Racism is inherently a collectivist ideology: people from one group are taught to view themselves as inherently superior to another group based on their collective identity and the positive attributes they associate it with at the expense of another group whom they view as inferior. White supremacy is an example of this.
It is currently progressive/Leftist tendency to say that we must think of ourselves not as Irish, Polish, Greek, Nigerian, Jamaican, Dominican Americans but as “white” and “Black” first, and essentially view ourselves as homogenous groups whose differences aren’t relevant because those differences have no bearing on the experience of privilege or oppression within the group.
THIS IS VERY TOXIC especially for white people because the second that collectivism around whiteness becomes commonplace, it is a breeding ground for white supremacy. Forcing unity of identity between groups of people with little in common other than complexion creates collective white identity which has never historically led to anything positive for race relations. It is far better for instance that white people do not view themselves as a cohesive group but as Irish, Polish, Greek, Italian etc who share little more other than skin color.
Similarly, grouping all Black people together is also nonsensical because the cultural differences that exist between an Ethiopian, Nigerian, Dominican, African American and Jamaican are very present as are their experiences.
The best way to end racism and discrimination between groups is to dissolve the sense of group identity along racial lines.
This is something that I was thinking about in passing, that ties into the related/intertwined but distinct topics of politics, society, culture, religion, economics, etc.
Often in neurodivergent online communities you'll notice expressions of a strong preference for either an individualistic viewpoint and environment or a collectivist one. Much like distinctions in emotional expression between over-emotive NDs and flat-affect NDs, people within our community seem to gravitate towards one of these two extremes. In some ways this can read as a "grass is greener" thing. Often this reflects politically: I've run into far more self-described left-wing socialists on one side and right-wing libertarians on the other among neurodivergent folks than among the general population.
The argument for individualism is that ND folks (especially ASD) thrive in an environment where people are free to express themselves as they will, to shape their own environment, and to create their own future without oppressive norms being inflicted upon them. The downside is that individualistic environments tend to be paired with a sink-or-swim, everyone-for-themselves mentality that can be dangerous for the survival chances (both social and practical) of a person on the spectrum.
The argument for collectivism is that ND folks (especially ASD) benefit from a greater safety net in which it is normal to ask for help, to receive help, to contribute, and to live in a society based on a tight-knit community and mutual aid. The downside to this is self-explanatory and a lot of this comes from the "tight-knit community" thing: there is in this context a lot more informal policing of "appropriate" forms of thought or expression, and social norms can often be enforced in a way that is harmful to neurodivergent folks in such environments, especially if anyone is prone in personality more to individualistic thought patterns than collectivistic ones, or has trouble learning social norms that everyone takes as a given. (I'll add that I've had some relatively awful personal experiences with this attempting to volunteer for an organization that enforced these types of norms while engaging with a foreign culture that was even more ruthless about this type of attitude).
I think that in general, we would benefit from a balance of a society that prioritizes individualism while also acknowledging the need for a community to fall back on, without pairing the individualism with a sink-or-swim mentality
... keep reading on reddit ➡
My impression is that there is a kind of assumption that the present day Chinese collectivism has a history of several thousand years going back to at least Confucius.
Do we have historical evidence for this?
My reading of the accounts of the Opium War and the writings of missionaries in 19th century China left me with a very different impression of a family focused society with little care for the state at large.
The best that I could find were the writings of Legalists, like Shang Yang who harshly criticized individualism and pointed out that the “cultivation of ancient erroneous learnings which encourages people to rely on their individual moral values and private intellectual convictions “ (Confucianism) is a menace to the state that must be eliminated.
Legalists again: “Civilization has produced all sorts of illusions of the individual autonomy. The Confucian notion that the realization of moral values is the private preserve of individuals; the notion that intellectuals can develop their own private theories; that the men of the sword can presume to present themselves as private military heroes arrogating to themselves the right to offer their services and notion that some men can make a decision to opt out of society entirely rendering themselves completely immune to the motivations which make it possible for the social system to work. They must be eliminated.”
That tells me that at least at that time, HuaXia was far from a collectivist society. It seems it was the Legalists and not Confucians who were responsible in promoting collectivism?
Newbie here: so anarchism rejects all forms of authority correct? Therefore what's stopping one ambitious basterd who wants more than the community can provide, from going out and getting it through voluntary interaction? It sounds like the only practical enforcement of the model would require the community as an authority over the individual. Basically how can you make natural individualists conform to collectivism without force? Lmk if there's somewhere else I should post this.
I'm constantly seeing this kind of debate in my circles since the beginning of the pandemic (well, it's also present in leftist circles of course) and I found that I lack a good foundation on this topic. If you have any suggestions about this eternal "debate", I'm all ears! :)
Personally, I see a collectivism as a means of achieving an individualist end. What I mean is that society exists to as an infrastructure to provide comfort, safety, and protect the rights of the individual and we have limits and authority via government to sustain that infrastructure.
An individual is the moral primacy because an individual actually lives, thinks, and feels. A collective is merely a group of individuals or an idea, and ideas aren’t living beings who have rights. When we talk about unfettered selfishness, I don’t think it’s necessarily the individual being inconsiderate to the community, but an individual being inconsiderate to other individuals.
For me, speaking in vague terms, society should protect the rights of all individuals and serve to protect individuals from being harmed by others. Taxes are a part of this because it’s about serving the basic needs and fulfilling the rights of individuals.
Conservatives often say they are against collectivism and group thought? Does nationalism get a pass?
When I say collectivism here, I don't mean it in the sense of the group necessarily having priority over the individual. I mean it more in the sense that each individual has autonomy and freedom, however there is emphasis placed on achieving a harmonious society in which individuals work together to achieve common goals - perhaps even getting into ideas of spirituality or pantheism.
Hope this makes sense, let me know if it sounds stupid.
You tube put me on to video talking about how the Nazi's came to power (most of the common ideas -- WWI pay back -- are called out as false or misleading) and I just think it is exactly the same thing that they are trying here...
One feature was that they insisted that everyone's moral duty was not to themselves... but to the greater good of the country. Similar situation here with the vaccine. It is your "moral duty" to the country to take the vaccine.
Where as...individualism would not allow that. Because you owe no duty to others or the government.
They also talked about how they targeted kids first because they were young and impressionable and they could brainwash them in the schools.
Ironically this guy goes on to talk about how a such a movement wouldn't work in the USA because we are founded on individual standards..
If you think of an animal (not as social as humans; I know) they act anarchically, with total freedom.
Despite this, they are all part of a huge, beautiful system that can last nearly forever.
Humans spend a huge amount of energy debating freedom versus the greater good, all with the express purpose of building a great society. And yet these systems we build collapse far more frequently than ecosystems.
I think this might be a false dichotomy; the choice between individualism and collectivism.
This is because animals live in a way, in which their desires naturally align with what is best for the ecosystem. It's worked out this way over millions of years. A monkey eats a fruit because it desires it, and the fruit gets its seeds transported and fertilized. Both are set up to maintain the system together. Nobody would say that the fruit rules the monkey, or the monkey the fruit. Nobody would say that they share a fraternity either. They are simply developed for each other, so that both follow their total freedom and both receive what they want.
I think this debate of collectivism versus individualism is only necessary because we live unnaturally. It is basically "sacrifice the self for the greater good, or sacrifice the greater good for the self?"
We don't even consider that after so much evolution and adaptation, what we desire should more or less align with what is good, and so we should not be having this debate.
The fact that freedom leads to bad outcomes virtually all the time, and that collectivism leads to bad outcomes virtually all the time, should be looked at as evidence that the debate itself is a band-aid for a broken world. We can not follow our desires because our desires are meant for a world that no longer exists, but did once. This forces us to develop a collective will to limit the effect our individual desires have on systems poorly suited to them, but this collectivism often overlooks individual desires and causes problems that way, because humans are not programmed to overlook what's good for them as individuals either.
So we fight and have this debate, of greater good versus individual liberty. Over and over again, in every society, and on every continent.
Ideally we would find a level where our natural impulses serve nature, our happiness, and our kin, rather than harm them, and go to that.
Let me preface this by saying that I have been guilty of this behavior myself but I've been seeing a lot of this on this sub, especially in discussions about covid measures.
Those who are in favor of generally more strenuous covid protocols and lockdowns are quick to label those who are not, rightoids, covidiots, anti-vaxxers.
And those who are skeptics are just as quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with them a radlib, neolib or DNC shill just because they have one agreement with mainstream opinion.
Listening to the argument as it is now is that both sides have made good convincing points for their preferred policy measures or non-measures and what is least harmful to the working class.
I think the discussions around COVID are more of a proxy for how the left has to approach general, long-standing social and cultural issues in general.
What level of authoritarianism should be tolerated to maintain social cohesion and build a more socially and culturally stable society?
However, If you are deeply anti-authoritarian then what level of social dysfunction and degeneracy are you willing to tolerate?
At some point leftists will have to have this discussion.
My impression is that there is a kind of assumption that the present day Chinese collectivism has a history of several thousand years going back to at least Confucius.
What does the historical evidence say about this?
My reading of the accounts of the Opium War and the writings of missionaries in 19th century China left me with a very different impression of a family focused society with little care for the state at large.
The best that I could find were the writings of Legalists, like Shang Yang who harshly criticized individualism and pointed out that the “cultivation of ancient erroneous learnings which encourages people to rely on their individual moral values and private intellectual convictions “ (Confucianism) is a menace to the state that must be eliminated.
Legalists again: “Civilization has produced all sorts of illusions of the individual autonomy. The Confucian notion that the realization of moral values is the private preserve of individuals; the notion that intellectuals can develop their own private theories; that the men of the sword can presume to present themselves as private military heroes arrogating to themselves the right to offer their services and notion that some men can make a decision to opt out of society entirely rendering themselves completely immune to the motivations which make it possible for the social system to work. They must be eliminated.”
It would appear that at least at that time, Huaxia was far from a collectivist society and that it was the Legalists and not Confucians who were responsible in promoting collectivism?
Newbie here: so anarchism rejects all forms of authority correct? Therefore what's stopping one ambitious basterd who wants more than the community can provide, from going out and getting it through voluntary interaction? It sounds like the only practical enforcement of the model would require the community as an authority over the individual. Basically how can you make natural individualists conform to collectivism without force? Lmk if there's somewhere else I should post this.
