Individualism in todays Leftists "Journey"

[Tyrlop]

In todays society Individualism plays a huge role.
The Internet allows a alot of choices that the individual can choose to learn about, and surfing over the Internet has become a new way of Learning and developing our political consciousness. Where we before had our freedom to choose what to learn narrowed down by books and the in-ability to study small bits of different paragraphs and theories formed our individual political conclusions to be more consistent, and therefor easily be able to agree upon our political beliefs. Where today we shift from different theories, having observed completely different material, and in the end made us more divided and unconscious.
The Individualism in Internet has of course made it much easier to understand many broad termed ideologies, and much of the left as a whole. But how big effects do you think it has played, for example splitting us in the newest history?
How can we move away from this Individualism and stubbornness that rules in the corners of the left, as swell as the rest of the left. to a more consensus embossed and united modern leftist movement?

[A.R.Amistad]

I could post a lot here, but I will simply say that you should look into Marxist Humanism, particularly Georgi Lukacs, Raya Dunayevskya, CLR James, Erich Fromm.

Lukac's History and Class Consciousness, while having nothing to do with the internet since it was written in the 1920's, has everything to do with the necessity of class consciousness in revolution.

[Tyrlop]

I could post a lot here I would love you to post alot and it would be more ground level then the books you're referring to

[Unkut]

I think that individualism in it's true sense is a good thing and the context that it's used to mean something negative is a misuse of the term. For example seeing through the dominant propaganda of the culture like nationalism and imperialism and thinking for yourself is positive individualism.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think that individualism in it's true sense is a good thing and the context that it's used to mean something negative is a misuse of the term. For example seeing through the dominant propaganda of the culture like nationalism and imperialism and thinking for yourself is positive individualism.

If one would make an attempt at understanding the liberating potential of individualism, she/he would have to go way back in history, to the Enlightenment. On the other hand, if one's position is fixed (i.e. individualism is harmful), there can be no understanding of a very important question: how can a "new" individualism develop in relation to the communist project (implying that this "new" individualism reinforces the tenets of a new society).

In this regard, it is important, I believe, to notice that the "historical individualism" functions as a "negation" of traditional social restraints inherited from the medieval period. This "line of thought" subjects every social relation of privilege and domination to rigorous criteria of reason. And here the potential lies. Individualism is not egoism.

[MellowViper]

Well, you have to balance individualism with social conscience. A brand of rampant individualism that justifies wage slavery and sweat shops doesn't deserve the name. I believe the individual should be the focus but in the context of all other individuals. Nobody should suppress anybody else's right to be a free human being. In the case of criminals being jailed, I argue that true crime is a form of tyranny over someone else, and rapists and murderers are guilty of this (having forced their will against someone else) and would be completely deserving of isolation from the rest of the population. They accuse socialists of not respecting individuality, but they have no problem with reducing workers in Indonesia to mere tools for multinational corporations.