Individualism and "equality"

[jake williams]

So I was sitting on the shitter (I really do a great deal of my "active thinking" in the bathroom, often brushing my teeth but not always), and, while this thought is certainly not mine, it certainly seemed particularly potent and clear in the moment. In fact, as I understand it, it's a pretty common/important one in a broad cross-section of various libertarian/anarchist/even Marxist traditions.

So anyway.

The general point is that any sensible society arguing for "equality" must at the same time fight furiously for a deep individualism, a deep differentiation between, not between individuals and society, that bond should always be strong, but between individuals and other individuals. The thought is that if we all strive for the same character, the same interests and inabilities, it's inevitable that inequalities will arise, but moreover that these will be distinctly qualitative in character - developing a stark dominance/superiority relationship. But if people develop in at least relative uniqueness, this essentially disappears.

Thoughts? Is this just totally obvious and trivial? Or insane, or meaningless, or what?

[Dimentio]

Serious socialists tend to uphold individual freedom and the opportunity for the individual to develop herself and fulfill herself. But I do not think that we should actively pursue a policy to create individualistic people, since I do believe that such a kind of manipulation could result in contrarian results, in "artificial existence" and "meaninglessness".

[robot lenin]

I agree, if we attempt to create individualistic people, society will become individualistic and definitely not Socialist, since people will not be willing to work together. Of course, individual fulfillment is important: in essence thats one of the most important point of Socialism; after the abolition of oppression by the class oppression, people will be free from the division of labour and will be free therefore to fulfill their own ambitions and develop 'properly'.

[Dimentio]

Even if that means sitting in a room playing videogames? ^^

[jake williams]

I agree, if we attempt to create individualistic people, society will become individualistic and definitely not Socialist, since people will not be willing to work together.
See this is the trouble. I think to some degree we're talking about different kinds of "individualism", but I think partly we're just talking about complications and contradictions within the same "individualism".

I think people should have some interest in the self. Even a lot of interest. Active and excited and passionate development of one's abilities and wants and character and so on. But though I definitely don't think this precludes a very strong attachment to and solidarity with other individuals, working intently, as well, on a collective project of human development - it's true that the two aren't necessarily mutually beneficial in every case. Of course, by doctrinal convention they even counteract each other.

So I do think to some degree we have to be careful, sure. But I think it's entirely possible to promote "individualistic" (and I use the term somewhat awkwardly because it's acquired rather unpleasant connotations, and not without reason) ideas without damaging an equitable and involved society. In fact, my whole point is that I think it's necessary. Set aside any possible subjective benefits of an acknowledgment of "individual", like I said; I think encouraging people to develop different interests and abilities (and so on, there are plenty of terms I could use here, whole spheres of personhood, but it's easy to become used to a few) helps fight against stratification and dominance relationships which attack the ideas of society and solidarity and equality and so on.

If I can use a somewhat oversimplified and uncomfortable analogy, think about it this way, this I guess is the general idea of what I'm talking about. If everyone plays basketball, in fact, better example, if everyone does high-jump, it's going to become quite obvious that you have good high jumpers because they jump high, and bad high jumpers who can't get high. But if a few people play soccer, a few people play hockey, no one plays golf because it's ridiculous, but different people do different things, and it "dequantifies" human character - it becomes much less possible to "order" human worth.

We do, of course, need to be careful about slipping into irrationalities. I get very annoyed when there's suggestion that all people are automatically "equal" in ability and act, partly because it seems an engine of exploitation - the popular blind assertion that society gives equal worth to janitors and CEOs is of course a tool for hiding the huge differences in how our society treats these tasks. It's not just about that though - truth is, some people will be really good at a whole lot of things, some people won't be good at much. But I do think very much of that property of people is the fault of a harmful, inequitable, irrational system, and yes, I think partly it's the fault of not encouraging people properly to develop their own individual persons. And yes, there are contradictions, and one must always keep in one's head the idea of contributing to a grand project of collective human society. Sure. But I still think this would help a whole lot.

[Holden Caulfield]

not that its very useful but in my college we were doing a bit of sociological/psychological/etc.. bull shit taking and kinda thought in the west we are more individualisitic through history with the whole capitalism thing and such, where as in the east and asia they are more collective, with their massive imperialist rulers etc..

maybe this trend is why communism took a stronger hold the further east you go (huge generalisation there) and that our cultures define whether we are individualistic or collectivists no matter what our better sense tells us,

the USSR took some effort to make their proles alot less individualistic, and its common sense that the less self centred you are the more willing you would be to follow communism.