Individualism vs. Collectivism....
I'm writing this with no real direction nor plan; just random ideas. Feel free to expound upon it with your own thoughts.
I am (or am becoming) a big proponent of individual liberties, however, individualism can also lead to isolation. Collectivism, on the other hand, can lead to group think; destroying the individual; especially in large or so-called democratic groups which often result in mob rule.
Collective organization can bring like minded people together to accomplish a common goal. The downfall results the group continues to function after changing its motives.
When taking part in a collective mindset, it's important to maintain your individualism so that you may accomplish your own goals and not sacrifice yourself for what others deem to be the greater good.
Xian, I'm new here and just getting to reading the posts. I too struggle with the line between individualism (I am rabidly so) and collectivism (where I think we need to veer more towards in order to weather the coming sh$#storms.) I have zero skills in collective decision making and was given great autonomy in a corporate career a lifetime ago, that left me with no ability to take orders, either. So now I run a 'localization' group where I live, which started with a vision (mine,) got collective and therefore off track...so I pulled executive rank and yanked it back on track. 28 of the group heaved a sigh of relief and four left the group. We're much better for it.
The other thing that's got me reeling lately is authoritarianism, and those who meekly accept and follow any order as if on autopilot. I think that will ultimately do us in, this prevalence of obedience without questioning.
I am guided by principles set down in Nuremburg: it is a crime to obey an order that is a crime.
Let 'em come get me.
just think MOB and it will yank you back.
But without the "individual" the collective will not be :-\
yea well 2nd night with no sleep...
Collectivism only works-properly is individualism is retained.
And individualism serves no purpose if it doesnt have the capacity to peacefully interact with (and grow with)others.
Individualism, I believe is emboldened by having some form of collectivsm and vice versa
though like all things they both can be thrown out of balance and cease to be "good" things..
Individualism and collectivism are not inseperably fused. They are in fact polar opposites. Fascism, Communism, and Socialism all depend on collectivist ideologies, the idea that the individual is unimportant and the group is all, and look how they always turn out. The only proper form of "collectivism" (which is not actually collectivism at all) is when, as xianzombie said, a group of individuals unite to achieve a common goal. However, this is not collectivism in the traditional sense, because no individual is sacrificing their interests for the sake of the group.
kasskleer - You say we need to become more collectivised in order to deal with the world as it is becoming. Did it ever occur to you that by subordinating our minds to a group, we will lose any ability we might have to deal with our problems? The mind is the only means human beings have of survival (a fact Gabriel realizes quite quickly in the 3rd realm when he notes his complete lack of any natural physical features that he could use to defend himself); if we give it up, then our eventual destruction is only a matter of time.
Alluscion - There are no conflicts between individuals when each individual recognizies the rights of others. It is to each individual's long-term benefit to refrain from lying, stealing, cheating in regards to their fellow individuals, a policy that requires no collectivist impulses whatever. Individuals who recognize the rights of others to their own life and work do not have to come in conflict with each other, because the most important part of being an individual is recognizing the fact that you must provide for your own survival by your own life and work. However, when people believe that their only means of survival is a group, then lying, cheating and stealing become of prime importance to their own survival, because then their only means of survival is by whatever resources other people in the group might possess.
The proofs that individualism and collectivism are polar opposites, and that individualism is good and collectivism evil, can be found throughout both literature and real life. In real life, Nazi Germany continually made up "enemies of the group" to slaughter, most notably the Jews but also the Gypsies, the Communists, the mentally ill, the disabled, etc. etc. In Soviet Russia parents couldn't even trust their own children, and one of the noblest things you could do was betray your family to the authorities in order to show your loyalty to the State. China pays "harmonizers" to go on the internet and spread government propaganda, and imprisons people for speaking up against the government. North Korea can't even feed it's own people, though neighboring South Korea seems to have no trouble. All of these countries have (or had) collectivist governments and policies... and look at them!
Examples abound in fiction as well. Brave New World is a collectivist society. So is A Handmaid's Tale, 1984, Animal Farm... the list goes on. JXIIH's own Fifth Realm depicts a completely collectivist society (taken straight from the pages of Plato's Republic btw) which depended on every member being watched all the time. Hint: this was not an accident of the system, it was a feature. Being watched all the time (the cessation of individual privacy) is the very idea that this group has gathered together in order to fight. But it is not a fight we can win until we understand something very important: by fighting for privacy, we are fighting for individual rights, and individual rights and collectivism are two things that cannot mix.
When you look at a rose, do you see a flower or the petals, or the stamen, or the leaves...? I submit that your political-pigeon-holes are an illusion.
Show me one state in history which has not used violence against its own populace, regardless of political ideology...
The discussion of collectivism vs. individualism is at best moot.
So then what is the real issue? How do we achieve a balance of the good (rights) of the one/few with the good of the many. When a city council imposes a zoning restriction on a privately owned property, that is the collective vs. the individual....
What of your current lifestyle amenities will you give up to be more "Free", and which "Freedoms" would you give up to maintain the amenities you wish to retain (and we haven't even broached the question of what it means to be Free)?
I suggest that if you are fighting for what you claim in the final sentence, then you are fighting for nothing, because you have not defined the objective in any meaningful way. You are attempting to represent as black & white a subject which is anything but...
For instance:
- I would like the freedom to move around without big brother watching me, what I give up is an iota of "security" in that something bad might happen to me and the ambulance might be too late b/c no one will see it happen... [/*:m]
- I want the freedom to do/say/think things (not hurtful to anyone) of which others might not approve, and I take the risk that someone might do/say/think things of which I disapprove...[/*:m]
When you look at a rose, do you see a flower or the petals, or the stamen, or the leaves...? I submit that your political-pigeon-holes are an illusion.
[/hr] To be blunt, you are mixing your metaphors. I would no more suggest that the petals are the most important part of the flower than I would suggest that the right arm is the most important part of a human being. The proper metaphor would be to ask me to look at a field of flowers, or a forest, and suggest that the tree or the flower does not exist as an independent entity because it is a part of the field or the forest. And just as the flower or the tree does not depend on the other flowers in the field or the other trees in the forest to survive, so a human being should not depend on its fellow human beings for its survival. Not that human beings should go live in isolation from one another, because we all derive immense benefits from living together in a group. But each individual human being should pull their own weight in that group, with all association between members of the group being voluntary and of mutual benefit to both parties.
[/hr] Show me one state in history which has not used violence against its own populace, regardless of political ideology...
[/hr] The United States was founded on the principle that the government is a servant of the people, instituted for the purpose of maintaining the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens. I will not claim that it was founded in a state of perfection, that it has always fully lived up to its lofty ideals, or that the government has never taken actions that it should not have due to the prejudices of the period, or in times of fear/moments of weakness. But it IS a country founded on the idea that it is individuals who exist by right, and government which exists by permission. And I would further submit to you that the more strongly a government cleaves to these principles, this political ideology, the less likely it will ever be to turn violence against its own people.
[/hr] The discussion of collectivism vs. individualism is at best moot.
So then what is the real issue? How do we achieve a balance of the good (rights) of the one/few with the good of the many.
[/hr] We achieve this balance by acknowledging, finally and once and for all, that there is no such thing as the "good of the many". We achieve it by finally realizing that not only do we not have the right to determine what another person's "good" is, but that it is physically impossible for one human being to determine the "good" of another. We do it by looking through history and seeing just how many regimes started out by fighting for the "good of the many" and ended with a sea of blood on their hands.
[/hr] When a city council imposes a zoning restriction on a privately owned property, that is the collective vs. the individual....
[/hr] This of course, makes the assumption that I support the idea that the government has the right to tell private individuals to do with their property in the name of the public good....
[/hr] What of your current lifestyle amenities will you give up to be more "Free", and which "Freedoms" would you give up to maintain the amenities you wish to retain
[/hr] I hold that the only society in which one must choose to give up amenities for the sake of freedom is one in which the concept of freedom is seriously threatened. And if I lived in a society in which my freedom was seriously threatened, I hope I would be willing to give up all amenities, up to and including my life itself if it truly came to it. Because freedom is above all the freedom to live, and I do not believe that life as a human being is possible in a country that has done away with the concept of individual freedom.
[/hr] (and we haven't even broached the question of what it means to be Free)?
[/hr] "To be free" means that you are allowed to choose the direction of your own life. It means you get to choose which type of work you will pursue, who you will associate with, the principles and ideals you will support and uphold. You get to choose where you will live, who you will work for. Even stupid things, like the right to eat unhealthy food or smoke cigarettes, because neither other people nor government have the right to dictate your personal habits to you, whether it would be "for your own good" or not. Even downright evil things, like racism or stupidity, because it's not really the freedom to think if it doesn't include the freedom to be wrong. Most importantly, it means that you will never have to worry that an individual or a government will deny you your rights or your freedom based on your choices. And by a denial of rights, I do not mean that the people around you are not allowed to refuse to deal with you; to deny them this right would be to deny them their freedoms under the law. What I mean is that they are not allowed to cause you physical harm because you disagree with them, and that the government will take your side in the case if they attempt it. Contrary to European socialist policy, freedom does NOT include the "right" to free food, housing, or health care. Freedom is NOT the freedom from want, or the freedom to steal from others under the pretext of "need" or to dictate to others how they should live "for their own good". Rather it is freedom from the fear that, should you try to satisfy your wants, that effort will be blocked by the arbitrary whims of others.
[/hr] I suggest that if you are fighting for what you claim in the final sentence, then you are fighting for nothing, because you have not defined the objective in any meaningful way.
[/hr] The post asked for my opinion of collectivism vs. individualism, not for me to state any particular objective. But if you insist.... Here is my objective in the context of this site, the reason that I come to this forum: To live in a society where the private data of an individual is held as his soverign posession, not to be collected without that individual's explict consent. Where corporations are not allowed to share data about individuals without the individual explictly consenting to have their data shared. Where above all, government cannot collect data without an explict, legitimate reason to do so, such as the investigation of a crime. Because if you think a private corporation can screw you based on your personal data, believe me when I tell you that that's nothing compared to what government can do with it. The worst a corporation can do is refuse to deal with you. A government can have you shot. As for my general objective, I am fighting for the freedom to live my own life in the way I wish, not to be curtailed by others for any reason so long as I do not interfere with their own right to do the same.
[/hr] You are attempting to represent as black & white a subject which is anything but...
[/hr] I am attempting to clarify my views on a subject that can be extremely complex. Just because a subject is complicated does not mean there is no right answer.
[/hr] For instance:
- I would like the freedom to move around without big brother watching me, what I give up is an iota of "security" in that something bad might happen to me and the ambulance might be too late b/c no one will see it happen... [/*:m]
- I want the freedom to do/say/think things (not hurtful to anyone) of which others might not approve, and I take the risk that someone might do/say/think things of which I disapprove...[/*:m]
[/hr] I DO want all of these freedoms. But I am also able to acknowledge that they are not the primary issues. The primary issue at stake in this fight is the right of one person to act for another's supposed "good". This is the ideology behind the motives of every camera on the street, every security checkpoint in an airport, every mandatory ID-card proposal, every viewscreen and memory hole in Orwell's 1984, and every act of the Tabula and the gods of the Fifth Realm in JXIIH's own novels.
[/hr]
So don't sit on the fence, EmptyRose, tell me what you really want.
[/hr]
My previous post, far from being a piece of fence sitting, took a strong siding with the stance of individualism and denounced virulently the idea of collectivism. THIS post, in addition to stating my goals and motivations (something the theme of this topic never called for in the first place) is an even more virulent statement of my position on the original topic. But in return for the effort I put into this post, I would like to issue my own challenge. Explain to me how a community can exist without the voluntary participation of each individual, or why a community should exist except to serve the purposes of each voluntarily participating individual. Explain to me why an individual should join a community that does not serve his purposes. Give me one example of a group that claimed it was more important than the people it served and yet didn't think it had the right to destroy individuals in the name of the group. Give me satisfactory answers to THOSE questions... and I will change my case.[/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr][/hr] [/]
Bravo,
mtrose, I apologize for my tone in the previous post. I'm interested in learning from your ideas, not in any way challenging you personally.
It might be outside the scope of the original post, you can start a new one if we're hijacking the thread.
I find there is often a disconnect between idealogy & what is really happening. As you pointed out, this is a complex topic, but to me, intent is an important precursor to action....
[/hr]
To be blunt, you are mixing your metaphors.
[/hr]
[/h][/h][/h][/h]
No, you are not describing the metaphor I sought.
It was more in the way of when we see a flower and admire it, we're looking at a whole comprised of many parts. So too, political systems are so much more than what they appear to be, which means labelling them says more about us, than them....
The United States was founded on the principle....
I don't really want to discuss specific countries at this point. I don't see it as relevant or helpful.
[/hr]
We achieve this balance by acknowledging, finally and once and for all, that there is no such thing as the "good of the many". We achieve it by finally realizing that not only do we not have the right to determine what another person's "good" is, but that it is physically impossible for one human being to determine the "good" of another.
[/hr]
[/h][/h][/h][/h]
At this point, I cannot arrive with you at that conclusion. As 'naked apes' we exist at minimum in family groups. What you describe is as individualism is only possible in a society where family structure has become so debrided as to make it possible to conceive of an individual with no obligations to others. (Please note, I am not hung-up on the nuclear-family of the '50's as the family ideal. However, we all come from someone, and at least have some form of psycho-social "family")
Parents do make decisions for their kids, right or wrong, they impose their will upon the child. Extrapolate that to family, village, town, city, state... You cannot discuss individual rights without including the obligations which exist for that individual.
So, as much as I would like to agree with you about the trump of the individual, I just don't see how it is possible to consider in isolation.
[/hr]
This of course, makes the assumption that I support the idea that the government has the right to tell private individuals to do with their property in the name of the public good....
[/hr]
[/h][/h][/h][/h]
Touche. I don't want to get bogged down in discussing the analogy. Suffice it to say, I don't want to have an industrial complex erected next to my home...
[/hr]
...
Because freedom is above all the freedom to live, and I do not believe that life as a human being is possible in a country that has done away with the concept of individual freedom.
[/hr]
[/h][/h][/h][/h]
I don't really think that this ideal exists anywhere nor ever has. I'm not intentionally misunderstanding your point. But in order to live in any society, even the North American and European democracies, one gives up certain freedoms. We live within the bounds of laws, some with which we do not always agree... No political system today recognizes the absolute of individual freedom. They acknowledge a reasonable expectation to freedom within the constraints of "the good of the many"...
Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm willing to be educated...
[/hr]
... Rather it is freedom from the fear that, should you try to satisfy your wants, that effort will be blocked by the arbitrary whims of others. [/h][/h]
That is all fine, until someone bigger/stronger/smarter decides to take unfair advantage of you. Then, whom do you call? What powers do you give the folks you call? Individualism starts to go sideways once you add more than 1 person to your society.
...To live in a society where the private data of an individual is held as his sovereign possession, not to be collected without that individual'sexplicit consent. Where corporations are not allowed to share data about individuals without the individual explicitly consenting to have their data shared. Where above all, government cannot collect data without an explicate, legitimate reason to do so, such as the investigation of a crime. Because if you think a private corporation can screw you based on your personal data, believe me when I tell you that that's nothing compared to what government can do with it. The worst a corporation can do is refuse to deal with you. A government can have you shot. As for my general objective, I am fighting for the freedom to live my own life in the way I wish, not to be curtailed by others for any reason so long as I do not interfere with their own right to do the same.
That is all good, the only quibble comes once again with the last sentence. How do we reconcile your right to smoke in a restaurant with the right of the person serving you not to be exposed to your secondhand smoke...
Once again, individualism is an illusion because you do not exist in a vacuum.
Give me one example of a group that claimed it was more important than the people it served and yet didn't think it had the right to destroy individuals in the name of the group. Give me satisfactory answers to THOSE questions... and I will change my case
In reverse order... I don't seek to have you change your case. In fact I suspect I'll learn more from your arguments than you from mine ;-)
I don't think I can really answer that challenge because I don't really understand the scope of the question.
Cheers...
P.S. edited for Grammar error in paragraph 3.
hmmm... liking this.
Only got time for a quick post now - will try to structure my ideas better and post more fully tonight, but for now my views stand in a few simple one-lines:
I submit that your political-pigeon-holes are an illusion.
I submit that *all* pigeon holes are an illusion, including both 'Good' and 'Evil' as well as 'Individualism' and 'Collectivism'.
How do we reconcile your right to smoke in a restaurant with the right of the person serving you not to be exposed to your secondhand smoke...
There will always be chaos until anarchy is restored.
Ok, i know that doesn't help - will post more fully tonight.
I don't think it is as cut and dry as you people make it out to be. people require input from others and require to output their own ideas, this is best accomplished in a tribal setting. in this supposed tribe no one has the right to tell you how to live neither do you have the right to tell any one else how to live. naturally there is some chaos outside this community/tribe, when threatend by another tribe/king/bandits/ etc... this tribe will respond with force.
Isn't this a bit like removing one's heart and someone else expressing surprise that neither body nor organ continues to function individually?
Collectivism expresses our similarities whilst Individualism discusses our differences, but they're inseparably fused...
I think in some ways J12H's writing and these types of communities highlight the fact that communities are built one person at a time, and both matter...