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.
Ignore the title of the article above, the actual notes are about liberal individualism and conservative collectivism.
The problem is conservatism isn't about the individual. Its about different social hierarchies: your family, community, religion, nation-state, or in other words your association to others.
This I'd say is the case in America as well. Romney was criticized by liberals for identifying women as mothers, daughters, and wives because he did not highlight women as strong independent people.
Liberals are obsessed with individualism; the groups they speak for, blacks, LGBTQ, or immigrants are not discussed as a way to collectivize them, but as a means to give everyone equal rights as an individual regardless of your place in society. These rights being the right to do whatever you want and be whoever you want. Its about freedom of lifestyle, something conservatives scorn. The conservatives say everyone has a purpose and should act for the greater good, the liberal says people are free and independent souls who should have the right to pursue whatever lifestyle they wish. There is nothing about demographic stability and the needs of mother-childbearing, fatherhood, or the responsibilities of the different social classes.
Liberalism to its extreme wants to destroy wealth classes not because they hate the rich, but because anyone should be allowed to be part of the responsibilities placed on different classes. There is no concept of social order, but creative chaos. They lionize single mother households or deviant social behavior because they want to promote the idea of equal rights for people to be who and what they want. Whether that is living the life of a transgender, being part of a gay club, working at a business empire or an art studio, people are their best when they are freed from the constraints of social responsibility.
That is why extreme liberalism disregards the country and promotes globalism, because people are separate from the state. I think liberalism is a selfish ideology that is the best promoter of capitalism, but I don't particularly love traditional conservatism either.
My point is that just because conservatives want to pay less taxes to lower overhead in their business, or liberals want to pay more to liberalize poor people or blacks to be whoever they want to be, doesn't make conservatives individualists or liberals collectivists, but the exact opposite.
Ok, first of all, Medium is a horrible place for news and logical discussion. For a long time I used Medium as a more liberal source for balance, but I got to the point I could not stand them. It seems they let anyone who has an OPINION write for them. To me, this article is just another example of some liberal who has overthought themselves to try to sound intelligent. They get paid for articles, so you have all these mostly young writers tripping over themselves to sound bright.
Having said that, I think this writer is confused as to what individualism and collectivism means, or they are trying to rewrite its meaning (overthink it). It also irritates me that liberals like this writer always try to make everything black and white (not in the race sense but one or the other sense). This is a perfect example. In some instances, conservatives display more collectivism traits, but mostly individualism. The opposite is true for liberals, mostly collectivism but sometimes individualism HOWEVER in THEORY ONLY. Reality does not play out that way!
The problem with modern collectivism which gets so much praise from the Left, is that it really is not collectivism in the sense they use it. People in collectivist society don't really care "that much" about others. It's more of a family thing, they care about those closest, but they are still very individualistic when it comes to personal success and protecting their family. Also, collectivism is not the same as what they have in China or North Korea, which is forced collectivism. Even when it is forced, it isn't really true collectivism. Heck, North Korean's will tell on their neighbor for doing something that isn't "state sanctioned" to get some benefit.
In reality, the paradise of collectivism that is often imagined by the hard Left is a hoax.
Yea, I always found it weird that modern day Right-wingers think of themselves as defenders of individual rights but then they all spout the same talking points from few media sources all in unison like a Borg collective.
Ok, first of all, Medium is a horrible place for news and logical discussion. For a long time I used Medium as a more liberal source for balance, but I got to the point I could not stand them. It seems they let anyone who has an OPINION write for them. To me, this article is just another example of some liberal who has overthought themselves to try to sound intelligent. They get paid for articles, so you have all these mostly young writers tripping over themselves to sound bright.
Having said that, I think this writer is confused as to what individualism and collectivism means, or they are trying to rewrite its meaning (overthink it). It also irritates me that liberals like this writer always try to make everything black and white (not in the race sense but one or the other sense). This is a perfect example. In some instances, conservatives display more collectivism traits, but mostly individualism. The opposite is true for liberals, mostly collectivism but sometimes individualism HOWEVER in THEORY ONLY. Reality does not play out that way!
The problem with modern collectivism which gets so much praise from the Left, is that it really is not collectivism in the sense they use it. People in collectivist society don't really care "that much" about others. It's more of a family thing, they care about those closest, but they are still very individualistic when it comes to personal success and protecting their family. Also, collectivism is not the same as what they have in China or North Korea, which is forced collectivism. Even when it is forced, it isn't really true collectivism. Heck, North Korean's will tell on their neighbor for doing something that isn't "state sanctioned" to get some benefit.
In reality, the paradise of collectivism that is often imagined by the hard Left is a hoax.
The article isn't important, read what I wrote.
Many Americans conservatives have betrayed the foundational spirit of conservatism. They take more from Ayn Rand than Jesus Christ.
The problem is the Milton Friedman breed of conservatives are only interested in the stock market and derivatives market, which is globally inclined. They wrote about libertarianism to mean freedom of capital to buy up shares in local businesses and globalize the labor force.
That is not conservatism. The libertarianism you think of, Jefferson/Protestant work ethic is about communities and local businesses thriving separate from the government, not community businesses being owned and operated by angel investors in wall street New York shipping specialized grains exclusivly to big supplier in China to process meat that goes to markets in India.
That is not conservatism, but the problem is as capitalism developed into private equity firms and financial speculation, American conservatives betrayed their ideology for money.
A state that is authoritarian is communist only in how much it wants to remove wealth classes from society but conservative in how much they want their citizens to worship the state.
Conservatism has always been about constraining the individual with social responsibility and separate classes to create a more cohesive society.
Liberalism is about freeing the individual from social hierarchies and allowing them to be and do whatever they want (free expression). This ironically works better with capitalism because it promotes income mobility and a lack of hereditary exchange making the economy more 'dynamic' and 'destructive'. These are things a conservative should hate, yet many are obsessed with the 'free markets'.
On the other side liberalism has always been about the individual, they have no care for social groups that aren't voluntary. They want people to be free to pursue wealth and happiness with no care about others in society that they choose not to associate with. Taxes and welfare or reparations are used to equalize society so all can be individuals rather than be tied down by economic or political demands.
They believe that a person should be free to do whatever they want, and insofar as a communist dictatorship opposes that possibility, they are less liberal and more conservative.
In reality, the paradise of collectivism that is often imagined by the hard Left is a hoax.
Alas so is the righty tighty Reagan fantasy of the "shining city on the hill". What he neglected to mention is that shining city cant exist without bunch slaves (low paid wage slaves or otherwise) to build and service it. You cant have an aristocracy without the peasants. Cause heaven forbid the aristocracy has to wipe their own butt.
Capitalism is a big lie implying everybody can be an Indian Chief, when in actuality they really mean a few lucky white skinned men born with a silver spoon stuck up their ass can be Indian Chief if they try real hard. Alas meritocracy itself is a big lie. So capitalism is a big HOAX also.
Those with sense of reality realize short of winning some mega lottery they arent going to be super wealthy, yet capitalism keeps holding out that illusive carrot for those foolish enough to chase it.
The problem is conservatism isn't about the individual. Its about different social hierarchies: your family, community, religion, nation-state, or in other words your association to others.
Liberals are obsessed with individualism; the groups they speak for, blacks, LGBTQ, or immigrants are not discussed as a way to collectivize them, but as a means to give everyone equal rights as an individual regardless of your place in society.
Correct.
Quote:
These rights being the right to do whatever you want and be whoever you want. Its about freedom of lifestyle, something conservatives scorn. The conservatives say everyone has a purpose and should act for the greater good, the liberal says people are free and independent souls who should have the right to pursue whatever lifestyle they wish. There is nothing about demographic stability and the needs of mother-childbearing, fatherhood, or the responsibilities of the different social classes.
Correct, but there is an ommission here.
Liberals are not only social individualists, but they are violently hostile against group social institutions like church, family, ethnic community, etc. (when given the opportunity - see the forced social liberalism of the communists).
Moreover, their values, such as the freedom to use drugs, further work to damage the above instiutions. Which I believe is the purpose.
So, it isn't correct to say that liberals champion free association or individualism. What they champion is forced dissacociation and forced individualism. In the extremist socially liberal society, individualism is not just a choice but a violently enforced mandate.
At first the mandate is enforced passively and culturally (shame on you wad are ya, a collectivist!! When do you think they will be able to reanimate the corpse of Ayn Rand??)
Later, that same individualism is enforced by rifles.
The purpose is to destroy grassroots political power that always must begin at the level of the nuclear family and extends from there into a socially unified community.
Political power arises from shared values, shared functional behaviors, and shared goals that all work to promote political cooperation (political power).
Individualized (socially fractured) communities all contain widely varying values, functional and often markedly dysfunctional behaviors, and different goals.
Theferefore widespread, consistent, and functional political cooperation becomes impossible to manage in the individualistic community - especially over generations and in comparison with socially homogeneous communities of high functioning individuals.
Because it lacks the fundamental framework form which to build meaningful and unassisted political power, the socially individualistic community signifies the elimination of and meaningful political challenge to the totalitarian State.
This will always be a State that is helmed by people foreign to the groups that are being forced to socially liberalize (and disintegrate as unified social entities).
This is the core function of social liberalism: to disintegrate the political power of the People at the grassroots level.
Liberalism is a weapon of an overclass against its enemies.
It is nothing else, as it has the opposite effect of building political power.
All legitimate political systems must be able to build structural political power. Social liberalism's primary purpose is to break down the fundamental structures that create political power.
Today, liberals only have as much political power as the media gives them. They have none on their own, as whenever the media ceases protection and their leadership dissolves then so will they. Those conditions do not signify a legitimate political system or Power.
Legitimate systems are powerful because of the unified beahviors and cooperation of their members (the community), over generations.
Liberals can barely keep from splintering off into any number of different interest groups, most which hate one another and more resemble nationalist groups than anything else (unified in culture, ethnicity, values, behaviors etc).
They are only "liberal" in that they have different identity from the traditional majority natiionalist groups.
But their structure is more similar to those nationalist groups than it is a the conglomerate of individualists that corporate liberalism presents itself as.
What these minority groups want is essentially their own nation but, sometimes and at their worst, to subjugate the majority (they would not be stasfied merely with their own effective nation, but would want to prevent others from their own effective nations).
It takes every effort of the media to keep corporate liberalism from splitting into every manner of special interest group (effective nation).
Liberalism is nothing but a congolemerate of minority nationalist groups, led by a strong nationalist group and that is used against that group's enemies.
The "middle ground" people that believe in a true socially liberal ideal, wherein everyone would have both freedom of association and freedom on individualization, is so small so as to be inconsequential.
It is mostly post WWII boomers and their kids who drunk that particular kool aid in that period when corporate liberalism was attempting to change Conservatism from an ethnic nationalist ethic to one that mirrored a less intense form of social liberalism.
Their politics are incomplete and do not work in reality. Which is why virtually no one champions them except gatekeepers who try to keep the Right from going full bore Nationalist.
Quote:
Liberalism to its extreme wants to destroy wealth classes not because they hate the rich, but because anyone should be allowed to be part of the responsibilities placed on different classes.
The part that I bolded is too unclear to comment on.
"Anyone should be allowed" implies "forced dissolution" of social requirements for membership at the point of a gun.
Which does not seem like the ideal of a classical liberal, but of a communist who wants to destroy social insitutions by dissolving their definitions.
Quote:
There is no concept of social order, but creative chaos.
"Creative chaos" is a meaningfull buzzword for children. It doesn't mean anything.
Insofar as I do you the favor aof assigning meaning to it that I believe that you assign to it, "creative chaos" is what we had before civilization.
That "creative chaos" then led to civilization. The creation.
Under what justification, other than that of a power hungry group who wants to destroy society so that they can take over rulership of it, should we make society "chaotic" to recreate it?
It was already created out of chaos. There is no justification to destroy it and return to the horrors and violence of what were before it.
Quote:
They lionize single mother households or deviant social behavior because they want to promote the idea of equal rights for people to be who and what they want.
What they want to do is destroy the social institutions that breed emotionally stable, competent individuals and cohesive communities: so that political power is destroyed at the grassroots level.
Quote:
My point is that just because conservatives want to pay less taxes to lower overhead in their business, or liberals want to pay more to liberalize poor people or blacks to be whoever they want to be, doesn't make conservatives individualists or liberals collectivists, but the exact opposite.
Correct.
Politics is defined purely in the social shpere and by functional social institutions. In contrast, economic policy is like a 3 iron in a golf bag that can be used in whatever manner best suits the particular global economic conditions in order to further the prosperity and political power of the nationalist group.
Ignore the title of the article above, the actual notes are about liberal individualism and conservative collectivism.
The problem is conservatism isn't about the individual. Its about different social hierarchies: your family, community, religion, nation-state, or in other words your association to others.
This I'd say is the case in America as well. Romney was criticized by liberals for identifying women as mothers, daughters, and wives because he did not highlight women as strong independent people.
Liberals are obsessed with individualism; the groups they speak for, blacks, LGBTQ, or immigrants are not discussed as a way to collectivize them, but as a means to give everyone equal rights as an individual regardless of your place in society. These rights being the right to do whatever you want and be whoever you want. Its about freedom of lifestyle, something conservatives scorn. The conservatives say everyone has a purpose and should act for the greater good, the liberal says people are free and independent souls who should have the right to pursue whatever lifestyle they wish. There is nothing about demographic stability and the needs of mother-childbearing, fatherhood, or the responsibilities of the different social classes.
Liberalism to its extreme wants to destroy wealth classes not because they hate the rich, but because anyone should be allowed to be part of the responsibilities placed on different classes. There is no concept of social order, but creative chaos. They lionize single mother households or deviant social behavior because they want to promote the idea of equal rights for people to be who and what they want. Whether that is living the life of a transgender, being part of a gay club, working at a business empire or an art studio, people are their best when they are freed from the constraints of social responsibility.
That is why extreme liberalism disregards the country and promotes globalism, because people are separate from the state. I think liberalism is a selfish ideology that is the best promoter of capitalism, but I don't particularly love traditional conservatism either.
My point is that just because conservatives want to pay less taxes to lower overhead in their business, or liberals want to pay more to liberalize poor people or blacks to be whoever they want to be, doesn't make conservatives individualists or liberals collectivists, but the exact opposite.
OK, so these are the fine examples of collectivism:
" 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.
" 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.
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.
I never have had Edmund Burke in my radar, but this article has peaked my interest. I have been through my "gotta do it NOW" youthful phase, and I now practice a more prudent philosophy of life. There's no way I could relate to Mr. Burke back then, but now... yeah.
I'm all for societal progress, but make it stable and "holistic" (sorry for the new age word, it's all I could come up with to describe rational, cultural, traditional, etc.).
Yea, I always found it weird that modern day Right-wingers think of themselves as defenders of individual rights but then they all spout the same talking points from few media sources all in unison like a Borg collective.
Sinclair News, anyone?
US Conservatives don't want small government, they just want government to feel small - to them. And that means a government that enforces their preferred standards. If government sets up a society that makes their preferences the de facto legal standard, they'll never encounter a government official telling them no.
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.
