Individualism vs collectivism

[Masterhawk]

You might have heard these two words before. They center around whether society places emphasis on the individual or society as a whole.

Individualism is often associated with freedom. After all, authoritarian states tend to justify the curbing of freedoms by saying that it's for the greater good of society. The underlying idea behind individualism is that everyone should be themselves. Capitalism is based on this principle as the economy is in private hands. Pro capitalism advocates point out that the free market allows people's needs to be met. As Adam Smith put it:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages

The problem becomes when people act in their self interests at the expense of society. One example would be externalities.

Adam Smith also had this to say

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

If there's one thing he opposed more than any other, it was rent seeking which is when people increase their wealth without creating it (in other words, they took it from someone else). Examples include lobbying for laws that favor you at the expense of others, engaging in anti-competitive practices which put competitors out of business, living off of government handouts when you're capable of working, and accepting bribes. Rent seeking is basically stealing from society. Smith pointed out that people will seek to increase their wealth and take the path of least resistance to do so. If that path is one that involves knowing the right people or living on handouts, they're gonna be less likely to produce wealth.

This is not to say that individualism itself is problematic but rather that hyperindividualism, the lack of the recognition of a collective good, leads to problems. This is a big problem with the American conservative midset. They only see things through an individualist lens and are less likely to see things through a systemic lens. Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no such thing as society. Ayn Rand took it much further and stated that not only does the collective good not exist but also that it is immoral to be selfless.

Of course, there are issues with taking collectivism too far such as leaving no room for individual freedom. in order to have a good society, we need a balance.

 

[soylentgreen]

You do realise that those quotes refer to a social and economic system that no longer exists in first world countries at least. Although I have to admit smiths description of the entitled class fits well with your own former president.

And thus, for the gratification of the most childish, the meanest, and the most sordid of all vanities, they gradually bartered their whole power and authority.

And under capitalism britain saw some of the worse examples of exploitation by an elite class system of blood and land.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Thing is, the entire secret of human success since we stood upright has been cooperation.

Margaret Meade defined the moment civilization began as "The first time someone with a broken leg survived long enough to heal," because that is not something you can survive without help.

"Rugged individualism" is just doing "human" wrong.

 

[Craig234]

No offense, but this is a simplistic framing. And that lends itself to distorted conclusions; imagine I discussed pets with only two options, their being 'free' in the wild or abused by a master.

Of course a balance is needed, but that hides the real issues in how that balance is done. A lot of tyranny can be hidden under claims, and the claim of 'public good' can be justified or not.

It helps more to simply recognize that a more healthy distribution of wealth is, and how the system is rigged to obtain a given distribution, good or bad, and the obstacles to changing it. For example, right now Biden raised the topic of increasing corporate taxes, and Republicans made that their top priority to block.

Right now, we have an extreme concentration of wealth, increasing the last 40 years. 'Individualism' and 'Collectivism' don't really answer the issues.

 

[Moot]

You might have heard these two words before. They center around whether society places emphasis on the individual or society as a whole.

Individualism is often associated with freedom. After all, authoritarian states tend to justify the curbing of freedoms by saying that it's for the greater good of society. The underlying idea behind individualism is that everyone should be themselves. Capitalism is based on this principle as the economy is in private hands. Pro capitalism advocates point out that the free market allows people's needs to be met. As Adam Smith put it:


The problem becomes when people act in their self interests at the expense of society. One example would be externalities.

Adam Smith also had this to say

If there's one thing he opposed more than any other, it was rent seeking which is when people increase their wealth without creating it (in other words, they took it from someone else). Examples include lobbying for laws that favor you at the expense of others, engaging in anti-competitive practices which put competitors out of business, living off of government handouts when you're capable of working, and accepting bribes. Rent seeking is basically stealing from society. Smith pointed out that people will seek to increase their wealth and take the path of least resistance to do so. If that path is one that involves knowing the right people or living on handouts, they're gonna be less likely to produce wealth.

This is not to say that individualism itself is problematic but rather that hyperindividualism, the lack of the recognition of a collective good, leads to problems. This is a big problem with the American conservative midset. They only see things through an individualist lens and are less likely to see things through a systemic lens. Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no such thing as society. Ayn Rand took it much further and stated that not only does the collective good not exist but also that it is immoral to be selfless.

Of course, there are issues with taking collectivism too far such as leaving no room for individual freedom. in order to have a good society, we need a balance.

Are you familiar with Geoism?

Georgism...aka...geoism[2] and known historically as the single tax movement is an economic ideology holding that, although people should own the value they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land – including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations – should belong equally to all members of society.[3][4][5]

"Georgist economic theory describes rent-seeking in terms of land rent, where the value of land largely comes from government infrastructure and services (e.g. roads, public schools, maintenance of peace and order, etc.)..."​

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism​

​

​

 

[tshade]

You might have heard these two words before. They center around whether society places emphasis on the individual or society as a whole.

Individualism is often associated with freedom. After all, authoritarian states tend to justify the curbing of freedoms by saying that it's for the greater good of society. The underlying idea behind individualism is that everyone should be themselves. Capitalism is based on this principle as the economy is in private hands. Pro capitalism advocates point out that the free market allows people's needs to be met. As Adam Smith put it:


The problem becomes when people act in their self interests at the expense of society. One example would be externalities.

Adam Smith also had this to say

If there's one thing he opposed more than any other, it was rent seeking which is when people increase their wealth without creating it (in other words, they took it from someone else). Examples include lobbying for laws that favor you at the expense of others, engaging in anti-competitive practices which put competitors out of business, living off of government handouts when you're capable of working, and accepting bribes. Rent seeking is basically stealing from society. Smith pointed out that people will seek to increase their wealth and take the path of least resistance to do so. If that path is one that involves knowing the right people or living on handouts, they're gonna be less likely to produce wealth.

This is not to say that individualism itself is problematic but rather that hyperindividualism, the lack of the recognition of a collective good, leads to problems. This is a big problem with the American conservative midset. They only see things through an individualist lens and are less likely to see things through a systemic lens. Margaret Thatcher once said that there is no such thing as society. Ayn Rand took it much further and stated that not only does the collective good not exist but also that it is immoral to be selfless.

Of course, there are issues with taking collectivism too far such as leaving no room for individual freedom. in order to have a good society, we need a balance.

We need a mix

 

[Underestimated]

In the current social environment, in the U.S. at least, many "woke" view individualism as a white oppression and a form of purveying racist power structures.

[Critical] movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The ideal of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow. [Sensoy, Ozlem; DiAngelo, Robin, "Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education", first edition. Teacher’s College Press: New York, 2012, p. 5.]

All the dominant ideologies in society support willful ignorance. The ideologies of meritocracy, equal opportunity, individualism, and human nature we described above play a powerful role in denying the “current” and insisting that society is just. [Ibid., Teacher’s College Press: New York, 2012, p. 74.]

 

[aociswundumho]

And under capitalism britain saw some of the worse examples of exploitation by an elite class system of blood and land.

As Milton Friedman used to point out, that was the time when living standards rose the fastest.

 

[aociswundumho]

It helps more to simply recognize that a more healthy distribution of wealth is, and how the system is rigged to obtain a given distribution, good or bad, and the obstacles to changing it. For example, right now Biden raised the topic of increasing corporate taxes, and Republicans made that their top priority to block.

Raising corporate taxes enriches the state, it doesn't change the distribution of wealth, and a good part of those taxes are simply passed on to consumers.

 

[ataraxia]

We need a mix

Yes- just as a possibly interesting minor aside: I was reading about the two big French existential philosophers of the post-war period: Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre. Both were fascinating figures, and good friends, with a very similar philosophy. But they eventually had a falling out over a very similar issue of the primacy of human freedom (Sartre), vs the need to balance freedom with justice (Camus).

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This is not an easy philosophical question, and it may not have an easy ultimate answer.

Both freedom and justice are important ideals. But who said there should be a perfect way to balance both without compromise? A lot of things are like that in life- like how much to work vs spend time with family? Whether to pursue work you love vs work which pays well? There are no easy answers. The British post-war philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin has written very eloquently on this. The best one can do is acknowledge that there is no perfect way to balance such clashing, but equally legitimate desires and ideals.

But there are certainly better and worse, smarter and dumber ways to do it. Intelligence, judgment, knowledge of the particular details and contingencies of the situation at hand, really do matter. But sometimes it is therapeutic to know there are no perfect answers you are missing out on.

I will post some interesting quotes from Isaiah Berlin on this in the next post.

 

[NatMorton]

For example, right now Biden raised the topic of increasing corporate taxes, and Republicans made that their top priority to block.

Talk about simplistic framing.

Ultimately, corporations don’t pay taxes. Their customers do in the form of higher prices. And since lower income individuals pay a far higher percentage of their income on goods and services, a “corporate” tax can quickly become a highly regressive pass through tax on those least able to pay it.

But hey, at least we would have redistributed that “corporate wealth,” right?

 

[j brown's body]

Freedom is too tied to materialism - associated with owning stuff and having free time. Individualism and freedom are sold as being able to do whatever you want. That puts an economic spin on it - the haves are free and their needs are met, and the have nots are not free and are trapped in a world of making ends meet. Our prosperity depends upon it! Really, neither are free. Its an illusion. We're slaves of the markets. You might inherit your way out. But you're still tied to it.

Thoreau, among others, showed us a better way.

 

[ataraxia]

Interesting quotes from Sir Isaiah Berlin on why there might not be a perfect answer to this human dilemma, and why maybe it’s best to just acknowledge that:

“Liberty and justice, spontaneity and security, happiness and knowledge, mercy and justice - all these are ultimate human values, sought for themselves alone; yet often they are fundamentally incompatible; it they cannot all be attained, choices must be made, sometimes tragic losses accepted in the pursuit of some preferred ultimate end.“

“ If you are truly convinced that there is some single easy solution to all human problems and dilemmas [freedom, collective good, pure free market capitalism, communism, etc...], that one can conceive an ideal society which men can reach if only they do what is necessary to attain it, then you and your followers must believe that no price can be too high to pay in order to open the gates of such a paradise. Only the stupid and malevolent will resist once certain simple truths are put to them. Those who resist must be persuaded; if they cannot be persuaded, laws must be passed to restrain them; if that does not work, then coercion, if need be violence, will inevitably have to be used—if necessary, terror, slaughter.”

“Liberty is liberty; not equality or fairness or justice or human happiness or a quiet conscience.”

“Both liberty and justice are among the primary goals pursued by human beings throughout many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs, total liberty of the powerful, the gifted, is not compatible with the rights to a decent existence of the weak and the less gifted.”

“One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the alter of the great historical ideas - justice or progress or happiness of future generations... or emancipation of a nation or race or class... this is the belief that somewhere... there is a final solution.“

“I can see how, with enough false education, enough widespread illusion and error, men can, while remaining men, believe this and commit the most unspeakable crimes.“

 

[soylentgreen]

As Milton Friedman used to point out, that was the time when living standards rose the fastest.

Absolute rubbish. I am not sure what time period you are referring too but I was referring to the times of adam smith during the industrial revolution. Britain committed some of the worst industrial conditions for workers. The only period worse than that is americas own times of industrial war which went on all during the nineteenth centuary.

 

[NatMorton]

Freedom is too tied to materialism - associated with owning stuff and having free time. Individualism and freedom are sold as being able to do whatever you want. That puts an economic spin on it - the haves are free and their needs are met, and the have nots are not free and are trapped in a world of making ends meet. Our prosperity depends upon it! Really, neither are free. Its an illusion. We're slaves of the markets. You might inherit your way out. But you're still tied to it.

Thoreau, among others, showed us a better way.

And with this comment we have the essence of collectivism (i.e. of Marxism): telling you what's wrong with your freedom.

 

[j brown's body]

And with this comment we have the essence of collectivism (i.e. of Marxism): telling you what's wrong with your freedom.

Don't kid yourself. Marxism is just as materialistic as capitalism.

 

[j brown's body]

As the great judge Learned Hand pointed out in his classic Spirit of Liberty speech:

"And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest."

Supreme Court Cases

Explore First Amendment court cases, opinions, overview essays, academic discussions, and more to learn about the culture and law of free speech in the United States.

www.thefire.org

 

[calamity]

Talk about simplistic framing.

Ultimately, corporations don’t pay taxes. Their customers do in the form of higher prices. ...

Uh, no. Taxes are paid on profits. No one bakes taxes on profit into their price of goods. If they did, they'd lose out to the competition, which only focuses on the margin between cost and sales price. Tax on profit is not a "cost."

You should read up on economics and price-setting. Seriously.

 

[aociswundumho]

Absolute rubbish. I am not sure what time period you are referring too but I was referring to the times of adam smith during the industrial revolution.

That is precisely the time I am referring to.

Britain committed some of the worst industrial conditions for workers. The only period worse than that is americas own times of industrial war which went on all during the nineteenth centuary.

The working conditions were better than the alternative, which at the time was subsistence farming.

What improved working conditions was capitalism and the wealth creation it provides.

 

[Deuce]

As Milton Friedman used to point out, that was the time when living standards rose the fastest.

Did someone tell that to the six year olds working in coal mining?

 

[Deuce]

That is precisely the time I am referring to.



The working conditions were better than the alternative, which at the time was subsistence farming.

What improved working conditions was capitalism and the wealth creation it provides.

Capitalism was the cause of child labor, government was the end of it.

 

[j brown's body]

That is precisely the time I am referring to.



The working conditions were better than the alternative, which at the time was subsistence farming.

What improved working conditions was capitalism and the wealth creation it provides.

Narrow thinking leads to a narrow set of alternatives.

 

[NatMorton]

Uh, no. Taxes are paid on profits. No one bakes taxes on profit into their price of goods.

It's just hard to explain how ignorant this statement is.

Taxes, like utilities and like labor, are a cost of doing business. It doesn't matter where our how the tax is applied, in order maintain profit margins a business's costs must be matched by revenue. If costs go up, so must revenue, or the business risks no longer be viable or being an attractive option for capital.

 

[j brown's body]

It's just hard to explain how ignorant this statement is.

Taxes, like utilities and like labor, are a cost of doing business. It doesn't matter where our how the tax is applied, in order maintain profit margins a business's costs must be matched by revenue. If costs go up, so must revenue, or the business risks no longer be viable or being an attractive option for capital.

Just curious. With the big corporate tax cuts, why didn't prices go down?

 

[NatMorton]

Just curious. With the big corporate tax cuts, why didn't prices go down?

We don't know that they didn't, and even if they went up we don't know whether the increase was less than it would have but for the tax cuts.

But let's stipulate your point for the sake of this discussion and assume prices could have been lowered while maintaining needed margins and were not. The most likely answer is that the prices didn't go down because they didn't need to go down to maximize return. A price floor is, in part, a function of a business's cost base. A price ceiling is not influenced by costs. As a general rule, after costs are covered a price is set by demand.