Individualism vs collectivism

[j brown's body]

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.

So why not return them to their previous level? Maybe more.

 

[NatMorton]

So why not return them to their previous level? Maybe more.

The last time you got a raise did you choose to pay more for your internet service than your provider was willing to accept? You had the means to.

 

[Deuce]

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.

Yeah, we didn't become the apex predator of this deathworld by having big teeth or tough hide or the ability to run fast. We became the apex predator by developing the brain capacity for communication and coordination. And to make pointy sticks.

 

[Deuce]

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.

Yeah, that's why tax cuts for corporations don't make things better for workers or for consumers.

 

[j brown's body]

The last time you got a raise did you choose to pay more for your internet service than your provider was willing to accept? You had the means to.

I don't get the connection.

How could consumers afford goods when the corporate tax rate was 40%?

 

[Lisa]

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.

All of socialities accomplishments have come because of collective cooperation for a greater good that benefits human knowledge of survival. I have no problem with collectivism as long as basic individual rights, as such as are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, are protected from an abusive government in the form that the current GOP supports.

 

[NatMorton]

I don't get the connection.

How could consumers afford goods when the corporate tax rate was 40%?

I'll take that as a "No, I would not pay my internet service provider more money just because my disposable income has gone up."

The connection should be obvious, but I'll spell it out. Companies, just as you do you, act in their own self interest. Just as you see no need to give your internet provider more than you need to, companies see no need to lower prices any more than they have to.

Companies don't exist for your benefit. They don't exist for my benefit. They don't even exist for the benefit of their employees. They exist for the benefit of their owners, and to expect owners to act in a less self interested way than you would is not very realistic.

 

[Phys251]

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.

Individualism and collectivism must be balanced, not tipping too far to either side. Extreme individualism and extreme collectivism are both dangers to be avoided at all costs.

 

[calamity]

Individualism and collectivism must be balanced, not tipping too far to either side. Extreme individualism and extreme collectivism are both dangers to be avoided at all costs.

Sensible.

 

[NotreDame]

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

No, capitalism wasn’t the cause, people were the cause, people who lived and operated within a capitalist system. Your argument is parallel to blaming Socialism as the cause for the many thousands who died of starvation in Ukraine as Stalin required collectivation of their farmlands, known today as the Holdomor.

 

[calamity]

Some things belong to the commons. Water being chief among them. I'm not a fan of privatizing essentials.

Land rights, too, served as the seed sewn to drive the extermination of indigenous people the world over. Another bad concept that was, especially when the US army came around to protect the land grabbers.

 

[Masterhawk]

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.

The heart of the issue is that people are acting in their self interests in a manner that serves as a detriment to the collective. Rich people lobby for tax cuts which leads to a decrease in spending which leads to cuts in government programs. We also saw this during the pandemic with many people not social distancing. If you look at the Eastern Asian countries, you will see that they did a really good job keeping cases low.

 

[Craig234]

The heart of the issue is that people are acting in their self interests in a manner that serves as a detriment to the collective. Rich people lobby for tax cuts which leads to a decrease in spending which leads to cuts in government programs. We also saw this during the pandemic with many people not social distancing. If you look at the Eastern Asian countries, you will see that they did a really good job keeping cases low.

You're right, but kind of missing the point of my post. That's the goal of democracy to allow 'the people' to have 'the system' do more for the public good; people volunteering to act in the public good when it costs them usually doesn't happen. Remember we tried a more 'volunteer' country with the 'articles of confederation' before we created the US and had to abandon it? But our democracy is pretty corrupted.

 

[j brown's body]

The heart of the issue is that people are acting in their self interests in a manner that serves as a detriment to the collective. Rich people lobby for tax cuts which leads to a decrease in spending which leads to cuts in government programs. We also saw this during the pandemic with many people not social distancing. If you look at the Eastern Asian countries, you will see that they did a really good job keeping cases low.

Indeed. People acting without regard to the consequences on their fellow humans and the world we live in for the purpose of personal profit is just not freedom. The markets may be free, but the people are tge world are slaves to it - even those who are financially successful, because, among other reasons people, enough is never enough.

 

[j brown's body]

No, capitalism wasn’t the cause, people were the cause, people who lived and operated within a capitalist system. Your argument is parallel to blaming Socialism as the cause for the many thousands who died of starvation in Ukraine as Stalin required collectivation of their farmlands, known today as the Holdomor.

Not really. The profit motive and free market is what put kids in the mines.

 

[Masterhawk]

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

There's nothing inherently marxist about collectivism. If there's any underlying ideology behind marxism, it's that everything should be distributed from each according to their ability to each according to their needs. Fascism is also a form of collectivism and it's very much opposed to what marxists stand for.

The thing about conservatism is that it conserves society's underlying values. For the US, one of them is individualism. In Asia, conservatives are probably more collectivistic than the social justice groups.

 

[OrphanSlug]

These arguments, trying to hang onto the textbook definitions of individualism and collectivism, are always dubious and often ridiculous.

No matter which of the many definitions someone clings to neither individualism or collectivism on their exclusive own have any application to more modern societies and economies around the globe. Many nations grew up and realized there were principles from both concepts that can apply, at the same time, and give a sort of cohesion to the equation that neither one in the extreme is ever capable of.

Just like the concept of mixed model economics where the principles of market economics are there to throttle the principles of planned economics and vice versa, the same story is true of modern societies using a mixed application of individual liberties within a society with collective principles. It is not to necessarily get caught up on a debate between the two but apply what you can from both to deal with the pitfalls of either one on their own.

By a similar tone, on a long enough timeline strict capitalism will kill itself just as strict socialism will and the same is true of some interpretation of strict individualism or strict collectivism. You could argue rather well that both individualism and collectivism in the extreme on their own are inherently cruel and determined to experience some sort of failure.

Despite the hype there is no such thing as “rugged individualism” anymore, perhaps a rare exception every now and then but I would still argue they are not entirely on their own. But there is also no real example of collectivism in the extreme either. Someone and their form of government is at the top and enjoying, quite well, the benefits of that extreme.

It is simply stupid now to have some discussion on the merit of one or the other as if you have light switch choice between the two.

A principle of either one we should discuss in terms of benefit, but the whole of either one is a dead as strict capitalism and strict socialism.

 

[NatMorton]

There's nothing inherently marxist about collectivism. If there's any underlying ideology behind marxism, it's that everything should be distributed from each according to their ability to each according to their needs. Fascism is also a form of collectivism and it's very much opposed to what marxists stand for.

The thing about conservatism is that it conserves society's underlying values. For the US, one of them is individualism. In Asia, conservatives are probably more collectivistic than the social justice groups.

Sorry, no. Collectivism is at the core of Marxism. It doesn’t get more collectivist than “the workers” owning the means of production.

And yes, Marxism and Fascism do share more than is commonly believed.

 

[NatMorton]

These arguments, trying to hang onto the textbook definitions of individualism and collectivism, are always dubious and often ridiculous.

No matter which of the many definitions someone clings to neither individualism or collectivism on their exclusive own have any application to more modern societies and economies around the globe. Many nations grew up and realized there were principles from both concepts that can apply, at the same time, and give a sort of cohesion to the equation that neither one in the extreme is ever capable of.

Just like the concept of mixed model economics where the principles of market economics are there to throttle the principles of planned economics and vice versa, the same story is true of modern societies using a mixed application of individual liberties within a society with collective principles. It is not to necessarily get caught up on a debate between the two but apply what you can from both to deal with the pitfalls of either one on their own.

By a similar tone, on a long enough timeline strict capitalism will kill itself just as strict socialism will and the same is true of some interpretation of strict individualism or strict collectivism. You could argue rather well that both individualism and collectivism in the extreme on their own are inherently cruel and determined to experience some sort of failure.

Despite the hype there is no such thing as “rugged individualism” anymore, perhaps a rare exception every now and then but I would still argue they are not entirely on their own. But there is also no real example of collectivism in the extreme either. Someone and their form of government is at the top and enjoying, quite well, the benefits of that extreme.

It is simply stupid now to have some discussion on the merit of one or the other as if you have light switch choice between the two.

A principle of either one we should discuss in terms of benefit, but the whole of either one is a dead as strict capitalism and strict socialism.

No one here is arguing for either extreme, and certainly points on the spectrum between the two are not all equal. Therefore it is useful to discuss both individualism and collectivism and how much of each we think are best.

 

[soylentgreen]

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.

Then you are wrong. The move from rural farming to over crowded city slums was not an improvement. Your idea of improvement is they swapped one master for another.

The working conditions for people stayed very poor until mid twentieth centuary. America itself had some of the most lethal workers strikes in history. Yet your workers are still poorly treated compared to other countries such as mine.

While I can accept the notion that capitalist society is an improvement over the feudalist society that preceded capitalism. Conditions for the working class did not improve and in fact decreased in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Even today despite america having some of the most bloodiest attacks on striking workers the working conditions are still among the poorest. What actually changed things for the working class was the development of the (wait for it, drum role) the left. When political parties that represented the working class interests instead of just catering to the land and money elite.

 

[Masterhawk]

Sorry, no. Collectivism is at the core of Marxism. It doesn’t get more collectivist than “the workers” owning the means of production.

And yes, Marxism and Fascism do share more than is commonly believed.

I didn't say that there was noting collectivist about marxism, I said that there was nothing inherently marxist about collectivism. In other words, marxism is a subset of collectivism. But there are right leaning ideologies which are collectivistic.

 

[phoenix2020]

I suspect that societies without a lot of internal turmoil and strife (e.g. war on our soil) will tend toward individualism because by and large they can afford it. A foreign nation isn't currently bombing American cities, so as a resident of one of those cities I don't actually depend on my neighbor for survival, or need to act for the greater good of the community beyond the bare minimum. If bombs started to drop, most of us would drop our "rough individualist" attitudes and chip in to (a) survive (b) repel the invaders.

The United States has not actually had to endure that level of turmoil since the 1860s. Very few of the modern societies we have today can say the same. Virtually all were affected deeply and domestically by either world wars fought on their soil, the impact of colonialism coming then going, or major cultural and political revolutions. The entire time, the U.S. has basically operated much as it always has, so we're able to sit pretty with our rugged individualism

 

[OrphanSlug]

No one here is arguing for either extreme, and certainly points on the spectrum between the two are not all equal. Therefore it is useful to discuss both individualism and collectivism and how much of each we think are best.

Assuming you are willing to do that...

 

[j brown's body]

I didn't say that there was noting collectivist about marxism, I said that there was nothing inherently marxist about collectivism. In other words, marxism is a subset of collectivism. But there are right leaning ideologies which are collectivistic.

You won't find a more collectivist group than the Catholic Church.

 

[bave]

Individualism and collectivism must be balanced, not tipping too far to either side. Extreme individualism and extreme collectivism are both dangers to be avoided at all costs.

One would think that the most progressive tax code in the world, combined with progressive and means tested entitlement programs, might do just that. The problem is those who want to collect(ivism) always want more from the people providing.