Individualism Vs Collectivism
 

Generally on this debate forum, I notice that a lot of disagreements arise as the result of an underlying contention between two opposing notions. The first of these is "individualism." Individualism is the belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence. On the opposite side is the idea of "collectivism." Collectivism states that the well being of the collective, the group, is considered more important than the individual who must sacrifice his self-interest for the good of the group.

Now before we all jump in with mighty claims saying that "invidualism always is better" or "collectivism always is better" it is important to note that few people are entirely collectivist and few people are completely individualist. For example: most people would agree that if it were in your interest to kill someone you should not be allowed to. Yet on the reverse side, most would agree that the majority should not be able to vote to kill someone if he or she becomes burdensome or a detriment.

Now let us apply this to issues that are less stark as the one above. Consider the question of the environment: Should people be able to exploit natural resources just for their own sake for profit? Should resources instead be devoted to providing for everyone instead? Another good example is population growth. Should we force people to limit their childbearing to keep the population down for the benefit of everyone? On the reverse side, you could say "you cannot force them too."

I myself am generally collectivist across the board but I do have individualist views. In the case of population growth, I would say that you should not force or coerce people into limiting childbearing. It is also important to clear up some potential misconceptions about collectivism and individualism. Collectivism does not necessarily mean that you support an authoritarian or powerful draconian government. If a government was highly parasitic, then it is not benefiting the populace and should be dismantled. If you are an individualist, you are not necessarily selfish. In some cases it can be in your best interest to see to the interests of others. The problem comes when we hit this grey area in which the choice between collectivism and individualism is not so apparent.

So what do you think takes priority? Individualism or Collectivism?

Well, I'm mostly Collectivist. Or in my words, a socialist-libertarian neo communist. :D

If I had my way, the Earth would be completely unified. I mean, that's the fastest way we're ever going to get anywhere good. However, I completely respect the needs and wants of an individual. After all, while we are social, we are still our own little person inside, and that needs to be cared for as well, lest we go mad.

But what I don't respect is when an individual's own wants are dominant over anothers, or if their wants cause expense or harm to other people. What you might expect from criminals.
But this (especially the dominance over others) is quite prevalent in Capitalism. And there's the root of this problem, this behavior.

Capitalism. Competition. Dog eat dog.

Of course, the needs of a person are different. You can't deny them that, if you have any morals. And as sentient creatures, of course we have desires. But in our creation, it appears we never gained the ability to be completely fair to one another. Exactly why we have wars. Why we have censorship. And why the public is seen as a threat to the government. And so, I think it would be in our best wishes that we teach ourselves equality. Proper equality.

You can't be collectivist and libertarian, they're essentially opposites :P

I'm an individualist, definitely - I support causes that affect everyone (such as the environment, space, technological development), but people are people and it is their choice as to how they live on a personal level. Individualism applies over most of people's lives, and while people tend to associate in groups, they are groups of individuals, and not of worker drones.

No, no they're not, outside the US at least. I don't know if "libertarianism" includes laissez faire economics in the UK. Does it?

Well I'm mainly Collectivist then, but I support the freedom posed by the latter.

I'm collectivist, I think that socially we are better off that way since instead of thinking about individual actions and the consequences such the viewpoint of "This will be bad for me if I do this." You can look at the consequences of your actions for the wider community and community mindness actually benefits everyone including yourself.

I was just reading an article about poverty and inequality in developed countries and the relationship between this and the neo liberal economic policies that the governments have brought in. The whole thing encourages and even expects competition instead of co operation and since there is the expectation that the individual should look after their own welfare. The poorer people aren't able to get themselves in a good enough state to look after themselves properly since they are muscled out of places for health care, education, adequate employment and housing in the public system ect and it's an endless cycle since the children of poor families get lower education and less opportunities and the governments are reducing public welfare programs and policies even more.

I agree that people should be rely on themselves to a degree but this shouldn't be at the extent that everyone fights each other over basic human needs. Poverty is a human construction, it shouldn't exist if we allocated our resources equally but everyone seems to be out for themselves now. >.<

That is mainly due to overpopulation.
Collectivism is a way of seeking to eradicate individuality, in effect to make people nothing more than worker drones. Without competition, there is no drive to innovate and improve - although yes, it can lead to situations where cooperation would be more effective (e.g. on a national level), at lower levels then if there was no reason to, no work would ever get done.

No not quite but a good educated guess. ;) It's due mainly to the discrimination of the privatised companies that seek profit. Poor people can't afford to go into private sectors because they have less funds then the people with more cash and the increasing demand on public services stop them from accessing these as well due to long waiting times as everyone else who can't pay has to queue up. It's a matter of distribution of wealth and poor management of services by the government. Most people have jobs but the poorer people have very poor pay because they have less skills and more disabilities than the middle class. It's a destructive cycle.

Individuality is one of those things that is different depending on the eye of the beholder. I think individuality is more of a personality and experiences thing. Some one else might see it as individual pursuits and gains.

..and the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer. -.-

Lessons from S. Covey,

As children, we are dependent on our parents for what we need. As we grow, we are expected to become self-relient, independent people (although that often doesn't fully happen with a lot of people). Maturing further, some people will reach interdependence, which is when individuals work together for maximum effectiveness. It doesn't mean loss of personal identity. In fact, it's often chemistry between these individuals that makes effective teams.

I lean towards collectivism. I believe that while we are all different, we often share common goals - wealth, happiness, peace, comfort etc. As individuals we can work with our personal strengths, where others might have weaknesses, and make these things happen.

That is a very nice point. That's what I see when I think of collectivism. :D There is nothing wrong at all with sharing common goals, it doesn't mean that we are drones or simple minded. ;)

Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good. Individualism holds that a human being should think and judge independently, respecting nothing more than the sovereignty of his or her mind. I strongly lead towards individualism, though it seems it's mostly lost today.

^^ This.

*reads post*
*looks at avatar/sig*

:hmm:

That is... quite surprising coming from you.





Sort of reminds me of this:

Quite ironic isn't it. :rolleyes:

Refer to Advents early posts.

Well, in my viewpoint, Humanity's had Individualism for thousands of years. Look where we are now. My opinion might not matter too much, but I think this is a good time for a change.

Ah, and also..
What ideology do you think the Na'vi are more fond of? Yes, that's right. ;)

Collectivism doesn't equate to becoming a simple minded drone. I would actually argue the opposite. Collectivism relies on having powerful, free-thinking individuals.

I'm not against collectivism, but when that turns into the "nanny state" then I'm against that.

Funny though, most nanny states are in Developed countries.
That's right, Australia, America and perhaps Britain. Where else do we find the "Caution: Hot" warnings on the lids of coffee cups. >.<
Our state governments try to tell us what is in our best interest, they try to restrict the options of what people can buy with their money, like cigarettes and alcohol. That sounds like a nanny state to me.

What you highlighted there is another big problem. Common sense is just about gone these days. Society has become rather dependent and even addicted to legal process. While I can appreciate the need for laws to standardize and clarify things, there is a point where it become ridiculous like when the police have to come and hand-cuff a misbehaving first grader because no one else is allowed to do anything.

In some instances I would agree with that point but in the case of cigarettes and alcohol, the caveat with it is that the taxpayers end up paying for all damage that those items cause. Thats not to say that they should be outlawed but that the high taxes on those products should remain in my honest opinion.

--------------

As I mentioned in my OP, I am generally collectivist. Perhaps the dividing line in my political views in choosing between individuals and the group comes down to two basic things: Judging which party involved has the greater need and keeping a person's human dignity intact.

One of the best examples was the recent vote on removing the profanity filter. The sides were quite even in terms of votes. Although I myself did not care whether it was removed or not, I still voted no. The difference came down to whomever was in greater need. I can appreciate the fact that some people would like it removed but I know that they can very easily live with it. On the other hand, for those who want to see the filter remain, their enjoyability of TOS in some cases is completely dependent on it sometimes.

This concept of who has the greater need generally is my main rule with the exception of when someone's human dignity is at stake. My collectivist views tend to come from the former and my individualist views from the latter.

I think a lot of that "Nanny State" comes from our outstanding ability to sue people over nothing. That "Caution: Hot" warning is most likely because of a law suit where someone burned their tongue... on coffee....

Actually, she spilled it on her lap.


While driving.



Holding it between her legs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...7s_Restaurants

Or the recent story of the women who called the cops after Chili's accidently gave her daughter a Mudslide.

:facepalm:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Bai...120350514.html

This woman obviously has dollar-signs in her eyes.

The link between collectivism = nanny state is a false dichotomy. The US is a perfect example. We're a very individualist society and we have stories like those aforementioned. At the same time Europe, which is more libertarian-socialist, seems a bit more laid-back about social issues.

The problem is that Americans are very sue-happy. Any time someone has the off-chance of making a buck by dragging their fellow man to court, even for the littlest thing, they'll do it. That's why people are so uptight, because they're afraid of lawsuits. Before we become a more laid-back society, we need new methods of dealing with conflict other than lawsuits.

i think we need a dumbass clause.

Would you guys say that people suing over the smallest thing is attributable to human greed for money or a need for some form of justice from something happening?

Greed, definitely greed. A lot of these disputes could (and once were) be solved with a good conversation, but people just can't seem to work past a profit motive anymore.

A good point, it seems to occur quite a lot now.
Personally I think it's a bit of both since people look for someone to blame as well but I think that the claims for massive payouts are pretty telling. Asking for a million dollars compensation for slipping on a floor and hurting your leg is pretty unrealistic. :hmm:

Very true here. A nanny state isn't too related to Collectivism. After all, in an ideal Collectivist society, the government would be the people, and they would decide what is best for them.

Collectivism won't work, simply because States cannot ask all the collective to decide in most matters, the "People" will be represented by a small number of persons that won't necessarily hold common sense, like in the hot coffee case. It was a jury of people and the State, represented by another person (in the name of People), that allowed such frivolous case to go on.
Everything reduces to the decisions of a few. It is our duty to elect well prepared-common sensed people to represent us.

I'd say! Mc Donalds need to have a "Warning: Hot Coffee. Drink with caution!" sign on their coffee mugs so people won't sue them for burning their tongues. :facepalm:

True, our population isn't exactly in the best form for the Collective to rule.
Perhaps then, we would have one person per state (or, in a perfect collective society, a council of people per country) and they would have to each be elected as they normally would by the state they live in. Any major decisions would require the Collective's permission, and if the people asked it, actions may be made by the council towards the peoples wishes (providing they are feasible). Elections could be called any time of the year by a vote, and a member of the council would have a one month term unless the people choose to re-elect them. Censorship would be non-existent. The United Nations, in my opinion, should also be more powerful.

Well, there's my little slice of a Collectivist government. Not nearly enough, to be sure, but it's a start.

That wouldn't work in practical terms. Representation is, in effect, broken, since there is no way to hold the people to account.

The best idea is to just give people the freedom to get on with their lives, while people come together only for things that are bigger than small groups (e.g. space).

I like that idea Human No More. I think that the whole population should only get together for debates and votes for the bigger issues that effect the wider society. Otherwise things should be sorted out by the groups of people affected.

I like the idea of local communities, like for different states, as well. Only problem is that it might limit communication between countries and continents. There is also, of course, the constant threat of civil war.

Sounds reasonable, kinda what Catalonia did during the Spanish civil war, sort of broke off and became it's own sovereign territory for a time. I could envision something similar for a possible libertarian-socialist society.

What kinds of issues do you guys think would be handled on the local level? Regional? National? International? I personally think all social issues can be handled on the local level, because those issues pretty much only effect those who choose to take part in whatever activities are classified as social issues. But there would probably need to be much more cooperation on economic issues, and I personally believe environmental standards should be a set standard for all (because, well, the environment effects everyone).

I was thinking local level as well, but perhaps there could be spokespeople for each region when we need to communicate together on international, national issues. Only thing is, we would have to be able to ensure that they speak on behalf of their whole community and only say what the people have said. I'm a bit reluctant to give a select few more power over others.

Local organizations and communities with a global focus, I like it.

^ Thanks, you summed it up nicely. ;)

Can't think of too much now, but I say the UN should be given more power, and all countries should be involved.

Total Individualism leads to isolation. Total collectivisum leads to assimulation(ex: The borg of Star Trek the next generation). I would want to have one thing in the middle. A form of collectivity while at the same time maintaning indivuality. Examples would be the Protoss of Starcraft 2 with their conection to the Khala (A mental link all protoss, except dark templar, share among eachother to feel eachothers thoughts and emotions). And another is the Na'vi and their connection to Ewya.