[graymouser]

A good intention, but who decides this? Who gets to decide what is good for me versus what is good for society? The majority? What if they are wrong about my needs? What if they are wrong about the collective need?

This is why I am a Democratic Socialist and not a Leninist or a Stalinist; I basically believe that what is needed is economic democracy, where people can provide for the needs of all and compromise on the remainder, providing well for all instead of providing extremely well for a few and poorly for most.

Well then, I guess then you are exercising your individualism in defining things as you see fit. Too bad that other free choices will not be allowed under your perferred system of collectivism.

Heh. I'm a Democratic Socialist, not an authoritarian (ergo the pictures of Debs), and as such I believe in a democratic collective, not one that dictates to its members. Perhaps it's more of a "soft collectivism" - so long as the good of all (decided by all, and legally guaranteed to a reasonable extent) is not abrogated, I see no reason that individuals should not be free to do what they desire. But that condition is extremely important.

But, I do think individualistic philosophy (e.g., libertarianism) is used in modern society to justify arrogance and oppression, and I oppose it on that ground insofar as it does justify what I consider immoral.

-Wayne

[Clovis]

Collectivism is a pessimistic idea at heart (ie. society must be forced to do what is right because individuals won't choose to do so on their own). I'm an optimist.

That is a different issue, which is irrelevant to the topic here, because the topic of this thread is on whether collectivism is important (or more important) or individualism, and automatically the topic can also be whether collectivism is more productive or individualism is more productive.

Oh lord, the return of the 'irrelevant' police! Don't arrest me officer!

However, collectivism being "society must be forced to do what is right because individuals won't choose to do so on their own" is a reminiscent of individualism, because it takes an individual to decide what is right or wrong for society, like in fascism, where a few individuals decide what is right or wrong for the collective whole

and in communism as well.

and promote individuals that are more righteous, and punish those individuals that are not righteous or less righteous, and hence you get the "minority righteous" and the "majority evil".

Sort of like the proletariat vs the bourgeois, huh?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

A good intention, but who decides this? Who gets to decide what is good for me versus what is good for society? The majority? What if they are wrong about my needs? What if they are wrong about the collective need?

This is why I am a Democratic Socialist and not a Leninist or a Stalinist; I basically believe that what is needed is economic democracy, where people can provide for the needs of all and compromise on the remainder, providing well for all instead of providing extremely well for a few and poorly for most.

You are a Marxist anarcho-communist de facto communist (in the theoretical sense). And thus not a Democratic Socialist. The whole argument that collectivism is symbolic of totalitarianism is false, because collectivism in itself is anarchism, and individualism is symbolic of totalitarianism, in the sense of people ruling over the collective majority, on the basis of individual interests and blatant individual egotistical ambition. It is just a tragedy that Stalinism was totalitarianism under the banner of communism, however this does not change the fact that Stalinism is inherently individualism. And it is distorted and propagated as being the true form of collectivism by the bourgeoisie, proof of this is apparent in just identifying the political ideologies of those that propagate that totalitarianism and collectivism are the same rather than the antithesis of each other.

Democratic Socialism is just like totalitarianism in its individualism, however totalitarianism is pure individualism whereas democratic socialism is the mixture of individualism with collectivism. And hence it (Democratic Socialism) is easily played into the hands of the Bourgeoisie.

I am a Nationalist Democratic Socialist, however I am not in favor of Democratic Socialism, I favor Nationalism over Democratic Socialism, because Nationalism is much more in favor of the collective whole of the Nation for their liberation, unification, and etc. whereas Democratic Socialism allows the majority of the indigenous populace to be exploited by the bourgeoisie and have their land colonized and permanently polluted and contaminated in exchange for "the right to vote", "the right to peaceable protest", and "the right to work". Democracy is more collectivist than non-Democratic Socialism, because non-democratic socialism is totalitarian, as was exemplary in the Stalin's Russia, Tito's Yugoslavia, and is exemplary in Castro's Cuba.

Individualism is inherently biased in favor of the minority's rights - often the ruling-classes (upper class [bourgeoisie] and the upper-middle class [highly profiteering white-collar professions, such as lawyers and doctors]). Collectivism is inherently biased in favor of the majority's rights - often the working-classes (lower-middle class [lowly profiteering white-collar professions, such as teachers and nurses] and and the upper-lower class ["petty bourgeoisie", such as the self-employed one-man shop owners and the self-employed blue-collar handyman, such as the self-employed painter and the self-employed carpenter] and the lowest class [employed blue-collar workers, such as the proletariat {industrial workers}, commercial workers {such as the cashier, and janitor}, and the employed farm laborers]).

Well then, I guess then you are exercising your individualism in defining things as you see fit. Too bad that other free choices will not be allowed under your perferred system of collectivism.

Heh. I'm a Democratic Socialist, not an authoritarian (ergo the pictures of Debs), and as such I believe in a democratic collective, not one that dictates to its members. Perhaps it's more of a "soft collectivism" - so long as the good of all (decided by all, and legally guaranteed to a reasonable extent) is not abrogated, I see no reason that individuals should not be free to do what they desire. But that condition is extremely important.

It is characteristic of collectivism for the individual (e.g. bourgeois) to have freedom but not at the expense of the collective whole (workers[e.g. proletariat]/laborers [peasantry])". It is characteristic of individualism for "the collective whole (the ruled; the majority) to have freedom but not at the expense of the individual (the rulers; the ruling-classses; class-traitors)".

But, I do think individualistic philosophy (e.g., libertarianism) is used in modern society to justify arrogance and oppression, and I oppose it on that ground insofar as it does justify what I consider immoral.

-Wayne

Agreed.

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

Heh. I'm a Democratic Socialist, not an authoritarian (ergo the pictures of Debs), and as such I believe in a democratic collective, not one that dictates to its members. Perhaps it's more of a "soft collectivism" - so long as the good of all (decided by all, and legally guaranteed to a reasonable extent) is not abrogated, I see no reason that individuals should not be free to do what they desire. But that condition is extremely important.

Welcome into our fold.

Muhahahahaha....

[Todd D.]

Individualism. We are not collevtive beings. We are social beings, it's true, but we don't share a hive mind, we aren't fundamentally unable to be alone. We are social, but we are not a collective, Individualism respects the rights of the individual to act as such, while not preventing people from gathering socially. Collectivism does not do that.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Collective - as i believe that the individual alone is weak by himself.
The collective has the power to do more than one individual can do by himself. Society can't lose collective thinking as it is a by product of a society (even one which caters more to an individual). Collectivism can still allow individualism but individualism doesn't really allow for collectivism. A team of 5 working together beats 1 man working by himself, thus I chose the collective.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Individualism. We are not collevtive beings. We are social beings, it's true, but we don't share a hive mind, we aren't fundamentally unable to be alone. We are social, but we are not a collective, Individualism respects the rights of the individual to act as such, while not preventing people from gathering socially. Collectivism does not do that.

You and all conservatives and libertarians have a distorted conception of what collectivism is, because you confuse your bother fascism for collectivism. Collectivism respects the rights of individuals as long as the most egotistical (individualist) of individuals do not tyrannize the collective whole, whereas individualism allows the tyranny of the individuals over the majority members of the larger group (e.g. Nation, Soviety, Community, etc.) , that is the difference: In libertarianism the tyranny of the minority of egotistical individuals is stateless in conservatism it is enforced through the state while at the same time verbally degrading the state, just like hypocrites.

[Todd D.]

You and all conservatives and libertarians have a distorted conception of what collectivism is, because you confuse your bother fascism for collectivism. Collectivism respects the rights of individuals as long as the most egotistical (individualist) of individuals do not tyrannize the collective whole, whereas individualism allows the tyranny of the individuals over the majority members of the larger group (e.g. Nation, Soviety, Community, etc.) , that is the difference: In libertarianism the tyranny of the minority of egotistical individuals is stateless in conservatism it is enforced through the state while at the same time verbally degrading the state, just like hypocrites.

Ok, generally I try and refrain from commenting grammatical errors, but when you write your entire damn response in one, long, run on sentence, it's annoying. Try using a period.

As for what you said, how exactly does individualism lead to a tyranny of the minority? If anything, it prevents such a practice by ensuring that each and ever individual is sovreign over him or herself. I fail to see any example where such a practice is put into effect, unless you count the mythical "economic terrorism" that the rich supposedly have over the poor. I reject that on general principle, so it should come as no suprise that we disagree here.

Bottom line is that I don't believe I have ANY obligation to any collective whole. I believe that we are social beings, yes, but we choose to be a part of society, and that we can choose to participate or we can choose not to. If I choose not to under a collective society, what does that mean? What are the repricussions of that in your opinion? See, the big difference is that under individualism, you have the option to be a part of or contribute to a collective whole. Under collectivism, you don't seem to have the option not to be a part of the society or the collective. I find that unacceptable.

[graymouser]

Bottom line is that I don't believe I have ANY obligation to any collective whole. I believe that we are social beings, yes, but we choose to be a part of society, and that we can choose to participate or we can choose not to. If I choose not to under a collective society, what does that mean? What are the repricussions of that in your opinion? See, the big difference is that under individualism, you have the option to be a part of or contribute to a collective whole. Under collectivism, you don't seem to have the option not to be a part of the society or the collective. I find that unacceptable.

If you don't want to have any obligation to a collective whole, then you ought to leave society. You cannot have your cake and eat it too; you cannot have the benefits of a collective society and not have any of the responsibilities that go with those benefits. As I said earlier, the true individualists are hermits living in shacks out in Montana, and even they benefit in certain ways from the collective (via the general agreement that they are not, say, captured and enslaved). If you want society, you cannot just take its fruits and ignore the needs of the society. If you don't want the responsibilities, why should you be entitled to the benefits?

-Wayne

[Todd D.]

Ugh, what you are saying would be like me saying "The only true Libertarians are the ones that don't give to charity, because Libertarians are against federal transfer programs". You have taken a caricature of Individualism and then attempt to break it down.

What benefits of society are you talking about here? What would be "having your cake and eating it to" that requires a big governing force to coerse me into doing things that I may or may not want to do otherwise?

[Ocker]

If you don't want to have any obligation to a collective whole, then you ought to leave society.

Uhh no, if you don't want to live in an individualist country, leave.

At least they have the prosperity to give you that option.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Ugh, what you are saying would be like me saying "The only true Libertarians are the ones that don't give to charity, because Libertarians are against federal transfer programs". You have taken a caricature of Individualism and then attempt to break it down.

What benefits of society are you talking about here? What would be "having your cake and eating it to" that requires a big governing force to coerse me into doing things that I may or may not want to do otherwise?

The main thing is not government forcing you to do this or that, the main thing is society, and society is not fundamentally represented by government, and whether or not it takes the government acting to on behalf of the society to keep individuals from being parasites within the society or if it is violence of the mob of the masses. If you live within a society and don't do anything in return for the benefits you get from society, then the benefits you take/took are considered exploitation and your existance is de facto parasitism, until either the government exterminates you, imprisons you, warns you, expells you, or lets you get lynched by the rage of the working masses toward your blatant parasitism, that is ofcourse until it becomes blatant, such as through the government announcing your parasitism, if not as an individual then as a class, namely the capitalist-class, bourgeoisie, self-employed entrepreneurs, etc.

[graymouser]

Uhh no, if you don't want to live in an individualist country, leave.

At least they have the prosperity to give you that option.

I don't live in an individualist country; the closest there ever was was probably in the CSA, and you can see where that went. The notion that the United States is an "individualist country" is laughable. I live in a country that dominates the world as a hegemonic economic and military power (and the two are inextricably linked), and I feel that working for social change in this country is necessary for the good of the entire world.

-Wayne

[graymouser]

Ugh, what you are saying would be like me saying "The only true Libertarians are the ones that don't give to charity, because Libertarians are against federal transfer programs". You have taken a caricature of Individualism and then attempt to break it down.

What benefits of society are you talking about here? What would be "having your cake and eating it to" that requires a big governing force to coerse me into doing things that I may or may not want to do otherwise?

This is not a parody of the sort you imply. You cannot live as a part of society without being responsible as a member of that society for contributing to the overall well-being. The individualist wants to be part of the overall society with its rules and protections (have your cake) and not contribute to overall well-being (eat it too). This is untenable without an exploited, oppressed class (such as, say, the third world sweatshop workers who are paid a dollar or two a day so Americans can afford their current lifestyles).

Society's benefits are many - you are able to conduct business without bribes or weapons, you do not live in daily fear that a stronger neighbor will take your goods or kill you or your family, you do not have to worry about being enslaved or impressed into a strongman's army, there is a socioeconomic infrastructure that makes it so you aren't a subsistence farmer; there are many things that you enjoy without realizing them. Individualism leaves a society defenseless when a few arrogate themselves above the many, and amasses ever-growing power and wealth by exploiting others; in a Libertarian framework, those few are even celebrated. Collectivism of the sort I am discussing protects the majority against this sort of action. That is the only meaning for "justice."

-Wayne

[Demosthenes]

Individualism- no question.

But all this just seems like palying semantic games with little incentive to try and resolve the differences...

I say the individual and you pick and choose what you think individualism means instead of listening to what I think I'm choosing...

The we got the other way around when someone chooses collective...

So to define what I means as best I can:

I wanna be able to say what I want, do what I want, and go where I want when I want to do these things without some dubass bureaucrat
having arbitrary control over my ability to do these things, simply on his whim or whether or not I've bribed him enough this week.

I understand that in order to have many of the things I enjoy, I also possess a duty to give something back. Fair enough, as long as it's not an undue burden on me individually, and as long as it isn't any more or less for anyone else.

When you make the individual happy and repsect his/her rights you only strengthen the collective.

I fear the idea of an enforced collective, such always creates a tyranny of the minority. (A king, the failed communist experiements, etc...)

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Individualism- no question.

But all this just seems like palying semantic games with little incentive to try and resolve the differences...

I say the individual and you pick and choose what you think individualism means instead of listening to what I think I'm choosing...

The we got the other way around when someone chooses collective...

So to define what I means as best I can:

I wanna be able to say what I want, do what I want, and go where I want when I want to do these things without some dubass bureaucrat
having arbitrary control over my ability to do these things, simply on his whim or whether or not I've bribed him enough this week.

We are not debating statism versus anarchism! We are debating social collectivism versus social individualism. Collectivism inherently is a social system in which the highest power rests with the collective whole or vast majority and as a group not as individuals. Individualism inherently is a social system in which the highest power rests with the individual over their own affairs and means of existance rather than of the society over the individual.

I understand that in order to have many of the things I enjoy, I also possess a duty to give something back. Fair enough, as long as it's not an undue burden on me individually, and as long as it isn't any more or less for anyone else.

That is understandable, as long as you are not implying that whatever that must be contributed "back" to society as compensation, is always a burden.

When you make the individual happy and repsect his/her rights you only strengthen the collective.

Rights don't matter, happiness is temporary, the most important thing is material happiness, which is existance, and existance is best when people work collectively rather than as individuals working together only when it is profitable on the selfish egotistical level of greed.

I fear the idea of an enforced collective, such always creates a tyranny of the minority. (A king, the failed communist experiements, etc...)

Those are not collectives, those are rule of the minority over the majority, the majority is the de facto society, the minority in comparison is just a small group of individuals.

[jaakko]

I think 'collectivity'/'individuality' is a false dichotomy. To develope individual needs collective, the more the better. Outside society an individual doesn't develope consciousness and remains on the level of a monkey. So from the two extremes, "collectivism" and "individualism", the former is more vital already from the evolutionary sense.

[gutsy]

Well, i will go for individualism. I believe without the self-confidence and belief in oneself, one cannot contribute to the society as such. Thus we have to be strong from within in order to have a collective feeling of the society.

In fact, if the individual does not or cannot take his own decisions, then he or she will not grow and that will be detrimental to the society. The basic freedom of existence is necessary and the social mores should not be such as to inhibit his growth.

Thus if the rights of the individual are respected then only we can dream of a better collective society.

[Captain Hat]

It's a toss-up in my mind. I believe its important for people to identify themselves as individuals, especially in the sphere of art. People like to be different, but at the same, people do not like to be alone.

I agree with Todd in that we are social creatures, but we are far from having a "hive" mentality.

[graymouser]

Well, i will go for individualism. I believe without the self-confidence and belief in oneself, one cannot contribute to the society as such. Thus we have to be strong from within in order to have a collective feeling of the society.

In fact, if the individual does not or cannot take his own decisions, then he or she will not grow and that will be detrimental to the society. The basic freedom of existence is necessary and the social mores should not be such as to inhibit his growth.

Thus if the rights of the individual are respected then only we can dream of a better collective society.

Individual rights are only possible within a strong society. Absent collective society, individuals with the will to power trample one another freely. The collective is more important precisely because it alone is capable of giving the individuals within it any degree of liberty.

Individualism as a priority has no basis to stop one man from dominating another. Collectivism does.

-Wayne