Individualism vs. Collectivism

[ComradeRed]

I thought this would be the best place to put this(being on the subject of society et al).

OK, allow me to begin. Collectivism is the anti-thesis of Individualism and vice-versa.

Have you ever thought about what collectivism is? Collectivism is "where you become an ant" as opposed to having a free mind. It has been moved so far as to say that there isn't an individual mind! How is that physically or even biologically possible for a human? From what I have read, and from several proffeseurs opinions, IT ISN'T POSSIBLE!

But wait! If Collectivism is not "possible", what of individualism? If the anti-thesis of something not possible is possible, wouldn't that be illogical? It must be, therefore, that individualism "is correct"; however, it ultimately "isn't". A most unsatisfactory answer!

Individualism shouldn't "be able to exist" beyond being a "concept", but it is the correct "answer", if you catch my drift. Everyone has an individual mind, and that cannot be "collectivized", per se. But if it cannot, would that make individualism "correct"?

Well, the opposite of something that doesn't exist, that seems absurd. And that is my exact notion on the idea of individualism! That is what I am trying to say, that there is nothing which exists beyond a conceptual idea that is the opposite of an impossible ability. That is my two cents.

[PatrickHenry]

There is a spectrum, ComradeRed. We ARE a society and as such have collective endeavors, government being one. Trade and its coordination by means of a medium of exchange(money): that is collective, too. Many other items are worthy of collectivization.

However, the process can go too far, because market forces(supply and demand) are the essential feedback loop to most efficiently allocate our efforts. And markets are dependent on individual decisions. If the market is ignored in favor of centralized planning, the process can become skewed in a manner similar to the Sorcerer's Apprentice, and too much of one commodity is furnished while another need goes unfulfilled. Modern politics and economics is completely concerned with this dynamic between individual decisions and collective production of goods and services.

[ComradeRed]

I absolutely agree with you, in theory. However, what I am specifically addressing is what elementary school taught us; turn to collectivism and you will turn into an ant. That old myth. I intend to debunk it in its entirety.

Capitalism can be "collective"(per se), look at fascism. Socialism can be libertarian, look at anarchists. Both sides are not limited to "only being" on thing or the other.

[Autolykos]

Unfortunately, I only have time to respond to this post of yours, ComradeRed.

Originally posted by ComradeRed,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRed,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I absolutely agree with you, in theory. However, what I am specifically addressing is what elementary school taught us; turn to collectivism and you will turn into an ant. That old myth. I intend to debunk it in its entirety.[/b]

Go ahead and debunk it, then.

<!--QuoteBegin-ComradeRed,
Capitalism can be "collective"(per se), look at fascism. Socialism can be libertarian, look at anarchists. Both sides are not limited to "only being" on thing or the other.[/quote]

IMO, fascism is not capitalism and anarchism is not socialism. However, I agree that economic systems are not the same things as more abstract concepts of human nature.

- Autolykos
"Regentes rectis separati semper sunt."

[castille]

Everything in moderation.

Extreme collectivism is when you become a "cog in the machine"; your mind becomes "at one with the hive", and any form of individual identity is lost.

Ironically, most people have a sheep-like collectivist attitude to some extent....they follow other people blindly like lemmings.


Before you try to "debunk" anything, please try to define what you mean. Do you mean collectivist in a political, social, economic, or philosophical sense?

[ComradeRed]

Extreme collectivism is when you become a "cog in the machine"; your mind becomes "at one with the hive", and any form of individual identity is lost.

That is the myth, fundementally. You become an ant, but this assumption is not true. There is a reason why it is the ant, the ant has no individual mind, it has a collective one; however, it is not physically possible to do that with humans.

The dichotamy of "individualism vs. collectivism" is a mistake, and needs to be critically re-examined.

I fundementally start from nothing, and realize that there is no such thing as "collectivism" nor "individualism". It is extremely hard to prove outside proofless assertions that either of these exist. Nay, it is impossible to do so.

Everyone knows what I am talking about (I hope), right? If not, I will summerize it here: ussually in elementary school we are taught that "communism" turns people into "ants", but that "capitalism upholds individualism". Most leftists let this pass, but that is a mistake. It needs to be -as I said- critically re-examined.

Side note:

IMO, fascism is not capitalism and anarchism is not socialism. However, I agree that economic systems are not the same things as more abstract concepts of human nature.

Have you ever read the piece "Anarchism: stateless socialism"? It addresses this. Sometimes we forget that socialism is merely a term for leftist (most of the times, sometimes it is for reformist) including both communists and anarchists alike.

Fascism is a form of capitalism, albeit a form which uses sticks, as opposed to one (like sweden) who uses carrots. Nazi Germany did not have a controlled economy, it is a common assumption that they did, but once again it is an assumption and not all are true.

[castille]

You are right.

No human can ever display a pure collectivist mindset.

That is why all socialist societies are doomed to failure.

[Autolykos]

Originally posted by ComradeRed,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRed,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The dichotamy of "individualism vs. collectivism" is a mistake, and needs to be critically re-examined.[/b]

Then go ahead and critically re-examine it, and tell us what you find.

In other words, I think what you're really trying to do here is tell us that we need to "critically re-examine" it.

Originally posted by ComradeRed,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ComradeRed,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I fundementally start from nothing, and realize that there is no such thing as "collectivism" nor "individualism". It is extremely hard to prove outside proofless assertions that either of these exist. Nay, it is impossible to do so.[/b]

So you really have no line of reasoning. You start from the assumption that "there is no such thing as 'collectivism' nor 'individualism.'"

Originally posted by ComradeRed, Everyone knows what I am talking about (I hope), right? If not, I will summerize it here: ussually in elementary school we are taught that "communism" turns people into "ants", but that "capitalism upholds individualism". Most leftists let this pass, but that is a mistake. It needs to be -as I said- critically re-examined.

I was never taught this in school. In fact, I had to think on my own to reach the conclusion that communism, theoretically speaking, means reducing human civilization to the level of an ant colony. If you prefer that, fine. But I do not.

<!--QuoteBegin-ComradeRed,@
Side note: Have you ever read the piece "Anarchism: stateless socialism"? It addresses this. Sometimes we forget that socialism is merely a term for leftist (most of the times, sometimes it is for reformist) including both communists and anarchists alike.[/quote]

How would redistribution of wealth occur under "stateless socialism"? Or would it not have to occur at all (assumedly)?

<!--QuoteBegin-ComradeRed,
Fascism is a form of capitalism, albeit a form which uses sticks, as opposed to one (like sweden) who uses carrots. Nazi Germany did not have a controlled economy, it is a common assumption that they did, but once again it is an assumption and not all are true.[/quote]

Nazi Germany certainly did have a controlled economy. While ownership remained nominally private, every business owner was in effect a "shop foreman" (translation of the German term, which I cannot recall) and subject to the whims of the Nazi government. If you'd like, I can look up the numerous sources I've read to back this up.

- Autolykos
"Regentes rectis separati semper sunt."

[rhod01]

It was called 'planned capitalism'.

[Autolykos]

Originally posted by Merlov, It was called 'planned capitalism'.

Thus, it is not capitalism.

- Autolykos
"Regentes rectis separati semper sunt."

[rhod01]

Huh?