collective or individualist societies?

[BRIN]

whats your opinion?

[Morpheus]

Both.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 04:44 AM
Both.
Agree

[kylie]

Well from what i've read, Anarcho-Individualism seems to allow private property, the free-market, the idea of laissez faire, as opposed to co-operation, and so i would of course not support it.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 10:29 AM
Well from what i've read, Anarcho-Individualism seems to allow private property, the free-market, the idea of laissez faire, as opposed to co-operation, and so i would of course not support it.
Anarcho-Individualism is just another of the seemingly interminable list of names by whcih lassez faire Capitalists call themselves. Off the top of my head I can also think of : Objectivists, Anarcho-capitalusts; Libertarian Capitalists; and Randians; but there are probably a dozen others.

Individualism does not of itself imply liberal property rights (private ownership of the means of production); and one of the great ironies of all such capitalist ideologies is without a very very strong social commitment to respecting and abiding by 'liberal property rights' they cannot function.

All real societies are a mixture of individual rights protected by group/social consensus as to what they are. Individuals cannot possibly be given unlimited freedom to behave as they would individually like and still retain the notion that they are part of a society. So in that sense all societies are a balance between collective duties serving to optimise individual freedom of action while defending others against misuse of such freedom (If society gives you the freedom to carry a gun I want it to make fucking sure you dont feel you are free to use it willy-nilly).

Genuine discussion is not about such absolutes as 'individualism vs Collectivism' but about exactly how the balance should be struck so as to produce the healthiest society and the healthiest individuals.

[crazy comie]

collective.

[commie kg]

I swing more to the collectivist side.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)do+Sep 15 2003, 11:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Infiltr(A)do @ Sep 15 2003, 11:48 PM)
[email protected] 16 2003, 04:44 AM
Both.
Agree [/b]
make that 3

[Red Flag]

collective

[Don't Change Your Name]

ignore anarcho-capitalists and such idiots, they just want to be "rebel capitalists" who smoke weed freely and with their free market and private property things they will create differences that will definately make some people not be truly free.
Such selfishness and greed will eventually make the state come again.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 17 2003, 01:00 AM
ignore anarcho-capitalists and such idiots, they just want to be "rebel capitalists" who smoke weed freely and with their free market and private property things they will create differences that will definately make some people not be truly free.
Such selfishness and greed will eventually make the state come again.
so true

[BRIN]

I personally am very much against Individulism in the sense that it promotes greed and exploitation.State comes first,community second,family third and self last.


Arab and Asian socialist countries seem to work better than western socialist states(with acceptions) because they are collectivist and thus less greedy.

[apathy maybe]

Communities are indervidual and produce what they need where they are. There is free flow of infomation, people and goods that can not be produced in some places.

[Umoja]

Collective.

[suffianr]

Actually, both aspects are highly dependent on cultural factors; revolutions in both Russia and China succeeded largely because the people were more collectivistic in nature than individualistic (even if it was "practised" more obviously during the formative years after the Bolshevik revolution i.e. Stalin&#39;s Five Year Plan).

That&#39;s why the imperialist West went absollutely apeshit during the Sixties, when post-colonial Indochina & South East Asian countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia were affected by communist insurgencies - the fear was that, being more collectivistic in nature, Asians would find communism more agreeable with their pre-set cultural codes and ethics than with Western-style "democracies" that served as platforms for the divide and rule modus operandi of puppet governments, elected by former colonial masters.