Individualism?

[MilitantAnarchist]

Something i've been pondering over is indivdualism...
To me, im not sure if i understand the 'wikipedia' meanings of it (as i dont trust that, im using it as a term for convinience)....
To me to the indvidual is important, i'd say that nobody is equal, and treating everybody as equal is not only stupid, it is patronising. Everybody is individual, and has there own unique beliefs and rights (e.g disabled people need what is entiled to them like ramps, brale, hearing aids ext, or even though all religion is bollocks, muslims need a mosc and christians need a church), therefore, nobody is equal... Basically what i mean is i want my life, not what everyone else things is life, if you get me...

But i dont like to indentify with the word 'individualism' because it might mean 'greedy capitalist scum' in secret....
Someone enlighten me?

[New Tet]

Maybe the word you're looking for is 'individuality'?

[*Red*Alert]

If the "Individual" is mentioned politically, its a promotion of Capitalist "Me-first" society.

[Agrippa]

Obviously it goes without saying that this is a very simplistic synopsis of individualist philosophy, but par for the course for Wikipedia. I'd suggest you look into the works of Max Stirner...

[Искра]

Hm, I think that you Militant set this wrong.
We are right now not equal, because of this capitalistic system, but we want that all people be equal and we want "society of equals" - communism.
But, the fact is that we are all not the same - cause we are individuals. And communist society won't "kill the individuality", just we believe that individual must be connect with society and not to be above the society.

So I woulnd use terms like "equal" and "equality" here, because they are economical-political.
I would use "same" or "sameness".

But then again, English is my second language... :)

[Muzk]

Equal opportunities for everyone - no more oppressing classes!

Making everyone the same is stupid. Hitler did that.

[GPDP]

Making everyone the same is stupid. Hitler did that.

what

[MilitantAnarchist]

individuality isnt the word im looking for, i mean politically not socially..... and not in a capitalist way.... im alot of things but capitalist aint one of em lol...

[Hit The North]

"Individualism" is as way of perceiving the world. It morally elevates the individual above the collective and argues that there is an antagonism of interests between the two.

It can also refer to a method of explaining social life under the doctrine of methodological individualism; where either collective agents (institutions, social classes, etc.) are theorised to behave like real individuals; or real individuals (kings, thinkers, military leaders, etc.) are seen to be more decisive than collective forces.

Under the guise of phenomenological individualism, it also proposes that meaning derives from the inner consciousness of individuals. We could contrast it with relational realism which is closer to Historical Materialism.

In the social sciences there are a number of writers, such as Zygmunt Bauman, Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck, who propose that modern society is undergoing a process of individualisation which decentres individuals from the social collectives they emerge from, thus predicting the collapse of class poltics.

[Bankotsu]

Someone enlighten me?

Below lectures will sort out things for you:

"The State of Individuals"
http://www.wealthbuilder.ie/essay15.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13458196/Prof-Carroll-Quigley-The-Oscar-Iden-LecturesLecture-1-The-State-of-Communities

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14819541/Prof-Carroll-Quigley-The-Oscar-Iden-LecturesLecture-2-The-State-of-Estates

[Old Man Diogenes]

Something i've been pondering over is indivdualism...
To me, im not sure if i understand the 'wikipedia' meanings of it (as i dont trust that, im using it as a term for convinience)....
To me to the indvidual is important, i'd say that nobody is equal, and treating everybody as equal is not only stupid, it is patronising.

Basically what i mean is i want my life, not what everyone else things is life, if you get me...

Someone enlighten me?

I think what you mean is the 'same', by equality what I mean and I think most Leftists is 'Having the same privileges, status, or rights' and not all being the same, as someone else said that's what Hitler tried to do.

[Hit The North]

Making everyone the same is stupid. Hitler did that.

No, he didn't.


I think what you mean is the 'same', by equality what I mean and I think most Leftists is 'Having the same privileges, status, or rights' and not all being the same, as someone else said that's what Hitler tried to do.

No, he didn't.

Hitler was a racist, a white supremacist. He did not agree that all people are the same, far from it. He thought some people, Jews, Africans and Slavs, were sub-human.

[Revy]

Socialism is far more individualistic.

the bourgeois canard about the individual is very old, and was discussed and pwned in Chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto.



From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism." - Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?

[Radical]

I strongly oppose Individualism probably more-so than Capitalism. Individualism as a Political Idealogy is evil and pervese. Individualism means caring about a minority(oneself & family) more than the interests of the vast majority.

I dont see how an Individualist can ever truly be a Communist. I shall purge the Individualist long before I purge the Capitalist. Communism is collective. Communism is about love for humanity as one and not about superior care for a minority.

I think for those people that consider themselves Communist Individualists need to re-educate themselves about what "Collectivism" is. You cant be both.

[Revy]

I strongly oppose Individualism probably more-so than Capitalism. Individualism as a Political Idealogy is evil and pervese. Individualism means caring about a minority(oneself & family) more than the interests of the vast majority.

I dont see how an Individualist can ever truly be a Communist. I shall purge the Individualist long before I purge the Capitalist. Communism is collective. Communism is about love for humanity as one and not about superior care for a minority.

I think for those people that consider themselves Communist Individualists need to re-educate themselves about what "Collectivism" is. You cant be both.

Did you come up with this on your own or did your copy paste off Pol Pot or the Borg Queen?
Newsflash....communism isn't about conformity.

[Pogue]

I shall purge the Individualist long before I purge the Capitalist.


Your going to be off purging then?

[gorillafuck]

Making everyone the same is stupid. Hitler did that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

[Il Medico]

I shall purge the Individualist long before I purge the Capitalist.
Communism is about love for humanity.
If you love humanity so much why are you so quick to propose mass killings?

[yuon]

I'm an individualist. In the sense that I value my individuality above conformity. I am more likely to have an opposing opinion, and would refuse to join any party that required that I toe the line on all issues.

I like dressing how I want, not in some fashion, or in the manner expected.

I believe that in a truly socialist society, individuality will be valued and supported, with people being free to be themselves, and develop themselves to their fullest ability.

Community is a required aspect of society, but should not be put above the individual.

Oh, and if that makes me worse than a capitalist, I guess I'll join the barricade over there, against both capitalists and state socialists. (But then again, I'm an anarchist baby.)

[Bankotsu]

I think that a community should be the basic unit that makes up a healthy functioning society.




Millions of years ago, even before men became human, they had a need for defence of the group, because it is perfectly obvious that men cannot live outside of groups. They can satisfy their needs only by cooperating within a group. But I'll go further than that, and return to it again in a moment: Men will not become men unless they grow up in communities. We will come back to that because it is the basis of my lecture tonight.

Men have social needs. They have a need for other people; they have a need to love and be loved. They have a need to be noticed. Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy because no one had ever noticed him and he was determined that, from now on, someone would know he existed. In fact, most of these "motiveless" assassinations are of this type. Someone went up to the top of the University of Texas tower and shot something like seventeen people before they caught him. That was because no one had ever noticed him. People need other people. That's the social need. The basis of social relationships is reciprocity: if you cooperate with others, others will cooperate with you.

The other part of this will require you to put these things together to some extent. Persons, personalities if you wish, can be made only in communities. A community is made up of intimate relationships among diverse types of individuals--a kinship group, a local group, a neighbourhood, a village, a large family. Without communities, no infant will be sufficiently socialized. He may grow up to be forty years old, he may have made an extremely good living, he may have engendered half a dozen children, but he is still an infant unless he has been properly socialized and that occurs in the first four or five years of life. In our society today, we have attempted to throw the whole burden of socializing out population upon the school system, to which the individual arrives only at the age of four or five.

A few years ago they had big programs to take children to school for a few hours at age two and three and four, but that will not socialize them. The first two years are important. The way a child is treated in the first two years is of vital importance. He has to be loved, above all he has to be talked to. A state of individuals, such as we have now reached in Western Civilization, will not create persons, and the atomized individuals who make it up will be motivated by desires which do not necessarily reflect needs. Instead of needing other people they need a shot of heroin; instead of some kind of religious conviction, they have to be with the winning team...

In the final aspect of this process, controls on behaviour shift from the intermediate levels of human experience--social, emotional and religious--to the lower, military and political, or to the upper, ideological. They become the externalized controls of a mature society: weapons, bureaucracies, material rewards, or ideology. Customary conformity is replaced by conscious decision-making, and this usually implies a shift from your own conformity to someone else's decision. In its final stages, the civilization becomes a dualism of almost totalitarian imperial power and an amorphous mass culture of atomized individuals...


http://www.wealthbuilder.ie/essay15.htm




Which brings me to yesterday’s jazzercize massacre in Pittsburgh. The motive is obvious: The killer, a 48-year-old George Sodini, a systems analyst in a local law firm’s finance department, explained in his diary (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=939_1249481530) exactly why he shot and killed all those women in the gym:


No girlfriend since 1984, last Christmas with Pam was in 1983. Who knows why. I am not ugly or too weird. No sex since July 1990 either (I was 29). No shit! Over eighteen years ago. And did it maybe only 50-75 times in my life.
…I masturbate. Frequently.


http://exiledonline.com/revenge-of-the-nerd-what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-the-rampage-killer-who-attacked-a-pittsburgh-aerobics-class/





Men have social needs. They have a need for other people; they have a need to love and be loved. They have a need to be noticed. Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy because no one had ever noticed him and he was determined that, from now on, someone would know he existed. In fact, most of these "motiveless" assassinations are of this type. Someone went up to the top of the University of Texas tower and shot something like seventeen people before they caught him. That was because no one had ever noticed him. People need other people. That's the social need. The basis of social relationships is reciprocity: if you cooperate with others, others will cooperate with you.

[Muzk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust


Political equality, before any war started.

Like, all men of age 16-30 were in the same group, and each of them could have been told to go to war or wherever.

'independent' things like radio stations too: all under one name.

[yuon]

Man, that's a weird post. Any reason why you highlighted all that stuff in red?

I mean, seriously, I masturbate frequently too, so would a large number of other people (if not the majority) on this site.

[Hit The North]

I'm an individualist. In the sense that I value my individuality above conformity. I am more likely to have an opposing opinion, and would refuse to join any party that required that I toe the line on all issues.



On that basis you could join the SWP!


I believe that in a truly socialist society, individuality will be valued and supported, with people being free to be themselves, and develop themselves to their fullest ability.
But do you think individuals will be able to develop to their fullest ability purely on the basis of their individual effort?


Community is a required aspect of society, but should not be put above the individual. Then how can you be opposed to the individual right to own means of production? How can you justify communist politics at all if you think the right of the individual should supersede the right of the collective?


Oh, and if that makes me worse than a capitalist, I guess I'll join the barricade over there, against both capitalists and state socialists. (But then again, I'm an anarchist baby.)But, dude, don't let them other anarchists behind the anarchist barricade lay any oppressive shit on you. If I was such a principled individualist like you, I wouldn't chance it. I'd build my own barricade.

[NecroCommie]

Individualism is usually in the western world used as an apology for selfish elitism, and social bullying. A healthy society is derived from healthy individuals, true. These people seem to forget however that healthy individuals are born out of healthy society. If we place one over the other it will be self-destructive at best.

The very idea of making a decision based on "whether it is individualist or not" is disgusting. The question "what is the right decision" is case relative and it does not ask anything about society and the individual. To be frank, I believe that the very action of differentiating between the individual and society is sick. Society is not some invisible thing that affects you in the form of suited authoritarian men. Society is everyone near you, the suited men are the state.

[h9socialist]

Has it occurred to the "individualists" out there that if you follow the logic of "from each according to ability -- to each according to need" implicitly recognizes individuality?

Also, I have read articles describing capitalism as assuming granulated, alienated individuals coming together in society for the common defense of property -- implicitly destroying individualism. Whereas socialism established the social foundation so that individuals can prosper and expand. It is very hard for alienated individuals to truly appreciate individuality. Only in functional social relationships can individuals truly appreciate other individuals. Beyond that, "individualism" as understood in the West is a word designed to make people feel sympathy for bourgeois values -- and is generally a lot of conservative crap.

[Radical]

If you love humanity so much why are you so quick to propose mass killings?

Your argument is void -

I never proposed "Mass-Killings". I said I would rather purge an Individualist than a Capitalist. Though most Capitalists are already individualists.

Love for humanity means that you will go to extreme lenths to secure the satfey of humanity. Killing somebody in the name of resisting oppression is one of the best ways to show your love for humanity. "This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate"

You just sound like a pacifist to me. I think every Communist would propose mass killing in extreme circumstances. Theres always a set of circumstances where somebody would kill somebody else.

Revolution is not a bed of roses



Has it occurred to the "individualists" out there that if you follow the logic of "from each according to ability -- to each according to need" implicitly recognizes individuality?


There is a difference between "Individuality" and the Political Thoery of Individualism. "Individualism" is opposed to Collectivism. In Individualism you work for a minority.(Yourself and Family). In Collectivism you work for everybody, to better society as one.

[F9]

Your argument is void -

I never proposed "Mass-Killings". I said I would rather purge an Individualist than a Capitalist. Though most Capitalists are already individualists.

Love for humanity means that you will go to extreme lenths to secure the satfey of humanity. Killing somebody in the name of resisting oppression is one of the best ways to show your love for humanity. "This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate"

You just sound like a pacifist to me. I think every Communist would propose mass killing in extreme circumstances. Theres always a set of circumstances where somebody would kill somebody else.

Revolution is not a bed of roses

Revolution is not a bed of roses, true.But revolution isnt a fascist regime either!Revolution dont means we kill everyone beside "true Communists"...So no, killing someone who used to be a factory owner, kill his family, in the "name" of anything, is not the best way to show your "love" for humanity:rolleyes: but is the best way to show your cruelty and the fact that you arent after human freedom, but after your own freedom, and your personal sattisfaction.Something i would call individualism(in a deformed meaning of course).

So no, we wont revolt to kill all the modafuckars etc etc:rolleyes: we will hve a revolution for a better life, for freedom and equality, for communism.If there was any way to do it without guns that would be the best thing could happen, if this could happen without anyone bleeding, again that would be a great happening.But we are not dilussioned.Bourgeoise and state wont leave their advantages and privillages without violently chase the revolution.Thats why revolution is violent, not because we choose it, but because they choose it.We only defend ourselves and the revolution.We arent serial killers....


"This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate"
In just one word to describe the above quote..Bullshit

[Radical]

Revolution is not a bed of roses, true.But revolution isnt a fascist regime either!Revolution dont means we kill everyone beside "true Communists"...So no, killing someone who used to be a factory owner, kill his family, in the "name" of anything, is not the best way to show your "love" for humanity:rolleyes: but is the best way to show your cruelty and the fact that you arent after human freedom, but after your own freedom, and your personal sattisfaction.Something i would call individualism(in a deformed meaning of course).

So no, we wont revolt to kill all the modafuckars etc etc:rolleyes: we will hve a revolution for a better life, for freedom and equality, for communism.If there was any way to do it without guns that would be the best thing could happen, if this could happen without anyone bleeding, again that would be a great happening.But we are not dilussioned.Bourgeoise and state wont leave their advantages and privillages without violently chase the revolution.Thats why revolution is violent, not because we choose it, but because they choose it.We only defend ourselves and the revolution.We arent serial killers....

In just one word to describe the above quote..Bullshit

Are you having a knightmare? When did I say we need to start killing Communists and factory owners?

The above quote was bullshit to you because your an anarchist.
From your message I assume your a pacifist that thinks the worlds going great and nobody deserves to suffer when the Revolution comes to play.

Your dreaming if you think World Revolution will succeed without needing to kill anybody. There shall be brutal resistance.

[Nwoye]

You just sound like a pacifist to me. I think every Communist would propose mass killing in extreme circumstances. Theres always a set of circumstances where somebody would kill somebody else.
Even though Marx opposed capital punishment.

The thought that mass killings are going to solve anything is absolutely retar... stupid. The ends (democracy, socialism) always reflect the means, and if the means are indiscriminate killings and the fetishism of revolutionary violence then our society is going to be pretty shitty.

[F9]

Are you having a knightmare? When did I say we need to start killing Communists and factory owners?

Where did i said you would kill communists?You were saying that "in the name of resisting oppression" killing people is fine, which you meant that you are going willed to kill people just to show "your "love" to humanity"..:rolleyes:And who are the oppressors?Factory owners, bourgeoise etc. 1+1=2, we dont need to make that a science..



The above quote was bullshit to you because your an anarchist.
From your message I assume your a pacifist that thinks the worlds going great and nobody deserves to suffer when the Revolution comes to play.:rolleyes::lol:This post of you here shows your completely naiveness and the fact that you are typing words without no basis..Choose what to accuse damn anarkkkists for, for too much violence, or for been "pacifists".And if from my above post you got to the conclusion that i am a pacifist :w00t: you got this from a post saying what all communists say, that revolution is violent not because we want it, but because the bourgeoise does.If you disagree and see the revolution as a way to kill all da opressors, split blood, drink their blood etc etc things, then i truly wonder, what you are doing in this forum...
The quote is bullshit to almost anyone, beside some kiddos who vision revolution like a video game, to kill all the bad guys etc, its not bullshit to thoe who are thirsty for blood and war, and they cant be named communists and its not bullshit to some naive people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Go read my post again, and when you will find me anywhere that i am a pacifist, and that i think that this world is going great:rolleyes: then i will change an ideology right now, and trully become a pacifist..


Your dreaming if you think World Revolution will succeed without needing to kill anybody. There shall be brutal resistance.Im dreaming of that, but i know its not possible....There are 2 different things..

[Radical]

Even though Marx opposed capital punishment.

The thought that mass killings are going to solve anything is absolutely retar... stupid. The ends (democracy, socialism) always reflect the means, and if the means are indiscriminate killings and the fetishism of revolutionary violence then our society is going to be pretty shitty.

Marx's social opinions have nothing to do with his Political Ideology. They're both seperate things.

[Nwoye]

Marx's social opinions have nothing to do with his Political Ideology. They're both seperate things.
yet you said that any communist would support mass killings. so either Marx wasn't a communist or you are completely wrong.

[Hit The North]

Marx's social opinions have nothing to do with his Political Ideology. They're both seperate things.

In what sense can anyone, let alone Marx, have social opinions which are separate from their political ideology? What would be the point of having political ideas which do not touch on your opinions of society?

I have to agree with fuserg9, here. There is a fair bit of adolescent posturing in this thread.

I hope you're not approaching the working class as a communist and swearing that you'd resort to mass slaughter if you have to. :(

[Radical]

In what sense can anyone, let alone Marx, have social opinions which are separate from their political ideology? What would be the point of having political ideas which do not touch on your opinions of society?

I have to agree with fuserg9, here. There is a fair bit of adolescent posturing in this thread.

I hope you're not approaching the working class as a communist and swearing that you'd resort to mass slaughter if you have to. :(

Yes, I'd resort to mass "murder" in Revolution/War Times. Mass Murder of Militant Nazi's that are innvetiable to come about. If you'd just sit there watching innocent people be killed, you're not a comrade of mine.

[Hyacinth]

Whenever I hear individualism brought up, especially when contrasted with collectivism (or something of the sort), it is curious that it is almost always done so with the dubious assumption that there is a conflict between individual and collective interests. While this might be true in certain instances, it is far too hasty a generalization, especially considering that many individual interests are only attainable through cooperation.

[Coggeh]

I'm an individualist. In the sense that I value my individuality above conformity. I am more likely to have an opposing opinion, and would refuse to join any party that required that I toe the line on all issues.

I like dressing how I want, not in some fashion, or in the manner expected.
Its not conformity to put the needs of the majority of people before yourself .I don't think one person on this site agrees with 100% of their organizations positions . Its important to be rational and not pedantic about your individuality . Being an individual is important but can become a bad thing too if you change your frame of focus on 'me me me' . If everyone decided to stray away from movements because they disagree with 1 or 2 issues their wouldn't be any leftist movements around.



I believe that in a truly socialist society, individuality will be valued and supported, with people being free to be themselves, and develop themselves to their fullest ability. I don't see how this goes against socialism .



Community is a required aspect of society, but should not be put above the individual. Of course it should. The benefits to the community far outweigh that of individuals . This does not mean dressing the same or any reactionary position such as that but it means looking at what will benefit people as a whole through a democratically planned society.



Oh, and if that makes me worse than a capitalist, I guess I'll join the barricade over there, against both capitalists and state socialists. (But then again, I'm an anarchist baby.)There is no need too , 'state' socialists (I think your refering to people who believe in a transitional state) support the rights of the individual 100% but when planning society we look too the community as a whole , as I'm sure libertarian communists do too.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Sacrificing the individual for the collective is wrong. Yes we need to sacrifice for the greater good but the collective shouldnt become our master. We all need to be equal in society but we all have our own differences that make us unequal in some way.

[bromide]

There is also the use of individualist ideas to explain a societal failure through means of blaming individual people instead of an inherently corrupt and unfair system, e.g. "You're poor because you're lazy. If you worked harder, then you wouldn't be poor." You can see that playing out very blatantly in US policy in issues such as the criminialization of poverty and the welfare reforms of 1996. The latter of which, based in the ridiculous, widespread myth that single mothers were somehow living high off of their $100 a month welfare checks, denies people any aid (including not just cash benefits but also foodstamps) unless they're working a certain number of hours a week in wage labour. This is regardless of whether they're a full time non-traditional student (or doing a full time unpaid internship on top of that), a single mother with infants or small children, or someone who spends 40 hours a week volunteering at a hospice.

Keep in mind that this has nothing whatsoever to do with appreciating people's individual traits within a society. Instead, it's a byproduct of a culture which values money and uses the idea of individual traits as a means of explaining away social ills without even acknowledging the systems that brought them on in the first place.

[bosgek]

This discussion reminded me of another (resolved) one. Mass production (only a single product) versus series production (some choice). The conclusion was that some processes (like producing nuclear power or chemical compounds) must be mass produced as it costs too much to start them up. Other products, mainly consumer end-products can easily be made in series and even piece wise (single product) when a number of options are avaliable without costing more then mass production. Thishas been proven by Toyota, which makes every car individually according to end user specification.

Therefore I think it is possible to respect most individual end user wishes without cost to the community when it comes to commodities and services. That is, if there is a system which makes one option (e.g. car with head-up display) more expensive to the individual then another (e.g. without the display) as the production and material cost itself does not vary between series and mass production.

There is also a psychologist (Maslow) that says taste and preference (for clothing, music, flavour etc.) is not genetic and therefore a learned effect. When people start to develop themselves into more curious and critical beings, taste and preference fade away. This is because people then observe all options and value them on the same principles of logic. Theoretically it is possible to have a society where everybody had no taste and preference, thereby purging most individuality and diversity.

However, this is neither practical or desirable. Diversity makes that people discuss and think about designs, functions etc. and come with different angles to approach a problem. This practices the problem solving skills, creativity and flexibility and therefore benefits the community as whole.

My conclusion (for people that don't want to read everything above) is that individuality is important for a socialist society and does not come at more cost to a community when expenses are divided accordingly.

[1billion]

I'd personally argue that people are inherently not equal, some people can do advanced calculus with ease while I'm stuck hitting my head against the wall. But yea point is I dont think people are equal although I think people should have equal oppurtunity.:D

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Radical, people like you have actually made me hate state communism more than the pile of crap we live in today.Such opinions and actions are clearly not working for love of humanity and it would be extremely delusional if you thought so.In fact,not only such course of action is morally questionable (and mind you,being anarchist I hold very few,yet crucial morals) but disgustingly anti-humanitarian too.You serve counter-revolutionary,only giving more food to the capitalist scumbags who try to make communism seem as a society of terror and disgusting the proletarian away.It's true that there will be unescapable violence in the revolution but our aim is to keep that violence targeted to the ones who deserve it (e.g the heads) as much as we can.As much as I hate the sectarianism that's taking part in the left, I'd rather die by being fed cockroaches than call you a comrade,you stalinist piece of goo.

On the point now,individualism is used in politics in the economic axon and advocates the freedom of the individual against the community, stupidly arguing that the benefits of the ego can never find peace with the benefits of the whole and thus supporting right-wing economies.

[Tzadikim]

I consider myself both a political individualist and an economic collectivist: a political individualist because I reject the notion that personal choice ought to be dictated to the individual by authority, and an economic collectivist because I believe that the working class must appropriate the means of production.

There is no contradiction here. Where the contradiction exists is on the right, as in, for instance, the unholy alliance of right-libertarians, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalists to theocrats, who want to increase State control over the individual to a greater extent than anyone on the Left has ever dreamed of doing. What these people mean by 'individualism' is nothing more than capitalism. I want something deeper, which cannot be provided for in a capitalist State.

[RotStern]

I have found in many cases that individualism. Is much much harder than simply being different. If you think about it a lot of mainstream culture revolves around what it rejects.
I am not saying it revolves around Communism fuck no.
But Take Chris Crocker for example.
He was made fun of by his teachers and peers and now that he's famous everybody loves him.
Not that I love him.

[robbo203]

I think a distinction needs to be made between individualism and individualiy. A good book on this subject is (if I remember the title correctly) The Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism by Abercrombie and Turner. According to them individualism is an action-oriented, essentially socio-economic construct. Individuality on the other hand alludes to the inner life of the individual, our subjectivity

[n0thing]

Individualism is important. And I'm not talking about individualism in the sense of some randian, egoistic, excuse for exploitation. Individualism in the sense that people are free to live for themselves, in the manner that they see fit.

Problems occur when you have people living for themselves at the expense of others, or living purely for themselves despite the suffering of others: Say, a man buys a second house in France whilst his neighbour dies of a treatable disease.

I value individualism only if it is available to everyone. So perfect individualism and liberty can only be reached under conditions of perfect equality; ala communism.