Individualism vs. socialism

[Lark]

Given that socialism, for most of its followers if not its theorists originally, was a revolt against individualism as they understood and experienced it rather than or before being a thought through alternative to the prevailing social and economic system, I had some ideas for a discussion.

Do you consider socialism and individualism to be in actuality dichotomous? Or are they things which any "complete individual", "integrated self", "holistic personality", "mature being" or whatever way you choose to label it will experience in equal measure or at one time or another experience need of satisfaction? Do either correspond to either introversion or extroversion? If you believe that they are dichotomous, do you believe that either is representative of good or evil and that one should be indulged and the other denied? Why so?

 

[Phil P]

Well, consider a government that was absolutely individualistic. This "government" would be each individual supplying everything which that individual consumes, hence no trade. If you take this to the more extreme, each individual would be complete emotionally in themselves, supplying by themselves all their emotional demands, hence making a perfectly introverted society. With a society like this, there would be no need for government as there would be no conflicts as each person would be a world unto themselves, isolated from every other person.

This is an interesting topic though. I'll have to think some more about it before I post more.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Given that socialism, for most of its followers if not its theorists originally, was a revolt against individualism as they understood and experienced it rather than or before being a thought through alternative to the prevailing social and economic system, I had some ideas for a discussion.

Not all types of socialism are a revolt against individualism, for instance, libertarian socialism reconciles the apparently diverging political agendas of servicing the public good and honoring the rights of the individual. Socialist ideologies are often rooted in Karl Marx's political economy that only scarcely commented on the concept of human rights. However, Marx intended to publish numerous volumes of Das Kapital and in the concluding sections of his Magnum Opus, he intended to account for the role the rights of the individual played in his moral philosophy. Because this topic has been omitted from his original writings, the vulgar Marxists or politically motivated theorists such as Lenin used Marxism to create an ideology that had no room for human rights or any other notions of individualism. Conversely, the more democratically minded Marxists such as Rosa Luxemburg viewed human rights as an indispensable element of the socialist theoretical framework.

Do you consider socialism and individualism to be in actuality dichotomous? Or are they things which any "complete individual", "integrated self", "holistic personality", "mature being" or whatever way you choose to label it will experience in equal measure or at one time or another experience need of satisfaction? Do either correspond to either introversion or extroversion? If you believe that they are dichotomous, do you believe that either is representative of good or evil and that one should be indulged and the other denied? Why so?

Not all types of socialism are a revolt against individualism, for instance, libertarian socialism reconciles the apparently diverging political agendas of servicing the public good and honoring the rights of the individual. Socialist ideologies are often rooted in Karl Marx's political economy that only scarcely commented on the concept of human rights. However, Marx intended to publish numerous volumes of Das Kapital and in his latter works, he intended to account for the role the rights of the individual played in his moral philosophy. One way to reconcile an apparent conflict between the classical socialist endeavor of serving the public good and individualism is by claiming that the public good should be served in order to ensure of the well-being of individuals. For those who prefer collectivism to individualism, vice-versa is also an option: one may claim that the well-being of individuals should be preserved in order to promote the good of society. It is not always necessary to sacrifice one in favor of the other.

 

[KDude]

I'm only interested in this dichotomy when it comes to the economy. Individualistic pursuits and ideals are mostly harmless and should be encouraged. I don't care about controlling people's minds (even if I knew how). Just their greed. As for one being "good" and "evil" - I don't know. I'd be happy to go down in history as "evil" if I could enact more equal distribution. I'd be fine doing all the ugly things to make a better world I myself might be unsuited for.

Lucky for all the fat rich fucks of the world, I don't know how to do it yet.