Collectivism vs. Individualism

He fucks up at the point he says, in effect, "you can only see individuals, you cannot see a group, it's an abstraction".
 
'Groups' are abstractions, constructs, conceptualizations - - they are a step away from the reality. What you have are individual human beings - - with all their personal likes, dislikes, quirks, and qualities. Pigeonholing people into some category - - is the very essence of prejudice and racism. Groupthink by those identifying with a category is the instrument for commiting all sorts of outrages that an individual would never consider (if they are a decent human being) or dare (if they are an evil one). - - -

Such groupthink is nothing but a sham played on the naive. Those calling the shots under 'Communism' 'Fascism' 'Socialism' or whatever - - never applied such collectivist 'ideals' to themselves. Whether in the former USSR, North Korea, Cuba - - or wherever, the ruling elites always got all the perks and goodies not available to the 'group'. - - In like manner, our own liberal elites fly around in jets and have palatial homes, burning energy like crazy - - - while b.s.ing about 'the planet' for all the groupthinkers who buy the line.

The nation was founded on the principles of Individual Liberty. That's why there's a Bill of Rights. - - Thats why a republic was established instead of a pure democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they'll have for dinner. - - - -
 
"Individual" is an abstraction as well. Man is a social animal.

This argument, individualism vs. collectivsm, is really just tension between two sides of the same coin. Utterly unrestrained individualism is impractical, to put it mildly, and total collectivism is unimaginable and intolerable.

We humans, at once individuals yet the product of our collective, live in the middle and squabble over tiny movements in either direction.
 
Quote from Ricter:

"Individual" is an abstraction as well. Man is a social animal.

This argument, individualism vs. collectivsm, is really just tension between two sides of the same coin. Utterly unrestrained individualism is impractical, to put it mildly, and total collectivism is unimaginable and intolerable.

We humans, at once individuals yet the product of our collective, live in the middle and squabble over tiny movements in either direction.
More...

What a bunch of jibberish. The individual is an abstraction ? You can reach down and feel your own hand or foot can't you ? You can talk to your family members face-to-face, can't you ? - Your 'collective' is another bullshit concept. What the hell is it ? We are the product of 'the collective' you say ? More likely the product of our parents and those Individuals who influenced us. (Obviously your influences were collectivist in outlook.) 'Unrestrained individualism' - - wtf are you talking about. People shouldn't harm or impair on the rights of other people. Simple. You stop those that do. You seek restitution from those who are found to do so.

Repeating your b.s as an illustration: "We humans, at once individuals yet the product of our collective, live in the middle and squabble over tiny movements in either direction."

To others who can actually Think: Its pretty obvious when someone is trying to fling bullshit isn't it ? This guy lives so much in his head, that he probably believes it (though if pressed he couldnt define what it even is).

On a day-to-day, down to earth, Reality level, what is 'the collective'. Show me who that is who you are so beholding to, and who guides your politics, and gives you marching orders. - - You can't - - because its just a concept. - - However, an individual politician can give you marching orders, and appeal to your sense of duty toward 'the collective' to get you do do whatever the hell he wants. And it doesn't even matter if that politician comes from the 'Right' or 'Left' because those are just useful concepts too. To them all that matters is that the b.s. gets the job done. - - -

BTW - - I know Ricter, you can't 'get' any of this. Its obvious from your slavish loyalty to whatever the hell party or whatever you identify with, that you are a True Believer unable to think outside your own box. Maybe someone else will get something out of all this, anyway I enjoyed writing it - so what the hell.
 
You can count heads on a football team, can't you? A collective is observable, "real", under a certain, limited perspective (which of course is what our perception of reality is).

Limited perspective is what makes both concepts abstractions.
 
Well now we are making a little bit of progress - - - yes, you can see and count the heads of the guys on your football team (for example). You know the guys - - their strengths and weaknesses on the field. Maybe even some of the guys personal ambitions, problems, family, etc. - - - All of this is within the realm of your actual personal experience, and not an abstraction at all.

Beyond this and we're getting into la-la land. Total mental constructs and abstractions. "Fight for 'your country'." "Make The World Safe for Democracy"- - - For the sake of gaining a little distance (and less emotional investment than would arise from current events) - - these things were said before entry by U.S. troops into Europe and the First World War. But, many of the combantants on both sides weren't particularly 'democratic', and many Americans didn't think we should send our boys overseas for a European war that had little to do with us at all - and definitely didn't 'defend' us. Historians are now at a loss to explain why the war was fought that cost millions of lives. - - While the collective conceptual illusions used to sell that war were pure fantasty, - - real Individual human beings did suffer horribly and die far too young in that war. Wilson was an ivory tower professor who made his living flinging all sorts of concepts. Maybe if they dumped one of those dead soldiers bodies on his desk he would have recognized reality from all the pretty conceptualizations he held. Maybe you would agree with the historians regarding World War One, or perhaps not - - Wilson was a 'Democrat' afterall. - - -
 
Quote from Ricter:

"Individual" is an abstraction as well. Man is a social animal.

This argument, individualism vs. collectivsm, is really just tension between two sides of the same coin. Utterly unrestrained individualism is impractical, to put it mildly, and total collectivism is unimaginable and intolerable.

We humans, at once individuals yet the product of our collective, live in the middle and squabble over tiny movements in either direction.
More...
So what, does that require a centrally planned authoritarian collectivist society?

Laissez-faire capitalism/classical liberalism don`t equal unrestrained individualism?
 
Quote from Ricter:

You can count heads on a football team, can't you? A collective is observable, "real", under a certain, limited perspective (which of course is what our perception of reality is).

Limited perspective is what makes both concepts abstractions.
More...
But does it have to be based on coercion, can`t individuals cooperate on a voluntary basis?
 
When opting for the term "collectivism" to describe what it is youre driving at theres a built in bias from the get. Try substituting the term "cooperation" for it. Cooperation is what NASA does. It got the space shuttle built, it put a man on the moon. Cooperation built the freeway system. Individualism is what built the pyramids, but if you asked one of the slaves that built them if he had any use for a pyramid, if he werent in fear of his life, he'd tell you, "that pharoh is nuts." At some point you have to have faith in authority and fall in line where you can contribute your end for the sake of the civilization you participate in. I would submit that its cooperation that gets great things done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top