Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My definition or an example of Individualism is that if some one is more talented than me, he should be able to make what he wants. I don't envy or demand he gives it to me. But as a collectivist , if someone is less talented than me, I can still contribute towards his well being.
I find the people who preach individualism amazing and amusing, especially the freedom and liberty BS . Even that is bound to collectivism.
If one is running a business , he still needs customers. Nothin can be done at an individual level. Even if you are sending an email, there must be someone to read it. Society or business itself is collectivist in nature.
There is a famous philosophy in the East- Everyone can be poor, but everyone cannot be rich. Natural laws doesnt allow that.
" Israelicollective settlement, usually agricultural and often also industrial, in which all wealth is held in common. Profits are reinvested in the settlement after members have been provided with food, clothing, and shelter and with social and medical services. Adults have private quarters, but children are generally housed and cared for as a group. Cooking and dining are in common.
"in Russian history, a self-governing community of peasant households that elected its own officials and controlled local forests, fisheries, hunting grounds, and vacant lands. To make taxes imposed on its members more equitable, the mir assumed communal control of the community’s arable land and periodically redistributed it among the households, according to their sizes (from 1720)."
I would think that African village would be another good example of it.
What "collectivism" has got to do with White America, is a mystery to me.
Check out these American collectivist societies of the past and present:
These are just terms Americans use to describe political philosophies.
I agree its ridiculous to call anything in this country 'collective' in a grand political scale, but this is the sort of language they use, usually to ridicule liberals. A better concept is community vs. the individual.
Conservatives are focused on the community well being, while liberals are focused on the individual well being.
Well there you go.
Then what you need to do, is to look closer at what "conservatism" really is - at least in US terms.
Quote:
The problem is conservatism isn't about the individual.
Oh but it IS.
It's all about a MALE individual, what serves his interest and his purpose.
The family?
He is a bread winner, so his wife should work around him.
Since he is self-sufficient, he really doesn't need the "extended family" around; the wife is there to take care of children while he is at work.
Religion?
Oh, Christianity of course, and THAT's what defines man's role and the role of his wife in the family.
The Church?
That's where you go on the week-end to socialize with the rest in the community and to organize whatever you need to organize - be that help for the needy or some roof repair for the neighbor.
So that's the basis of your conservative society - the family unit, and that's how it operates.
And this is basically the very foundation of America.
So of course the liberals would criticize someone like Romney, when he expressed his opinion in purely conservative terms;
Quote:
" Romney was criticized by liberals for identifying women as mothers, daughters, and wives because he did not highlight women as strong independent people."
However when it comes to "collectivism" - I already pointed at examples of it earlier.
It's not relevant to White America, and that's why all these "theories" out there is nothing but mental exercise, the kind of formulas that don't add up for a reason I mentioned above.
Sure, sure.
But they all came from ELSEWHERE and stayed as separate groups in the US precisely because they were not fitting in the mainstream America with their spirit of "collectivism."
Sure, sure.
But they all came from ELSEWHERE and stayed as separate groups in the US precisely because they were not fitting in the mainstream America with their spirit of "collectivism."
They are/were religious zealots who were persecuted in their ancestral lands. They came to these shores in pursuit of the religious freedom they could get nowhere else. Self-reliance and success at what they do are/were also major characteristics of their communities.
Those I say are mainstream American characteristics... collectivism being beside the point.
Both factions embrace both collective and individual goals in theory.
The difference is that the right defines groups according to vertical slices through society, binding classes in a single polity with geographic boundaries, in parallel with other polities.
The left defines groups according to horizontal slices through society, binding polities together in a single economy with class boundaries, with the classes colocated in space but not in interests.
In the US in the last 40 years, both the right and the left have emphasized the individualistic parts of their factional creeds. This atomized American society.
You could argue that atomization is good for individual liberation. "The anonymity of the metropolis" and all that.
But individuals get crushed by collective efforts. That is the point of social atomization, to empower the better-organized elements of society at the expense of the masses.
Our leaders are just people like you and me who are only different in their cravenness and a pathological command of human psychology. They aren't more talented or deserving. And yet the <0.1% of political leaders are able to boss around the other >99.9%. They are able to do this with divide-and-conquer tactics. Slicing up people into factions in whatever way and putting those factions against each other is simply a divide-and-conquer tactic.
They are/were religious zealots who were persecuted in their ancestral lands.
Most likely.
Quote:
They came to these shores in pursuit of the religious freedom they could get nowhere else.
Oh, some of them immigrated somewhere else in the "New World" I'm sure - (Bolivia, Paraguay come to mind.)
Just as long as they were left alone with their religious beliefs.
Quote:
Self-reliance and success at what they do are/were also major characteristics of their communities.
No, that's not their main characteristics.
Communal survival and adherence to their religious beliefs - that's more like it.
Quote:
Those I say are mainstream American characteristics... collectivism being beside the point.
What I've bolded - THAT's what "mainstream American characteristics" are.
And that's why Amish/Mennonites still resist assimilation.
Precisely because THEIR values are different.
Well there you go.
Then what you need to do, is to look closer at what "conservatism" really is - at least in US terms.
Oh but it IS.
It's all about a MALE individual, what serves his interest and his purpose.
The family?
He is a bread winner, so his wife should work around him.
Since he is self-sufficient, he really doesn't need the "extended family" around; the wife is there to take care of children while he is at work.
Religion?
Oh, Christianity of course, and THAT's what defines man's role and the role of his wife in the family.
The Church?
That's where you go on the week-end to socialize with the rest in the community and to organize whatever you need to organize - be that help for the needy or some roof repair for the neighbor.
So that's the basis of your conservative society - the family unit, and that's how it operates.
And this is basically the very foundation of America.
So of course the liberals would criticize someone like Romney, when he expressed his opinion in purely conservative terms;
However when it comes to "collectivism" - I already pointed at examples of it earlier.
It's not relevant to White America, and that's why all these "theories" out there is nothing but mental exercise, the kind of formulas that don't add up for a reason I mentioned above.
umm... I don't agree.
Yes religious orthodoxy can be very male dominant, but I think that's missing the point. Conservatism isn't just loyalty to one religious order, but to placement in society. The poor have a reason to be poor, the middle class serve their purpose, as do the rich. That is why class mobility or class equality breaks down that structure.
Admittedly most Americans who call themselves 'conservative' care more about the free markets than conservative ideas.
My ideal religion is one that is very weak and decentralize, so it doesn't have a strangle hold on individual communities. If a church is to entrenched and can be used to empower some individuals over others,, but again that is not its purpose.
The ironic thing is liberalism is all about the individual and freeing them up to determine their own path in life regardless of others. That leads to social isolation and selfishness, but it is also the corner stone of a free market economy.
Yes religious orthodoxy can be very male dominant, but I think that's missing the point. Conservatism isn't just loyalty to one religious order, but to placement in society. The poor have a reason to be poor, the middle class serve their purpose, as do the rich. That is why class mobility or class equality breaks down that structure.
In more generic terms;
1.
commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation.
In American terms:
2.
the holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.
I don't see anything about the "placement" there.
Quote:
Admittedly most Americans who call themselves 'conservative' care more about the free markets than conservative ideas.
Probably so.
They care more about their money and remaining on top of the social ladder than "conservative ideas" per se.
Quote:
My ideal religion is one that is very weak and decentralize, so it doesn't have a strangle hold on individual communities. If a church is to entrenched and can be used to empower some individuals over others,, but again that is not its purpose.
The ironic thing is liberalism is all about the individual and freeing them up to determine their own path in life regardless of others. That leads to social isolation and selfishness, but it is also the corner stone of a free market economy.
THIS does not make sense to me whatsoever.
The "corner stone" of the market economy is the kind of "liberalism" that sets you free from the oppression of kings and aristocracy, the one that tells you that "all men are born equal" in terms of abolishment of the system of the BIRTH rights, but it still doesn't set you free from the MONEY rights system.
And when you live in THAT system, you still find yourself adhering to the "conservative values" on one hand ( that is if you have money,) and "liberal" ( even more) left ideas in a SOCIAL sense of it.
But THIS kind of "liberalism" already has nothing to do with "individualism."
This is the kind of "liberalism" that already pulls towards the "collectivism."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
