the japanese could have fixed such problem in just days...
The issue is who determines whether "the collective" is effective.
If I, the individual, am deeply unhappy within "the collective", what good is it for me to console myself with the idea that "the collective" is effective? Apparently "the collective" didn't include me, because it's not effective at making me happy at all.
Should the unhappy individual simply sacrifice this one life they're given for the sake of some imaginary higher power we call "the collective"?
Quoting javi2541997
This sounds like a nightmare.
First of all: what is happiness? How we measure the happiness of the people at all?
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes and no. We have to take care of the individual, that's for granted. But this doesn't mean that one group has to step down just for one person. That would be selfish and ineffective. Should everyone lose for just one individual?
Quoting Tzeentch
For me, it is a dreaming lifestyle. I guess that's why the economy of my country is in the 16th position and theirs are the 1st, 3rd and 5th of the world. These are pure facts not personal opinions.
That's for each to determine for their own - it's certainly not up to a "collective" to decide for others what constitutes happiness.
Quoting javi2541997
How would that be any more or less selfish than asking of the unhappy individual to simply sacrifice themselves?
Quoting javi2541997
South Korea and Japan also have notoriously high rates of suicide, so I guess that answers part of the question of how they deal with unhappy individuals. As for China, well... If you believe economic prosperity is worth living under an authoritarian dictatorship then our ideas about what is happiness must lie very far apart.
Yes, but happiness was never been in my arguments. I was speaking about effectiveness. I don't care if they are happy or sad, whenever happiness is just an entelechy.
Quoting Tzeentch
But why happiness should be a factor to consider of in terms of functionality? Who are we to say the group is "unhappy"? They just work and are effective. Simple.
Quoting Tzeentch
The concept of death in Japan is different from the western world. We see it as a problem when they understand it as a path of life
Yukio Mishima: The Japanese have always been a people with a severe awareness of death. But the Japanese concept of death is pure and clear, and in that sense it is different from death as something disgusting and terrible as it is perceived by Westerners.
Quoting Tzeentch
I wonder if a person from Andalucía in Spain - which is one of the poorest regions of Europe and with a high unemployment ratio - is happier than an individual of Asian countries. Let me doubt it a lot...
But individuals do care about whether they are happy or sad. My question was what the individual is supposed to do when the "collective" they are living in is making them unhappy.
Should they simply accept their fate and find consolation in the fact that this is, apparently, a by-product of an "effective" society, whatever that may mean?
The stubborn truth is of course that there is no good reason for them to accept being sacrificed, and people generally don't.
Quoting javi2541997
I never said it should, and you didn't answer my question.
The pursuit of happiness is something all people have in common, so it seems like a sensible thing to use as a base for coexistence. What would you replace it with?
Quoting javi2541997
The Japanese view the national suicide rates as a major social issue. Moreover, child suicide has apparently been peaking and the cause of much worry.
Japan Appoints a 'Minister of Loneliness' after seeing suicide rates increase for the first time in 11 years
Child suicides in Japan are at a record high
Japan's child suicide crisis
I doubt many Japanese would agree this is normal, regardless of their views on life and death. Do you believe this is normal?
Quoting javi2541997
Happiness and life satisfaction - wonder no more.
Leave. If they don't like the collective or they are unhappy, the reasonable decision is leave and let the rest progress. I still see as a selfish act to sacrifice an entire group just for the commodity of one user. It is 99 % against 1 %. My unhappiness cannot stop your effectiveness. If I am unhappy, it is a problem of my own because happiness is subjective. That individual can change the situation with another attitude. Unhappiness is not something which persists forever...
Quoting Tzeentch
I didn't say it was "normal". I said that the concept of death is pretty different in Japan. I am aware that suicide rates are an important issue there, but the cause is not unhappiness in the group or unsatisfied life. They killed themselves for many complex reasons. For example: one a student fails and is aware is not good enough for a better work in the future, he kills himself (as much as this practice is common in China and South Korea) because they are so competitive. In the other hand, some old people decide to suicide when they are aware of being a problem to their family.
Etc... there are a lot of reasons and they don't kill themselves just for depression or unhappiness as it happens in Western world.
Quoting Tzeentch
Who cares if a Spaniard is happier than a Chinese citizen? It is a very subjective essay. Meanwhile you need China to make businesses, you don't care if Spain disappears today. So, happiness is not valuable at all. I even see a problem of my countrymen if they are "happy" despite the circumstances we are facing. That wacky thoughts only come from hippies that do not care about anything: "oh yeah I am poor but I am happy with my basic needs"
Well, that's only exists in dreams. At the end of the day... where you would put your investments or assets? Tokyo or Seville?
Tokyo, right? Because they are effective despite they are more or less happy than us.
As I said:
Quoting Tzeentch
But the individual, of course, will not leave. They have as much the right to live where they do as anyone else, and the state especially has no right to make them leave.
Clearly the collectivist believes otherwise - they believe they are entitled to the individual's cooperation, which is why they demand their departure when the individual refuses.
This entitlement stems from a belief that they are right, and therefore the individual has no right to refuse, and no right to exist if he does.
You see now why collectivism brings up unpleasant memories for many.
Quoting javi2541997
Surely for someone to commit suicide they must be deeply unhappy, or am I missing something?
Quoting javi2541997
You, apparently. Weren't you just now wondering about that?
This sounds quite interesting, however I am trying to understand how a system of socialism could exist without a large, powerful government to coordinate it.
Is the socialism to flourish as a result of voluntary cooperation?
Maybe I am the only one who see it in that way, but isn't it how a country should works?
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, you are missing the fact that Japanese citizens conceive death differently as we do and probably unhappiness is not the main causes. There were hundreds of samurai who died killing themselves doing "seppuku" just to save their dignity and integrity. This cultural identity and heritage has passed through to all japanese citizens in the modern era. I don't want to go off from the main topic but there are a lot of interesting book related to this topic like "Runaway horses" by Yukio Mishima. Please, read it, you will like it.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, it was you the debater who talked about happiness. I was referring to efficiency not caring at all if such group is happy or unhappy.
Does effective entail being easily controlled?
I didnt say I was unsure about the practice. I was unsure about the answer to your quibbling question.
Yes. You are describing a collectivist interpretation of individualism. Who is affording primacy to each individual in a collective? The collective. True individualism affords no such primacy to any. True individualism does not care about a collective definition or ideology of individualism.
True individualism is a set of beings that exist without any regards to one another. There are no rules, laws, or limitations on interactions with another being. An individual may decide to exclude others, or include others. Help, or harm.
True collectivism is a set of beings that exist with regards to one another. In collectivism there is a set of implicit or explicit rules of behavior that the other group members will either support or punish to ensure individuals follow them. Collectives can welcome other individuals to the group, and be incredibly inclusive. For example, a collective that highly favors individual rights with a very limited and lightly punished rule set may allow different cultures in, despite some individuals wishing to exclude them.
So I find that being individualistic vs collectivist has no bearing on whether it is an inclusive or exclusive ideology. Each ideology can have a degree of inclusiveness and exclusiveness within, and thus comparing them does not result in any clear victor.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/773328
Collectivism and individualism are protean political terms and are always subject to debate, so the notions of "true individualism" and "true collectivism" are not true in any sense. A collectivist interpretation of individualism are those that come from the mouths of collectivists, like Rousseau, Mao, and Mussolini, so we can take them at their word.
But if the individualist regards the individual as the primary unit of concern in any political society, he necessarily regards each individual in that way. He affords each individual primacy, rights, and as such a certain dignity. If the collectivist regards the individual as subordinate to the collective, he necessarily disregards the individual as the primary unit of concern, does not afford him rights, and denies him a certain dignity.
Yes, but a political society is a collection of individuals who have an organized manner of interacting with others. That necessitates some level of collectivism. True individualism is merely a personal belief that cannot be enforced or mutual assurance. Individualism can only exist by the allowance of other individuals who ascribe to your personal beliefs. This is a collective decision.
Individualism in itself does not ascribe that other people must follow its precepts. Meaning you can define individualism for yourself as others have individual primacy, rights, and dignity. But another individualist could easy ascribe to the idea that others besides themselves have no individual primacy, rights, and dignity.
If you are referring to individualism as a collection of people who believe that individual primacy, rights, and dignity should be afforded to other people, that's still collectivist. It is inclusive of those who support individual primacy, rights, and dignities, while excluding those who do not agree with these. To say someone has a right, is to as a group deny any individual from removing that right from another. This requires a collective agreement.
If you believe individualism should not have any collective means of agreement, then it is just a personal opinion or ethic. Even then, you would accept only those who agreed with your viewpoint of individualism, and reject those who did not. If someone else impinged on your rights or individualism, you would be required to exclude that person from further interactions in your life to be consistent in your values.
I agree that individualism is a personal belief, but so is collectivism. And it is no collective decision if others accept either of these principles. These are personal, individual decisions made by real, flesh-and-blood human beings, not arbitrary and abstract groupings.
Any collection of people is a collection of individuals. Each of these individuals adopt beliefs and principles on their own accord, and not by any collective agreement.
Its not true, I accept any individual to have his own beliefs and interests, and defend his right to have them, whether communist, fascist, theocratic, or any collectivist doctrine. What I do not accept is any individual to infringe on the rights of another individual, and this is the direct result of individualism, not collectivism.
Yes, I agree. On top of that, we're now looking at the point of exclusion and inclusion. I see this as enforcement and non-enforcement. If I understood your meaning of collectivism you meant that it enforces its decisions by groups, rather then allowing individuals to do whatever they want. And so individualism would then be a person who creates their own ideology then enforces it how they personally desire. No one else will force them or save them from someone else unless of course another person just happens to agree.
Quoting NOS4A2
And this is my second point. You enforce your own ideology. You do not accept, or exclude others who do not match you precepts. But of course someone could have a view of individualism, because they are not shaped by a collectivist society, that includes and excludes different people. Collectivist societies are also varied as well. Being collectivist does not dictate what the group is collectivist about, just like being an individualist does not dictate what the individual is about. So one society could be highly inclusive, while another highly exclusive. The same for an individual.
Meaning that we cannot compare collectivism to individualism as a blanket statement and state that one is more inclusive or exclusive than another. Now, could we say that a highly inclusive individualism is more inclusive than a highly exclusive collectivist society? Yes. But the reverse can equally be claimed without contradiction. A highly inclusive collective would be more inclusive than a highly exclusive individualism.
Which is about individualism in practice.
You gave the example of Mao and communists China. Can you offer a similar example for individualism or is what youre talking about merely theoretical?
Its just dressed up Ayn Rand i.e., an excuse to be a selfish asshole. Thats the theory. Just look at the results of this sociopathic ideology: vote for Trump, be an apologist for insurrectionists, defend corporate tyranny to the bitter end, advocate for neoliberalism, etc.
So dont expect much coherence.
Rousseau implies this point when he takes pain to differentiate between the general will and the will of all. His contrast between these two sets of interests serve well as a primary distinction between collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other. Unlike the will of all the general will refuses to take into account the private and particular interests of all individuals involved. It excludes them. Instead, it takes account of something called the common interest.
We can figure out the common interest through a sort of calculation. It is the sum of the differences left over after we subtract from the wills of all the pluses and minuses that cancel one another. The agreement of all interests is formed by opposition to that of each.
Arguably, even with the most exhaustive census a calculation of such magnitude would not be impossible. So inevitably we get the factions Rousseau warns about.
That is the error of Mussolini, Mao, and Xtrix: they pretend that their good, their interests, are found at the end of this calculation, which they never make in any case.
You'll find that when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self interest, the vast majority of them will seek voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation with other individuals.
The "selfish asshole" trope seems to be very popular here - a testament to a dark view of humanity under which, apparently, we are all secretly selfish assholes, and our selfish nature is only kept in check by the power of the state and those wise and benevolent enough to support it.
This, of course, is all projection. The state is and always has been the instrument of the most powerful, and most selfish, and its ideologically-driven supporters are no less selfish! In the state these powerless wretches found a surrogate for their will to power.
I think that may only be true in small groups and where theres a culture conducive to cooperation. States are too large and abstract to feel a sufficient sense of responsibility for our fellow citizens, apparently.
That's kind of a childish attitude. The world isn't black and white. It's shades of grey.
Yes the motto of Ayn Rand and other self-absorbed persons.
Incidentally, Ive never advocated for the state. In the long run I hope states are dissolved. So the idea that reaction against sociopathy is advocating states is, as you say, complete projection.
Pursuing self-interest and being selfish are not the same.
The well-being of others can be and often is a part of our own sense of happiness.
Man spends the vast majority of his life pursuing self-interest, and luckily so, because there's no one else who will do it for him, or has a better sense of what constitutes that self-interest. It is man's default state. The fact that is equated to selfishness or sociopathy is very suspect. Why this resentment towards the most natural drive imaginable?
Its pure, reactionary fanaticism. The idea that people arent living their lives according to the fanatics own ideology is repugnant to him. They must be brought, through force, to conform, so meddling becomes his idea of good and compassionate conduct while not meddling is the height of evil.
Truism, yes. Rand would say the same thing. And yet, look at the consequences. She was a staunch laissez faire capitalist. Turns out most people who talk about self interest (Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Ryan, etc.) just happen to advocate for policies that have eroded democracy and lead to inequality not seen since the pharaohs.
Its just cover for being a selfish asshole. Thats all its ever been. Its taking I should have the right to own slaves and making a theory of it. All under the guise of were all pursuing our self interest!
Yeah, no thanks. Quoting Tzeentch
Its not the most natural and its not the default. The very idea of self is a fairly recent invention. But I realize its been beaten into our heads so much that we take it as an unquestionable axiom.
Says the Trump apologist. :rofl:
Case in point of the results of all this self interest talk.
Racism and slavery, fascism and communism, war and nationalism, were some of the worst products of collectivism. Were still crawling from the rubble of these disasters. Its not something to be proud of, thats for sure.
:rofl:
That evil collectivism the root of all problems.
Now lets all go vote for Donald Trump and other fascists. :up:
Again, fascism is the direct result of you kind of politics. I wonder if youve thought any of this through.
Never figured Trump for a collectivist. The difference is that I didnt vote for it and you did.
Guess you do support collectivism after all. :up:
Ps. Slavery was a result of capitalism. If thats collectivism too, so be it.
Is that so? Please explain when their ideas were adopted, and how it led to the problems you describe. But before you do that, perhaps you might also want to explain how exactly individualism relates to liberal economic theory, because that link isn't immediately apparent to me.
Quoting Mikie
Ironically, that's a much closer description of collectivism than it is of individualism. After all, it's the collectivists who claim the state has a right to the individual's cooperation.
Quoting Mikie
Recent meaning invented within the last three-thousand years?
Quoting Mikie
Then what would you argue is the default state?
Im glad I did vote for it. It achieved all I ever wanted and more.
There are plenty collectivist capitalists, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, anarchists. Its the going rate.
Surely. I'll assume your question isn't disingenuous.
The era of neoliberalism, which we're still living in (as you know), was advocated for years prior to their implementation (in the late late 70s -- Carter but mostly Reagan, Thatcher, most directly under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys) mostly from the Austrian school. You can look to the Mont Pelerin Society, the University of Chicago, and others for examples. They were in the background throughout the New Deal era and had always been against those policies. They came in to fashion during the crises of the 70s.
The underlying assumption, as repeated again and again, is that government is the problem. Plenty of evidence for this claim, of course -- and plenty to blame the government about. But notice what's advocated and what the result has been: globalization, destruction of unions, tax cuts, privatization. We see the results all around us. Wealth inequality is a major one, but there's plenty of others: environmental destruction; defunding of public schools; real wage stagnation; greater corporate concentration; etc.
Quoting Tzeentch
The individualism advocated is a ruse. It's never been about liberty, or freedom of the individual. Maybe someone like you really does care about those things. Maybe Milton Friedman really cared too, who knows? What I care about is actions, decisions, policies. "By their fruits you will know them," as that New Testament guy said.
What have the fruits been? Well, see above. There's all kinds of sophism for each point made -- about corrupt unions, about tax cuts for the wealth, about corporate tyranny, about the environment, and so forth. Yet here we are. And what gets blamed? The government -- still. Not corporate America, who pushed for these policies.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, more like the last 400. Probably less. At least today's conception.
The idea of a human being as an individual "self" (subject) with a bunch of desires to satisfy is a pervasive one, and held tacitly by nearly everyone. But there's no reason we need to take it seriously. It's one view, yes.
Quoting Tzeentch
The default state of a human being? Care. But that's Heidegger-heavy and probably more appropriate for another thread. I have no doubt that people have desires and needs and so forth. So do all animals. But it's not the whole story, and it's not (in my view) fundamental. The interpretation of it as fundamental, the belief that it's the "true" and default state of a human being, is flawed -- it's incomplete and secondary.
Quoting Mikie
Quoting NOS4A2
Nice. So you're a proud fascist and collectivist. Yet you rail against the latter. :chin: I guess Freud was right.
Youre just making stuff up now. I invite you to grapple with the ideas, if you can. Lets see an argument.
The reason I asked is because I do not believe their ideas have ever been truly implemented. Maybe small snippets here and there, to varying degrees of success. It's, in my opinion, is a mistake to believe there recently has been an era of rampant economic freedom. Such freedom hasn't been seen for a hundred years, perhaps more. Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist in the modern age.
That's why I asked what beliefs of these people have been turned into policy, and how did those policies translate into the problems you perceive.
Quoting Mikie
While it's true that many of the thinkers you listed named government as the problem, when in our lifetimes have we ever seen a substantial decrease in government spending in the western world? I don't think that has ever happened. There has never been a sincere move towards smaller government.
While today's situation is far from ideal - that much we agree on - I think appointing liberalism or individualism as the scapegoat is far too easy, and not supported by much evidence. The fact of the matter is we live in highly collectivist societies. Over a THIRD of our income goes directly into the pockets of the state. That's not a liberal utopia. That's a liberal nightmare.
On the topic of globalization; I do not believe globalization is a problem caused by liberalism. I think it is a phenomenon all its own, caused primarily by technological advances, and no country liberal or otherwise (except maybe North Korea?) can escape it.
If you ask me, today's biggest issues can be summarized as follows: governments have grown too large, all sorts of unsavory lobby groups have seeped into the cracks - large cooperations, ideologues, foreign agents, etc.
The result is governments that are incapable of carrying out their primary tasks towards their citizens, while simultaneously having forged an unholy alliance with big business against the ordinary man.
However, the problem is not that governments are too weak, it is that they are too strong! While at the same time too corrupt to leverage that power towards the advantage of citizens.
A corrupt political system will never do anything but benefit the powerful, and it is infinitely better to live under a weak but upright system, than under one that is strong and corrupt (and those often go hand in hand).
Quoting Mikie
As far as I know, elaborate conceptions of the self are common in some of the oldest philosophical texts known to man, like those stemming from the ancient Indian and Hellenistic periods.
Quoting Mikie
Actually, I think this is highly relevant, and I would like to explore it more.
If we suppose that the human being desires something to care about (presumably other people) and this is vitally important for the human being's happiness, how can caring not be in his self-interest? And doesn't that confirm what I stated earlier, that pursuing one's self-interest often times involves the well-being of others around us?
Quoting Mikie]
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting Mikie
Quoting NOS4A2
:lol:
Proof positive.
They were implemented. See Chile, if the others dont convince you.
Quoting Tzeentch
Nor has it ever existed.
Quoting Tzeentch
Kansas is a good example. Spending had to come down because there was less revenue. We see what happened there.
But the bottom line here is whether government truly is the problem, and if so what the alternative is. The decisions need to be made one way or another; the entire theory basically transfers decision making to private enterprise, with predictable results. Despite all the pleasant phrases about freedom.
Quoting Tzeentch
I fixed it.
Im not scapegoating either. Theyre useful covers for the anti-democratic, anti-new deal ruling class.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yeah. The government is run by the big business (corporate) party. They alternate between blue and red colors. So government is the problem is true but not the whole truth. It has had the benefit of window dressing for policies that have transferred roughly 50 trillion dollars from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.
The emphasis shifts away from corporate, private power (where we have zero say) to politicians and the state (where we have some say). Thats not an accident.
Quoting Tzeentch
The Hindus and Buddhists have a very different conception of self. In the latter anyway, its considered an illusion.
Ive yet to see Hellenistic analyses of the self.
Quoting Tzeentch
Desires something to care about? It doesnt desire to care it just cares. It cares about the world. The world is all things.
Theres no question were social beings. By necessity. So our care for others is going to be especially relevant our parents, siblings, grandparents; our children; our community. If we look at how families function, most of these ideas about individualism, collectivism, etc, completely break down. The dichotomy is silly.
Proof positive that you voted for a collectivist (fascist, according to you)? Indeed.
According to you and your imagination.
Quoting NOS4A2
Ill help you:
Quoting Mikie
Keep trying.
I voted for Trump. You never Figured Trump as a collectivist. But somehow I voted for a collectivist. The weirdest contortions.
Quoting Mikie
Reading comprehension is an acquired habit, I suppose.
Apparently not. After all my rhetoric you havent figured out that Im opposed to collectivism. All we have are these weird gymnastics.
Indeed. Are you claiming that Trump is not a collectivist?
Nope. Most people are collectivists, I wager.
Its like Faye Dunaway in Chinatown: My sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter!
Always stimulating.
I dont see politicians as more than job holders. They certainly arent avatars of any one ideology. Youre just trying to make a last-ditch efforts to ascribe to me views I do not espouse and do not hold. If you want to know my real views, Ill tell you, but unfortunately Im faced with this weird posturing.
Ill make it explicit: I dont care about what you think you believe. I care about actions and decisions in the real world. You have voted for and defended Trump. That speaks volumes whatever else you want to profess. To say nothing of the numerous other repugnant positions youve held.
So yeah, youre anti-statist, pro-individual, pro freedom, blah blah blah. And the guy down the street is Christian yet beats his wife and hates homosexuals. Who cares.
Also, its not posturing. Its having fun with the resident fascist.
Youve made a little caricature and premise your judgements on it. You poison your own well. Then you froth and seethe wherever I appear despite claiming you dont care. Clearly you do.
I didnt say I didnt care. I said I dont care about what you think you believe. I care deeply about fighting sociopathic, Trump supporting fascists at every turn.
Well, youre not getting any swings in, thats for sure. Youre not fighting anything. Youre staring at a screen reading words. Is this really the extent of your moral behavior, your deep caring?
Sorry; this isnt fighting, and frothing on the internet is no display of moral behavior. What we can do is talk about these ideas.
Yep.
Im pretty sure youve done that yourself.
Feel better?
OK, I'm interested in the idea of a compassionate, caring individualist. There's over a million children in Yemen right now on the brink of starvation. The UN is delivering aid using about $2 billion of taxpayer's money. The collectivist, big government, strategy.
Given that the individualist cares about these starving children, what's the individualist strategy to prevent their suffering?
Simultaneously, you ignore my point that we live in highly collectivist societies, as evidenced for example by high tax rates, big government, etc. Again, the idea that we have ever lived in some form of liberal utopia, and that we can blame the liberal utopia for the situation we are in, does not seem to hold much ground.
Quoting Mikie
Maybe so. But why then take issue with the ideas of genuine liberals? This is sort of like blaming Nietzsche for Hitler.
Quoting Mikie
The first thing that needs to change is for government to stop being an instrument for big cooperations to achieve special positions in the market - something which is happening today at alarming levels and can only happen because governments have powers they shouldn't have.
One reason for this is the fact that western governments have started to use propaganda on a large scale against their own populations to further their own agendas. To create domestic support, to support political candidates, to promote certain corporate interests, etc.
In this war against the common man information is the primary weapon. Censorship, ommiting truth, and downright spreading lies are everyday activities for the modern western government, and a great deal of this is done wherever big corporate interests meet the interests of the political elite.
If you ask what the alternative is: my first step would be complete government transparency. Every document, every recording, every word uttered by a politician in power or government official should be available to the public from day one. If the truth can't stand the light of day, then the writing is already on the wall.
If there is no transparency, there are no checks and balances, and without those an upright government is pure fantasy.
Quoting Mikie
Plato's concept of the tripartite soul, for example. Homer's sophrosyne, that went on to inspire many thinkers after him like Zeno, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, etc.
The words "Know thyself" were inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in Delphi.
The ancient Greeks did plenty of thinking on that subject.
Quoting Mikie
How so? Would you say the individual that is made profoundly unhappy by their family still owes them their loyalty?
As with government, it only becomes a problem when the relations become defunct, and I think what you're describing only makes sense in a family that functions properly.
The "Will of all" can be implemented both as a collective, and as an individual. But so to can the "Will of self". An individualist with the will of self does not care at all about their impact on other people, and can be completely exclusionary. A collectivist society that narrows itself also has a "will of self". The best example I can think of is a totalitarian society in which a self extends its will completely over others and a certain percentage of society agrees with this and enforces it.
I have appreciated the conversation, but perhaps I am diverging on the points you want to address here. To say that collectivism is more or less exclusionary than individualism, as a blanket statement, is wrong. If you wish to compare certain exclusionary collectivist ideologies and compare them to a particular inclusive individualistic ideology, then of course you can. There is no debate that a particular inclusive individual ideology is more inclusive then particular exclusive collectivist ideology.
If you want to bring this back to the point of a blanket statement, I would compare the most exclusionary individualistic ideology, like solipsism, and compare it to the most inclusionary collectivism such as a rights based democratic ideology, and demonstrate why why solipsism is more inclusive. But unless such a comparison can be correctly made, I don't think it can be reasonably concluded that all collectivist ideologies are more exclusive then all individualistic ideologies.
Id feel better if individualists were more inclusive towards collectivists.
I was speaking of politics, collectivism as the principle of giving the group priority over the individual, and individualism as the principle of giving the individual priority over the group. Its where we give political primacy or rights or freedoms or protections to one or the other opposing political unit, the individual or the group.
One approach has to, by necessity, consider the wills of each individual involved. As far as abstractions go the individual is universal. The other isnt. It considers at best some general will, at worst the will of a faction or of one man while excluding the rest.
But your point that there are different collectivisms and individualisms is true; these are protean terms and I will not argue that there can only be one definition or application. If by individualism were considering only the will of one man, then you are right, hes being exclusive. I appreciate the objections.