[QUOTE="rolfboy"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
I think we can agree that collectivism is dangerous, but individualism is dangerous as well. The belief that self-interest is a virtue is the cause of many problems in this world. Sure, genocide and war are collectivist phenomenon, but what about people like Bernie Madoff? What about all these Wall Street fat cats who believe that they are 'entitled' to the money they take from consumers. I think we need to strike a balance between doing what's good for society and doing what's good for ourselves, and that's not a polarizing argument.
killer336
If I were to summarize individualism and collectivism, individualism is the idea of society ultimately being a bunch of individuals as opposed to a group, or some greater entity; the name "The United States of America" is literaly a refrence to this understanding. As such, an individual should be free to do anything they want if it doesn't directly affect any other person's freedom to do what they want as ultimately, no earthly force has true dominion over you (unless you are dependent on others). It is not necessarily ALL about self-interest as the individual does benefit from improving his community like more intelligent peers, sanitary living conditions, less crime, and the safety of a community of other individuals with similar values. But of course, this charity would be voluntary as the individual retains the right to move to a more preferable community.
Collectivism beleives in the authority of the group as it benefits individuals to conform to the group as the group (or more historically, the officials elected to represent the group) ultimately knows what is best for the community. The group decides something and passes it as a law and each component of the group (the citizens) go along with what ever the leaders command. It benefits the leaders to make strong and conftorable individuals as more capable/content components in the machine would equal a stronger machine. However, the collective ultimately caters to those closer to the top (generally either the majority,or much more likely, those with the capability to command power like Wall Street or the lower half of a crime syndicate.) while the minority/powerless are most likely cruely subjected to the whims of the hierachy (Indian caste system is a great example).
my brain diedBut those at the top are acting in their own self-interest, not in the interest of society at large. They're the individualists, you see. The exploited and ignorant masses are the collectivists. Now, I don't want to pick hairs, but to compare this to modern times, the Republican Party is made up of both individualists (Libertarians, at least the ones who don't go on the web and engage in groupthink on internet forums...:roll: ) and collectivists (the religious right, since religion undermines individuality). That party is far too politically diverse for its own good, and I presume it will split in the coming decades into a small government wing and a different faction that wants to regulate our social lives, i.e. ban gay marriage, abortions, etc.
OK, I got off topic. :P What I'm trying to say is that I have no objection to the aspect of individualism that surmises that the world revolves around individuals (let's not go into the fact that we are all collectives of cells all working in unison form an individual consciousness). But when that philosophy becomes applied to sociopolitics, we get bad results.
Let's first look at cultural phenomenon. Urban sprawl? Caused by the desire for physical isolation from the 'group' and luxurious living, not to mention such controversial issues as gentrification and white flight. The economic crisis? Caused by greed on the part of the individual (namely CEOs and head honchos of corporations, not to mention some greedy legislators). Suicide and murder are strictly individualist phenomenon as well. I think that a balance between individual responsibility and obligation to community is ideal for the betterment of our country, not radical collectivism or individualism. Do you get what I'm saying?
Plus, your example of doing good for others to better one's self does not seem popular in individualist circles these days. People want to deny others healthcare when they don't realize that having a healthy populace is beneficial for everyone. That middle ground is considered 'communitarianism,' and is probably the most rational political philosophy out there, IMO. :) Fascinating stuff, ain't it? :D
Log in to comment