• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Individualistic World

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
Then Individualism and Anarchy are one and the same.

Don't try to arbitrarily redefine the terms. That is annoying NTJ tactic number 2 on my list.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/graveyard/5217-rant-ntj-tactics.html

Individualism and Anarchy are not the same.

Just as Collectivism and Communism are not one and the same.

In both cases one is a subset of the other. Democracy could be the result of Anarchy, but even that Anarchy is collectivist to achieve change.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Individualism and Anarchy are not the same.

Just as Collectivism and Communism are not one and the same.

In both cases one is a subset of the other. Democracy could be the result of Anarchy, but even that Anarchy is collectivist to achieve change.

Precisely, it could just as easily be argued that democracy "with its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people" is a form of collectivism. Moderation between individualistic and collectivists principles are ideal in a mature and developed society.
 

Veneti

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
264
MBTI Type
XNTX
Precisely, it could just as easily be argued that democracy "with its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people" is a form of collectivism. Moderation between individualistic and collectivists principles are ideal in a mature and developed society.

Exactly. You're in agreement with me.

Thats 1-0 to me in the argument rounds :D.

*Ps: watch out for us NTJ types, we're always prepared to plays devils advocate :devil:*
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Exactly. You're in agreement with me.

Thats 1-0 to me in the argument rounds :D.

*Ps: watch out for us NTJ types, we're always prepared to plays devils advocate :devil:*

Any day that I'm in agreement with an INTJ is either a victory for all man kind or a cold day in hell. We'll just leave it at that. :coffee:
 

pure_mercury

Order Now!
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
6,946
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Democracy has been completely fetishized in recent history, when it is supposed to be the means, not the end.
 

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The first sentence of every paragraph is the premise?

In our case, yes.

Ah, but the people who worked in sweatshops are traditionally people from small rural villages. Try again.
That's an ignoratio elenchi. It does absolutely nothing to harm my argument.

individualism is about seeing self as independent of others, collectivism is about relating self to others (interpersonal)...

Collectivism isn't about the relating the self to others; it's about a collective whole. There is no 'self' in collectivist thought. Collectivists are concerned with the general will.

We're no more individualistic than we were before. In the rhetoric we're supposed to be, but by and large, individualism is basically discouraged.

People live their 'individualism' if it could be called that, vicariously through movies like Juno or TV shows like House, where the star character possesses a standout and or daring persona.

I'd say 90-95% of the people, at least in america, at best, pretend; we play at individualism, and let our quasi-adventurous bombast do the rest of the work for us.

It's easy to tell stories.

I think you and I have different definitions of individualism. I'm talking about reliance on the self alone to live; without help from others (or at least the perception of aidless living). What you're talking about are people who express their individuality through the media; you're referring to artistic self-expression and the like. I'm not interested in this. I'm thinking about individualism in the political and societal sense.

"All people are inherently greedy, its just that individual greed is harnessed in a capitalist society leading to the benefit of all, whereas in a communist society it is suppressed but mainfests itself in other ways".

That statement is very true. You only need to look at all these collectivist economies wearing orange and going capitalist to see what is most favoured by the people.

Absolutely. Communism cannot work and never will because people, by nature, are greedy and selfish. It is a fact of life that one must accept. Just as you can't stop people from desiring other people, you can't stop people from being greedy.

Historically, capitalistic endeavors have lead to exploitation of collectivistic cultures. Take colonialism. Columbus comes across the ocean, commits horrible atrocities against the native inhabitants. Next comes the conquistadors who label the natives of lands as "sodomoites" so they can justify the raping and pillaging of the lands. Later come European settlers who force the Natives off their communal lands. Later, the United States takes up policies of extermination, removal, or forceful assimilation of the natives. The slave trade booms and the ancestors of African Americans are forced to labor for the white land owners. Later immigration begins to boom in America and the the traditional familial immigrants are pushed into working low wage dangerous factory jobs, where they could blacklisted if they complained and were fired once they were sick or injured.

Capitalism does not have a good historical track record.

All the above mentioned cases have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. That was about power, not money. Capitalism is primarily about money; that was about occupation of land. Capitalism hadn't even been invented by then. Plus, I'd just like to mention that the central American civilisations were just as greedy and corrupt as we were. Any you wonder why. Well, could be something to with human nature. Just a thought.

That is a value judgement. I believe everyone has an agenda. Not everyone's primary agenda is their own self preservation and promotion.
I disagree. Those who supposedly supercede this desire e.g. Mother Theresa, don't truly supercede it. There is always a deep, underlying desire to either promote oneself, preserve oneself, or both.

If you want to talk about less advanced or less powerful people and how they are exploited, then thats nothing to do with individualistic capitalism. Did Native Americans not form tribes and kill each other.. is that not expolitation.

Again, good point.

Then Individualism and Anarchy are one and the same.

Incorrect. Individualism and anarchism are by no means synonymous with one another. It is perfectly logical to find collectivist anarchists; this is essentially the end state of true communism; the kind of communism thought up by Marx. Of course, it was an ideal (and a nice ideal it was), and it could never occur.
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
Collectivism isn't about the relating the self to others; it's about a collective whole. There is no 'self' in collectivist thought. Collectivists are concerned with the general will.
There is self in collectivist thought... self being part of a group. I come from a collectivistic culture. The emphasis has always been to think about what you can do for the group. Collectivism isn't Hive Mind...

But that was not my point... you did not address my question in what Kiddo called as the typical NTJ debate style.

Please comment on this contradiction. What are you trying to say?

I've noticed that over time, people are becoming more and more individualistic.

I disagree. I don't think all the Greeks or all the Romans or all the Babylonians collectively gave a shit about their fellow man's feelings. You get just as many interpersonal people now as you did then.

If you have as many interpersonal people right now as you did before... where is the extra individualistic people coming from?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
All the above mentioned cases have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. That was about power, not money. Capitalism is primarily about money; that was about occupation of land. Capitalism hadn't even been invented by then. Plus, I'd just like to mention that the central American civilisations were just as greedy and corrupt as we were. Any you wonder why. Well, could be something to with human nature. Just a thought.

Capitalism is about resources, not just money. Land is a resource.

Yeah, this is heading down a road of arbitrary redefinition, or good ol NTJ tactic #2, since it doesn't seem we have the same definition for any of the concepts we have discussed, and I know I am using the common usage ones. I'll just take my leave of this thread. :coffee:
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
It's an individualistic world, but ironically social networks have never been as prominent as they are today.

Walk up to people. Make an effort to keep in touch with them. Give a little here and there. I think that the best way to make our lives closer to others is by giving and accepting others as they are.
 

Ezra

Luctor et emergo
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
534
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is self in collectivist thought... self being part of a group. I come from a collectivistic culture. The emphasis has always been to think about what you can do for the group. Collectivism isn't Hive Mind...

Okay, fair point.

Please comment on this contradiction. What are you trying to say?

That's not a contradiction. When I refer to "individualism", I'm not talking about people's self-expression or who they communicate with and in what manner. I'm talking about how people have become more reliant on themselves, because they can. Think about it: when you walk into a shop, and buy a new suit or dress, you don't give a shit about the person on the till; they're simply there to serve you as their customer (they, too, do not care about you). Go back thousands of years, and to get your clothes, you had to skin it off a deer's back. Your friend kills it, and you skin it. It's a bonding experience. Walking into a shop and making a business transaction is in no way bonding. And it doesn't need to be. Because we have everything we need right here.

Interpersonality over time is definitely an interesting idea (for example, where once you looked your opponent in the eye, and battles were honour bound and you 'collected the dead', you now laugh at this concept of warfare), but it's for another topic.

Capitalism is about resources, not just money. Land is a resource.

Yes, but "capitalism" as such is about money, regardless of further motives. It relates to "capital" which finds its concept in money. Okay, I'll accept your point about the exploitation of various societies having an affect on the capitalism of a country, but that is not capitalism in itself; rape, pillage and burn does not equal capitalism.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I've noticed that over time, people are becoming more and more individualistic. At the "beginning of time", humans were completely communistic; their loyalties lay with the tribe etc. And now look at us. We are individual because we can afford to be. It's no longer an issue that we have to look after one another, because society does that for us, people think. Our government is there to protect us only, people think. Is this the right or wrong way to live and think?

I don't really think that's the case. I always assumed people started off looking out for themselves mostly, then eventually learned to cooperate in primitive tribes, and eventually became civilized enough to create towns, then city-states, militias, and the rest is history.

I think that we're reaching a point where individual expression within society is more acceptable, and that's a good thing. The question is, how far can this be taken without having things collapse? How much do people have to share and accept (regardless of whether they want to) in order to get along? Ideally, we should only have to share basic beliefs at the social contract level.
 
Top