Yes, it seems like a false dichotomy to me. Like you must choose individualism or collectivism. I think you can use either or depending on what goals or paradigms each is best suited for. — DingoJones

:up: :up:

“What’s best” is what concerns me.

“what’s best” in your eyes? — NOS4A2

Libertarian socialism¹ (s.g. economic democracy²).


If you're interested ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism (1)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy (2)

If everyone is an individual, and the individual is given primacy, it follows that no one is excluded.

Though I can can see a benefit in both, the question of what happens to those who do not wish to conform to those ideals remains a problem.

Right, I’m curious how this works out in practice. Can you not give an example?

Well, that true of every societal arrangenent ...

Right, I’m curious how this works out in practice. Can you not give an example?

Any declaration of universal human rights.

It’s true. I just don’t know the answer to that question for those particular arraignments.

Any declaration of universal human rights. — NOS4A2

So, for example, if you declare a particular universal right you are expressing your primacy? Wouldn’t everyone need to agree with whatever right that you declare and also agree to your primacy?

So, for example, if you declare a particular universal right you are expressing your primacy? Wouldn’t everyone need to agree with whatever right that you declare and also agree to your primacy?

You are expressing every individual’s primacy. If you realize the primacy of the individual you afford him rights and defend those rights against infringement. I’m not sure everyone has to agree to that.

:lol:

You are expressing every individual’s primacy. If you realize the primacy of the individual you afford him rights and defend those rights against infringement. I’m not sure everyone has to agree to that. — NOS4A2

You’re not sure about all this? You claimed it was true in theory AND practice, yet you don’t seem to be able to come up with a practice example, and now you’re unsure.

It depends on the efficiency of the collective. If the group or mass is inefficient, it absorbs and excludes the individual creating a heterogeneous mass without control and wasting time and resources. This is the main problem of some countries: the individual disappears groups where the only aim is following doctrines, theories, groups, etc... usually, these are not even democratic and once you are part of it, you can't get out of the mass. While I am writing this it coming up to my mind the army of Venezuela or separatists of Catalonia as examples.

In the other hand: if the collective is effective, both sides win, the individual and the group. It is worthy to be part of a mass which works and helps you out to improve as a citizen. When I say "effective", I mean that they act together with similar goals such as manufacturing cars, vaccines, or improving the pillars of democracy. The act together because they are aware that this is the only way to be stronger. For example: Asian countries as Japan, China or South Korea. The individual doesn't exist there, but the group or collective is unstoppable due to their efficiency. One good case to look for is the Fukushima accident. Only a efficient system/mass as the japanese could have fixed such problem in just days...

In the other hand: if the collective is effective, both sides win, the individual and the group. — javi2541997

The issue is who determines whether "the collective" is effective.

If I, the individual, am deeply unhappy within "the collective", what good is it for me to console myself with the idea that "the collective" is effective? Apparently "the collective" didn't include me, because it's not effective at making me happy at all.

Should the unhappy individual simply sacrifice this one life they're given for the sake of some imaginary higher power we call "the collective"?

The individual doesn't exist there, but the group or collective is unstoppable due to their efficiency. — javi2541997

This sounds like a nightmare.

because it's not effective at making me happy at all. — Tzeentch

First of all: what is happiness? How we measure the happiness of the people at all?

Should the unhappy individual simply sacrifice this one life they're given for the sake of some imaginary higher power we call "the collective"? — Tzeentch

Yes and no. We have to take care of the individual, that's for granted. But this doesn't mean that one group has to step down just for one person. That would be selfish and ineffective. Should everyone lose for just one individual?

This sounds like a nightmare. — Tzeentch

For me, it is a dreaming lifestyle. I guess that's why the economy of my country is in the 16th position and theirs are the 1st, 3rd and 5th of the world. These are pure facts not personal opinions.

First of all: what is happiness? — javi2541997

That's for each to determine for their own - it's certainly not up to a "collective" to decide for others what constitutes happiness.

We have to take care of the individual, that's for granted. But this doesn't mean that one group has to step down just for one person. That would be selfish and ineffective. — javi2541997

How would that be any more or less selfish than asking of the unhappy individual to simply sacrifice themselves?

I guess that's why the economy of my country is in the 16th position and theirs are the 1st, 3rd and 5th of the world. These are pure facts not personal opinions. — javi2541997

South Korea and Japan also have notoriously high rates of suicide, so I guess that answers part of the question of how they deal with unhappy individuals. As for China, well... If you believe economic prosperity is worth living under an authoritarian dictatorship then our ideas about what is happiness must lie very far apart.

it's certainly not up to a "collective" to decide for others what constitutes happiness. — Tzeentch

Yes, but happiness was never been in my arguments. I was speaking about effectiveness. I don't care if they are happy or sad, whenever happiness is just an entelechy.

How would that be any more or less selfish than asking of the unhappy individual to simply sacrifice themselves? — Tzeentch

But why happiness should be a factor to consider of in terms of functionality? Who are we to say the group is "unhappy"? They just work and are effective. Simple.

South Korea and Japan also have notoriously high rates of suicide, so I guess that answers part of the question of how they deal with unhappy individuals — Tzeentch

The concept of death in Japan is different from the western world. We see it as a problem when they understand it as a path of life
Yukio Mishima: The Japanese have always been a people with a severe awareness of death. But the Japanese concept of death is pure and clear, and in that sense it is different from death as something disgusting and terrible as it is perceived by Westerners.

As for China, well... If you believe economic prosperity is worth living under an authoritarian dictatorship then our ideas about what is happiness must lie very far apart. — Tzeentch

I wonder if a person from Andalucía in Spain - which is one of the poorest regions of Europe and with a high unemployment ratio - is happier than an individual of Asian countries. Let me doubt it a lot...

I was speaking about effectiveness. I don't care if they are happy or sad, ... — javi2541997

But individuals do care about whether they are happy or sad. My question was what the individual is supposed to do when the "collective" they are living in is making them unhappy.

Should they simply accept their fate and find consolation in the fact that this is, apparently, a by-product of an "effective" society, whatever that may mean?

The stubborn truth is of course that there is no good reason for them to accept being sacrificed, and people generally don't.

But why happiness should be a factor to consider of in terms of functionality? — javi2541997

I never said it should, and you didn't answer my question.

The pursuit of happiness is something all people have in common, so it seems like a sensible thing to use as a base for coexistence. What would you replace it with?

The concept of death in Japan is different from the western world. — javi2541997

The Japanese view the national suicide rates as a major social issue. Moreover, child suicide has apparently been peaking and the cause of much worry.

Japan Appoints a 'Minister of Loneliness' after seeing suicide rates increase for the first time in 11 years

Child suicides in Japan are at a record high

Japan's child suicide crisis

I doubt many Japanese would agree this is normal, regardless of their views on life and death. Do you believe this is normal?

I wonder if a person from Andalucía in Spain - which is one of the poorest regions of Europe and with a high unemployment ratio - is happier than an individual of Asian countries. — javi2541997

Happiness and life satisfaction - wonder no more.

My question was what the individual is supposed to do when the "collective" they are living in is making them unhappy. — Tzeentch

Leave. If they don't like the collective or they are unhappy, the reasonable decision is leave and let the rest progress. I still see as a selfish act to sacrifice an entire group just for the commodity of one user. It is 99 % against 1 %. My unhappiness cannot stop your effectiveness. If I am unhappy, it is a problem of my own because happiness is subjective. That individual can change the situation with another attitude. Unhappiness is not something which persists forever...

I doubt many Japanese would agree this is normal, regardless of their views on life and death. Do you believe this is normal? — Tzeentch

I didn't say it was "normal". I said that the concept of death is pretty different in Japan. I am aware that suicide rates are an important issue there, but the cause is not unhappiness in the group or unsatisfied life. They killed themselves for many complex reasons. For example: one a student fails and is aware is not good enough for a better work in the future, he kills himself (as much as this practice is common in China and South Korea) because they are so competitive. In the other hand, some old people decide to suicide when they are aware of being a problem to their family.
Etc... there are a lot of reasons and they don't kill themselves just for depression or unhappiness as it happens in Western world.

Happiness and life satisfaction - wonder no more — Tzeentch

Who cares if a Spaniard is happier than a Chinese citizen? It is a very subjective essay. Meanwhile you need China to make businesses, you don't care if Spain disappears today. So, happiness is not valuable at all. I even see a problem of my countrymen if they are "happy" despite the circumstances we are facing. That wacky thoughts only come from hippies that do not care about anything: "oh yeah I am poor but I am happy with my basic needs"
Well, that's only exists in dreams. At the end of the day... where you would put your investments or assets? Tokyo or Seville?

Tokyo, right? Because they are effective despite they are more or less happy than us.

Leave. — javi2541997

As I said:

That the altruistic spiel that accompanies collectivist rhetoric is merely window dressing becomes apparent as soon as they are presented with a dissident. Their answer will always be the same: "If you don't like it, you may leave!" — Tzeentch

But the individual, of course, will not leave. They have as much the right to live where they do as anyone else, and the state especially has no right to make them leave.

Clearly the collectivist believes otherwise - they believe they are entitled to the individual's cooperation, which is why they demand their departure when the individual refuses.

This entitlement stems from a belief that they are right, and therefore the individual has no right to refuse, and no right to exist if he does.

You see now why collectivism brings up unpleasant memories for many.

They killed themselves for many complex reasons. — javi2541997

Surely for someone to commit suicide they must be deeply unhappy, or am I missing something?

Who cares if a Spaniard is happier than a Chinese citizen? — javi2541997

You, apparently. Weren't you just now wondering about that?

Libertarian socialism¹ (s.g. economic democracy²). — 180 Proof

This sounds quite interesting, however I am trying to understand how a system of socialism could exist without a large, powerful government to coordinate it.

Is the socialism to flourish as a result of voluntary cooperation?

Clearly the collectivist believes otherwise - they believe they are entitled to the individual's cooperation, which is why they demand their departure when the individual refuses.

This entitlement stems from a belief that they are right, and therefore the individual has no right to refuse, and no right to exist if he does. — Tzeentch

Maybe I am the only one who see it in that way, but isn't it how a country should works?

Surely for someone to commit suicide they must be deeply unhappy, or am I missing something? — Tzeentch

Yes, you are missing the fact that Japanese citizens conceive death differently as we do and probably unhappiness is not the main causes. There were hundreds of samurai who died killing themselves doing "seppuku" just to save their dignity and integrity. This cultural identity and heritage has passed through to all japanese citizens in the modern era. I don't want to go off from the main topic but there are a lot of interesting book related to this topic like "Runaway horses" by Yukio Mishima. Please, read it, you will like it.

You, apparently. Weren't you just now wondering about that? — Tzeentch

No, it was you the debater who talked about happiness. I was referring to efficiency not caring at all if such group is happy or unhappy.

Does “effective” entail being easily controlled?

I didn’t say I was unsure about the practice. I was unsure about the answer to your quibbling question.

if it is necessary, yes.

In this regard one could claim that collectivism is exclusive and individualism is inclusive. The former affords primacy to a faction while the latter affords it to each and every individual involved. This is true both in theory and in practice.

Are there any objections to this? — NOS4A2

Yes. You are describing a collectivist interpretation of individualism. Who is affording primacy to each individual in a collective? The collective. True individualism affords no such primacy to any. True individualism does not care about a collective definition or ideology of individualism.

True individualism is a set of beings that exist without any regards to one another. There are no rules, laws, or limitations on interactions with another being. An individual may decide to exclude others, or include others. Help, or harm.

True collectivism is a set of beings that exist with regards to one another. In collectivism there is a set of implicit or explicit rules of behavior that the other group members will either support or punish to ensure individuals follow them. Collectives can welcome other individuals to the group, and be incredibly inclusive. For example, a collective that highly favors individual rights with a very limited and lightly punished rule set may allow different cultures in, despite some individuals wishing to exclude them.

So I find that being individualistic vs collectivist has no bearing on whether it is an inclusive or exclusive ideology. Each ideology can have a degree of inclusiveness and exclusiveness within, and thus comparing them does not result in any clear victor.

The links provided in the post you quoted from provide a better answer than I can:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/773328

Collectivism and individualism are protean political terms and are always subject to debate, so the notions of "true individualism" and "true collectivism" are not true in any sense. A collectivist interpretation of individualism are those that come from the mouths of collectivists, like Rousseau, Mao, and Mussolini, so we can take them at their word.

But if the individualist regards the individual as the primary unit of concern in any political society, he necessarily regards each individual in that way. He affords each individual primacy, rights, and as such a certain dignity. If the collectivist regards the individual as subordinate to the collective, he necessarily disregards the individual as the primary unit of concern, does not afford him rights, and denies him a certain dignity.

But if the individualist regards the individual as the primary unit of concern in any political society, he necessarily regards each individual in that way. — NOS4A2

Yes, but a political society is a collection of individuals who have an organized manner of interacting with others. That necessitates some level of collectivism. True individualism is merely a personal belief that cannot be enforced or mutual assurance. Individualism can only exist by the allowance of other individuals who ascribe to your personal beliefs. This is a collective decision.

Individualism in itself does not ascribe that other people must follow its precepts. Meaning you can define individualism for yourself as others have individual primacy, rights, and dignity. But another individualist could easy ascribe to the idea that others besides themselves have no individual primacy, rights, and dignity.

If you are referring to individualism as a collection of people who believe that individual primacy, rights, and dignity should be afforded to other people, that's still collectivist. It is inclusive of those who support individual primacy, rights, and dignities, while excluding those who do not agree with these. To say someone has a right, is to as a group deny any individual from removing that right from another. This requires a collective agreement.

If you believe individualism should not have any collective means of agreement, then it is just a personal opinion or ethic. Even then, you would accept only those who agreed with your viewpoint of individualism, and reject those who did not. If someone else impinged on your rights or individualism, you would be required to exclude that person from further interactions in your life to be consistent in your values.

I agree that individualism is a personal belief, but so is collectivism. And it is no collective decision if others accept either of these principles. These are personal, individual decisions made by real, flesh-and-blood human beings, not arbitrary and abstract groupings.

Any collection of people is a collection of individuals. Each of these individuals adopt beliefs and principles on their own accord, and not by any collective agreement.

It’s not true, I accept any individual to have his own beliefs and interests, and defend his right to have them, whether communist, fascist, theocratic, or any collectivist doctrine. What I do not accept is any individual to infringe on the rights of another individual, and this is the direct result of individualism, not collectivism.

I agree that individualism is a personal belief, but so is collectivism. And it is no collective decision if others accept either of these principles. These are personal, individual decisions made by real, flesh-and-blood human beings, not arbitrary and abstract groupings.

Any collection of people is a collection of individuals. Each of these individuals adopt beliefs and principles on their own accord, and not by any collective agreement. — NOS4A2

Yes, I agree. On top of that, we're now looking at the point of exclusion and inclusion. I see this as enforcement and non-enforcement. If I understood your meaning of collectivism you meant that it enforces its decisions by groups, rather then allowing individuals to do whatever they want. And so individualism would then be a person who creates their own ideology then enforces it how they personally desire. No one else will force them or save them from someone else unless of course another person just happens to agree.

I accept any individual to have his own beliefs and interests, and defend his right to have them, whether communist, fascist, theocratic, or any collectivist doctrine. What I do not accept is any individual to infringe on the rights of another individual, and this is the direct result of individualism, not collectivism. — NOS4A2

And this is my second point. You enforce your own ideology. You do not accept, or exclude others who do not match you precepts. But of course someone could have a view of individualism, because they are not shaped by a collectivist society, that includes and excludes different people. Collectivist societies are also varied as well. Being collectivist does not dictate what the group is collectivist about, just like being an individualist does not dictate what the individual is about. So one society could be highly inclusive, while another highly exclusive. The same for an individual.

Meaning that we cannot compare collectivism to individualism as a blanket statement and state that one is more inclusive or exclusive than another. Now, could we say that a highly inclusive individualism is more inclusive than a highly exclusive collectivist society? Yes. But the reverse can equally be claimed without contradiction. A highly inclusive collective would be more inclusive than a highly exclusive individualism.