individualism vs collectivism

where do you stand?

Order is emergent. Individualism.

The individual is sovereign. A dictatorship by society is still a dictatorship, no man should forced to work for the collective unless he chooses to.

Pure, egalitarian Collectivism.

>>4
Egalitarianism doesn't necessarily follow collectivism, and egalitarianism, if so desired, could be made attainable without collectivism.  Moreover "pure" seems like an odd choice since it suggests a system that naturally exists in absence of others and neither egalitarianism nor collectivism have ever been a hallmark of human social structure.  Ever.  The fleeting dream one tries to remember when comes the dawn.

Neither.

Let's analyse this logically, let's start by distinguishing between individuals and individualism and between collectives and collectivism.

Individuals vs Collectives
We are individuals which means there is no "collective will of the people", so in practice collectives are bureaucracies that attempt to equally distribute negotiating power in some system, imperfect democracies pretty much.

Individualism vs Collectivism
Individualism to individuals is not the same as collectivism to collectives, while the collective is the realization of the ideals of collectivism, we are already individuals so it's a moot point to say that individuals are the realization of the ideals of individualism, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive either, voluntarily cooperating for mutual gain is both. In order to compare them we must look at their significant differences and since we've already eliminated their similarities and insignificances the answer is obvious, individualism is synonymous with autonomy and collectivism is synonymous with democracy.

Both autonomy and democracy are not inherently good or bad, they are only methods of organization, when pushed to their "logical conclusion" their limits become apparent, so I neither support or oppose either of them, there is no apparent implicit reason to be individualistic or collectivistic.

human beings are social creatures that crave and need connections with each other at the end of the day. its these connections make us grow and build who we are, so we are richer for having more people in our lives. There are no individuals, we are all shaped by each other.

Although politicaly speaking I believe in collectivism, I see this bypole as a yin/yang. Neither is usefull or desirable in its extreme form. Individuals cannot deny society and live on their own (or even reproduce) and collectives who disregard for the individuality and the uniqueness of their members are totalitarian and ineffective on their purpose at the least. Also such collectives would be easily taken over by individualistic purposes and abused at the expense of the people and/or the collective as a whole.

I like the idea of 'open collectives' where individuals are free to participate or not. They can have their rules and organisation structure but these are not binding. Instead there is a reward of part of the pie for those who do. (In pedagogics, it is like rewarding a desired behaviour rather than punishing undesirable behaviour.)

So I guess that even though I'm a collectivist I hate totalitarianism and I want my individual rights and freedoms. I want to contribute to the community, I don't want to be forced into labour.

I have seen such collectives work and in fact be profitable in times of crisis. In fact I am co-operating right now with a few such collectives the members of which function very well with each other. One is an importer and distributor in 'solidarity trading' (similar to fair trade but less profit oriented) and the other is the largest drum and bass party collective in town. Both examples have collective ownership/property but their members still maintain their own property, some have second jobs, some well-off people contribute voluntarily. Profit is made both for the collective as a 'legal person' and the individuals participating. Both the participating individuals and the collectives are expanding and bring more individuals within the collectives. Also, such collectives are loosely connected with each other - both in collective and individual level, forming a network. The purpose of this network is to support its members when needed. First of all, we trying to form a full producer-to-consumer network, parralel to the state economy with the purpose of making it/us self sufficient from government policy. We're half way there already. In case a part of the network is arrested (we're anarchist and we're targeted by the police), the rest gather money to bail them out and provide lawyers. The 'network' also supports people in need outside of itself. Both with money and by anti-information.

From my point of view, the question that started this thread is a trick question. There is no 'VS' between collectivism and individualism. The two can be very compatible with each other. You just have to look at problems arising one at a time and solve them with non-binding rules. Usualy explaining the problem to all of its extent to the members is enough to solve it through a democratic conversation. Believeing in each other is as vital as it gets.

Which brain-half do you want dead.....
Right Brain, Left Brain?

Right Brain is the collectively minded unifying gestalt.
Left Brain is the individualistically minded distinguishing critic.

The Right brain has been described as female in character.
The Left brain has been described as male.

People find comfort in predictability and will generally favor one rule over the other.

We are all one of the same body. VS
 I am the creator of my own destiny.

I have an integral role in the world at large. VS
 The world is my oyster to eat and enjoy.

Biases have been created to discourage the harmony of these elements. Labels and judgmentalism nurture an environment of extremism, creating even further disharmony.

Rather than fear of what you hate, love what you can come to understand; therein is where harmony is achievable.

>>7
There are no individuals, we are all shaped by each other.
The fact we occasionally interact with each other hardly means we're not longer individuals.
>>8
If the success of your collective is due to voluntary association then that means it is a success because it leans so heavily towards individualism. If this principle should be extended to the rest of society then it means we should become far more individualistic, almost Randian/Objectivist laissez faire.
>>9
The different sides of the brain have different functions, I don't think some ambiguous philosophy like yingyang fully describes the phenomena.

>>10
>>If the success of your collective is due to voluntary association then that means it is a success because it leans so heavily towards individualism. If this principle should be extended to the rest of society then it means we should become far more individualistic, almost Randian/Objectivist laissez faire.

We do have a very high sense of the common good and we are altruistic. We reject selfish behavior. Solidarity is our biggest weapon. I don't think we would classify as individualists.

Now, if tagging us with your name of preference (individualist) makes you happy, then it's fine by me. Still it's a fact that we're collectivists forming collectives and thinking collectively.

Maybe collectivists are not the commie monsters you may have them for.

>>10

what do you mean no longer? your implying that people are becoming less individualistic. and we dont occasionally interact we interact constantly, its a psychological need, and who we are as individuals is shaped directly by who we are collectively.

When I was in high school all the kids used to get faggoty emo piercings because it made them 'individualistic'. the thing is EVERYBODY dressed that way. they were wearing a uniform without even realizing it.

>>11
The only reason you don't turn into commie monsters is because you have the option of being "selfish" and leaving the collective if they ever decide to crack out the kool aid.

You said yourself..
Neither is useful or desirable in its extreme form.

Yet now you say individualism is only selfish while altruistic solidarity is the goodliest thing in the world, in reality what has happened, in practical terms, is you have democratized a niche in the economy and made an inaccurate assessment of the reasons for it's success. The situation is inverse in your relationship with the police who are the face of extreme collectivism, the police are not there because they feel like oppressing you, they are paid by the state to do so which is a thoroughly collectivized institution, they are the manifestation of the abstract concept of situations where collectivism conflicts with individualism. You understand how individual "selfishness" conflicts with the common good of the collective, it's the other way round here, what the collective thinks is good conflicts with what is good for you as an individual, so they send the cops round to beat you with night sticks.

>>13
The only reason you don't turn into commie monsters is because you have the option of being "selfish" and leaving the collective if they ever decide to crack out the kool aid.

The reason we're not becoming commie monsters is beyond the individualism/collectivism bypole. It is because anarchists know that communism as a system is as faulty as capitalism is. It is because we're willing to experiment at our own cost and be socially innovative.

>>Yet now you say individualism is only selfish while altruistic solidarity is the goodliest thing in the world, in reality what has happened, in practical terms, is you have democratized a niche in the economy and made an inaccurate assessment of the reasons for it's success.

I don't understand how I said that. I stick to my first post (>>8). I think you're confusing altruism with collectivism and egoism (selfisness) with individualism. In fact you can have all sorts of combinations: altruistic collectivism (what I have in mind), selfish collectivism (the corrupt side of communism), altruistic individualism and egoist individualism. I take it you are an individualist and also that you care for other people (correct me if I'm wrong). I believe this(being both altruistic) brings us closer to each other than to shelfish individualists or collectivists.

>>The situation is inverse in your relationship with the police who are the face of extreme collectivism, the police are not there because they feel like oppressing you, they are paid by the state to do so which is a thoroughly collectivized institution, they are the manifestation of the abstract concept of situations where collectivism conflicts with individualism.

This takes so much discussion that I honestly don't know where to start. I disagree in so many points. Firstly, the police here is highly individualist. They have very little sense of the common good. In fact the police is used by the government to 'solve' problems that would normally be solved politicaly. Their job is to obey the government, not to protect the citizens. The government/state is corrupt fucking traitors, they act as individuals pursuing a high profit career, not as representatives of the imaginary collective called 'state'.

>>You understand how individual "selfishness" conflicts with the common good of the collective, it's the other way round here, what the collective thinks is good conflicts with what is good for you as an individual, so they send the cops round to beat you with night sticks.

No, I disagree. That's too oversimplified. Who is the collective you call state? Who controls its decisions? Certainly not the society.

alot of this is just arguing semantics. human beings are empathetic creatures who are for the most part instictively driven to do good for the people they see as being in their group. their attitudes and often their morals are shaped by the other people they're connected to either conciously or subconciousely.

Our egos may tell us that we don't need anyone and that our attitudes are rational, but deep down our gut knows better. And thats why we are all scared of being abandoned by our society. we're afraid of scorn and of being alone, and thats represented by jail or homelessnes.

Collectivism is for the weak. A Marxist tool to get people dependent on gov't.
Like all those hippie communes started in the sixties..they all thrived and are going strong, right?

This is fucked up. I keep finding words that have different meaning in the US than in the rest of the world (libertarianism and collectivism for example). This is making it realy hard to communicate with americans about politics.

Also, collectivism IS for the weak and there's nothing wrong with this. It is a way for the weak to team up and face common threats together. If a society disregards the weak it suffers from high crime rates.

As I said before, you can't demonise either, Both mechanisms have advantages and disadvantages. I'm sure you have communist east europe as an example, but marinaleda (in Andalusia) on the contrary is trhiving.

It is a matter of finding in which cases it is useful to think individualistically and when to think collectively.

Saying this, I'm not implying that finding that perfect balance is an easy task.

>>15
Speak for yourself.  I want "my society," which I did not create, and to which I have given no consent, to get its hand out of my wallet and its long, unlovely, hooked nose out of my private life.

>>17
>If a society disregards the weak it suffers from high crime rates.
no, non-whites are what causes high crime rates.
>>15
>human beings are empathetic creatures
By your definition you obviously only count whites as human beings. Which is quite correct.

>>19
Right. I've never seen a white crook in my life.

What an enlightenment.

>>20
So if one black commits a crime it's an individual act (and partially whitey's fault for putting down the black man) but if one white commits a crime that means all whites are criminals. Interesting perspective you have there chachi.

>>21
You're making things up. Go fuck yourself dear.

>>22
You think a smaller number of white crooks is responsible for high crime rates, you just directly stated this.

Good thread bump

>>1
Both work as long as there are no niggers or Jews.

>>individualist market anarchist in favor of and actively participating in mutual aid and societal cooperation

>>26
Way to overcompensate for your microphallus.

*bump*
good thread

>>28
Good job bumping all the good threads.

>>1
Right in the middle using the benefits of both and rejecting all their disadvantages.

>>29
thanks!

>>30

I stand with this guy, like 99% of humans.  Society is collectivist in nature, we retain as much individualism as possible.  Everyone here only exists because of both ideals and a compromise between them.

>>32
Except collectives don't exist so people who believe in collectivism are deluded commies while individualists who believe in cooperating for mutual gain and understand the limitations of bureaucracy are highly intelligent logical non-partisan scientific rational reasonable objective awesomes.

>>33
oh shut up

>>34
That's mean, you can't say that.

>>35
It worked. He did shut up :p

>>9
Perfectly stated. I agree.
Stop trying to divide everyone and cause trouble.

>>37
Wow. A mature opinion! (not saying is sarcastically - i mean it)

>>36
>>34 didn't have a logical counter-argument. What more is there to say?

>>37
>>38
>>9 is a stupid post. What the fuck does he mean by "comfort"? I don't care whether something is predictable or not.

I'm just sitting here thinking "ok if I roll a dice it's unpredictable yet if I drop a pencil I know it will fall down, nope, I don't have any feelings of comfort or discomfort about either, 9 is fucking stupid". It doesn't take much to prove >>9 is full of shit. Why didn't you think of this yourselves?

>>40
No, >>9 is actually a fucking good post. Quit whining about >>9's opinion and if you have an opinion of your own, just say it.

What does calling things you don't understand 'stupid' say about you? Think about it.

>>40
I directly stated in clear logical terms why I thought it was stupid.

I did an experiment where I rolled a dice to see how fearful I was of the unpredictability and because I felt nothing this proves everything >>9 said is total bullshit.

>>9 calls everyone who disagrees with him afraid of unpredictability then went off on a tangent about harmony and destiny like a kool aid drinking cult leader. What does that say about him?

>>42

>>9 is actually a very reasonable post, and not at all inflammatory. What crawled up your butt and died?

>>43
Why shouldn't I get mad at the fact so many people believe in bullshit and can't be reasoned with?

I don't even know where >>9 is going.  He seems to be describing something more than obvious and then stops on the cusp of going somewhere.  Poetry is not the same as a solid point backed with citations or examples.

On the other hand, I see nothing obnoxious about it though there is a nagging impression that, if somewhere in there is advice, it may only be worth pursuing from a more concise position.

Individualist are people smart enough to lead their own life.
Collectivists need other people to tell them what to do.
Black or white, we should just call them niggers, and instate slavery based on IQ tests.

>>46
I think being "racist" regardless of race is called social darwinism, technically.

Collectivism is only possible through bureaucracy. There is nothing special or magical about it.

>>48
Individualism is simply sociopathy. There is nothing special or magical about it.

>>49
Except there are individuals and there are no collectives, just bureaucracies.

>>50

What do you think our society is?  It's one giant collective, all society is a collective.  We build roads, bridges, and schools all for entirely collective purposes.  If one were to analyze all societies on Earth objectively one would have to conclude we are largely a collective species.  We not only share wealth to pay for collective interests but we do nothing but socialize with one another through some form of technology or in person. 

From wikipedia "A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective."

Can you think of a better way to describe the point of government? 

How else was the interstate highway built?

It was not brought about by private investors seeking to capitalize on the nations need for a transnational network of routes (it already existed in the form of trains, also set up by the government but previous to that still, private entities did not invest in such things).  The people would benefit greatly from the interstate highway, thus they were a group that shared the same interests.  They all paid taxes and elected officials who campaigned on the fact that he/she shared such interest and would enforce it.  That's working together on that goal.