Collectivism vs. Individualism

[Heretek]

A game and a debate I recently had got me thinking about the left and what we represent.

Some claim we are collectivists because we are arguing for the the good of society and humanity as a whole, that everyone takes care of everyone, and, less positively as a criticism, we tend to concentrate power into the state and make the common good all about that (mostly applies to MLs and the USSR).

On the other hand we are claimed to be individualists because the most beneficial path of the individual worker to follow is that of communism/anarchism, that we promote free will and independence, and, critically, that we serve the interests of one individual in power, the demagogue (mostly USSR and north Korea).

So my question here is, which is it? Some have talked about the horseshoe theory and how since we're so far to whichever we're the other one at the same time, but I've never really believed that argument as it falls flat in many places. Are we collectivist, individualist, both, neither, some kind of mixture, or something else entirely?

[ckaihatsu]

There are at least *3* contexts / continuums at-play regarding this issue, that of *scale* [up-and-down], *social organization* ('politics') [left-to-right], and time-scale [back-to-forward] -- we might also consider the additional factor of *material process*, whether the material context is that of *production*, *consumption*, or *administration*.

In terms of social administration and production, yes, we *are* collectivists, indisputably, as you're describing.

If we consider *scale*, though, we also look to empower the self-agency of the *individual* -- 'self-determination'.

This *isn't* a contradiction, as might be accused, because of the contexts of scale and material process.

Certainly the individual would have individualistic self-determination, as over one's own life-path-determining personal *consumption*, while possibly joining-in any larger (and large-scale) *production* processes, or 'projects', with others, perhaps spanning the entire globe.

In terms of left-right I've come to see leftism in-general as being pointed leftwards at 'individualism' -- the arbitrary *liberation* of the individual from the obligations of the 'centrist' mainstream -- also seen at times in leftist-separatist (premature) positions that can be accurately described as 'ultra-left'. (Consider that the to-the-right direction necessarily implies a social organization of *hierarchy*, or 'tribalism'.)


G.U.T.S.U.C., Individualism - Tribalism

[Alet]

The reason why this might be confusing is that this is simply a false dilemma. Just like the theory of totalitarianism, the dispute about collectivism vs individualism is only valid, if it is congruent with liberal values in the first place. These are silly abstractions with moral connotations, as if humans made a decision between a "system" that is built upon "individualism" and a "system" that is built upon "collectivism"; as if they were the two conflicting eternal principles that political discourse is constituted by. To speak of collectivism as opposed to individualism (generally and in most cases at least) requires the prerequisite of liberal values, that is, the partisanship which makes one favor individualism in the first place. We're communists, we don't care about moral justifications because we recognize the social conflict behind moral conflicts, that there are no "right" and "wrong" morals, there are only classes, which entail a morality. So if you're talking to a liberal, tell them with a straight face that, yes, we are indeed collectivists. We seek to destroy the framework, which makes this very notion of "individualism" possible and justifiable in the first place. Those who prattle, crying about collectivism, are horrified by their notion of communism - and even if these very notions are wrong (they are in all probability), we still make no pretense of making it comfortable for them. They have a reason to be disgusted by communism, their false notion is just a projection of the real horrors of it which are upon them, if they are faced with an actual revolution etc.

Just to make my point perfectly clear, take Aldous Huxley as an example. His novel was certainly influenced by communist ideology, maybe to a certain extent even by Stalinism. It is very obvious that the brave new world is not really a communist society, Huxley probably didn't even make a pretense of describing one. Nevertheless, the book or atleast the message it conveys should be objected by communists. Again, not because his utopia was "real communism" and he opposed it, but because his fear is genuine, he ideologically projects what in his mind is terrifying about communism onto a fictional world.

To come back to the initial point regarding collectivism: Those bourgeois ideologues, who are disgusted by collectivism, who fear that they won't be able to "fulfill themselves" in a communist society, it's not our job to make our positions attractive to them. That they probably have wrong ideas of communism doesn't matter - they'd oppose the real ones twice as much, in other words.

In Marxist theory, however, this is - as I said - just a false dilemma. Individualism and collectivism are not eternal principles societies are based upon, they (or to be more precise, the notions of them) are themselves constituted by nothing else than the social relation between humans. The notion of individualism implies that man is naturally "free", born with certain skills and talents in order to be equipped for social life, that society (or social pressure, collectivism) in a way limits their "individuality" etc. We as Marxists, on the other hand, recognize that there is no such thing as "individuality". It's pretty much like Marx's position on division of labor: Its development was not owed to inherent skills but these skills only then became meaningful when their structural necessity preceded them. Likewise, there is no trait and no skill that does not relate to, is not constituted by a wider social order in the first place. Individualism, privacy, etc. must not be taken for granted - they are only existent because their social context allows them to existent, it necessitates them even. Every single human being relates to a whole society, no exception.

That is to say there is no antagonism between "collectivism" and "individualism". Communism for the communist subject isn't really either of the two, for communism is the recognition of one's own, already existing (inevitably existing) relation to and dependence on society as a whole. It's not individualism because this implies free will, and it's not collectivism because this requires individualism as a counterpart. Think of it this way: In communism, it's every individual's genuine will to be part of a greater collective. Solidarity is their self-fulfillment.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he dispute about collectivism vs individualism is only valid, if it is congruent with liberal values in the first place. These are silly abstractions with moral connotations, as if humans made a decision between a "system" that is built upon "individualism" and a "system" that is built upon "collectivism"; as if they were the two conflicting eternal principles that political discourse is constituted by. To speak of collectivism as opposed to individualism (generally and in most cases at least) requires the prerequisite of liberal values, that is, the partisanship which makes one favor individualism in the first place.

I agree that we don't need to subscribe to a *false dichotomy* of 'collectivism vs. individualism' regarding *social being*, but neither should we ignore that an inherent 'collectivism vs. individualism' dichotomy *exists* as a matter of physical empirical reality, as seen in the objective dimension of *scale*.

At some point in the day, perhaps as one wakes up and tends to personal matters (and/or at the end of the day, similarly), one is indisputably an *individual*, necessarily with a consciousness that reflects this empirical fact, and hopefully at more points throughout the day as well.

We as Marxists, on the other hand, recognize that there is no such thing as "individuality".

This is just too problematic since we / anyone can readily recognize that one's own life-path of unique personal events could potentially be described in an individually particular 'narrative', or literary, kind of way, in which one is mostly or partially the *protagonist* of one's own life.

It's *this scale* of social reality that readily comes to mind to cut against any nightmare dystopian 'totalitarian' (Stalinistic) social order that might be imagined -- the needs of the individual include the need for some degree of *control* and concomitant subjective *meaning* over one's own existence, which will always mitigate any degree of top-down 'cookie-cutter' generic social imposition onto all persons of a population.


[6] Worldview Diagram

Worldview Diagram

[/QUOTE]

[Alet]

i agree that we don't need to subscribe to a *false dichotomy* of 'collectivism vs. Individualism' regarding *social being*, but neither should we ignore that an inherent 'collectivism vs. Individualism' dichotomy *exists* as a matter of physical empirical reality, as seen in the objective dimension of *scale*.

In order to recognize it as the purportedly inherent nature of physical empirical reality, however, one has to take the qualifications for collectivism and individualism for granted in the first place. That is because they are purely human, purely social categories, which - as all meaning does - relates to nothing else than human practice. You claim that there is an inherent dichotomy in empirical reality as if collectivist and individualist characteristics were indisputably the basis of existence of this empirical reality. Yet, it was my very point that collectivism and individualism are not eternal principles. They are not empirically observable phenomena but abstractions (and only humans are able to abstract, if I was not clear enough). Of course, if we agree on the bourgeois definition, one could go on like this and differentiate the empirical reality according to various degrees of "individualist freedom" and "collectivist imposition" all they like. But this is exactly what I was trying to say: To speak of individualism/collectivism is already ideological.

The point is that scales do not exist in a vacuum. You are able to apply this scale to empirical reality only after you have made the distinction between collectivism and individualism. And the only reasons for your distinction are practical ones. In order to qualify empirical reality as this or that, even if one adheres to the rationality of your scale, they have to agree on a framework that allows their rationality to be justifiable. For instance, let's take the example you present. If one tends to personal matters, they conceive themselves "as individuals" only insofar as their specific social context already entails a dichotomy between collectivism and individualism, or social matters and personal matters - it is only when they ideologically associate their personal matters with a private sphere that must be left untouched by society, with "being an individual", that they think like that. The reasons for this are again social - it becomes a false dichotomy again once we recognize the possibility that one, according to a very different framework with a very different rationality, can easily relate their "personal matters" to their wider social order just as well. This does not even seem to be unlikely for a hypothetical society that is unalienated and self-conscious, that is, conscious of the objective social relations that constitute each and every one.

It should be noted that I'm speaking of "individual" in the bourgeois, presently prevailing sense here, that is, individual as associated with uniqueness, privacy, and so on. Of course, self-conscious individuals do exist and there is such a thing as subjectivity. I'm not denying this, and my point remains consistent, but I'll elaborate on that in the next few paragraphs.

This is just too problematic since we / anyone can readily recognize that one's own life-path of unique personal events could potentially be described in an individually particular 'narrative', or literary, kind of way, in which one is mostly or partially the *protagonist* of one's own life.

One is indeed very capable of being conscious of their own experiences, that is, capable of being conscious at all. And that's all there is to it: It just stresses the obvious fact that humans are conscious subjects, that I am me and not someone else, that I am relating to the experiences of my own life and not to those of ckaihatsu's. The mere existence of subjects, individuals (in the modest sense) is not being questioned. The controversy begins when we ask what defines the consciousness of a subject. And this is what I was referring to in my post: Individuals do not exist for themselves, they inevitably relate to a wider social context, which gives birth to their way of thinking and their way of conceiving themselves. So even if you assume that your life could be a novel with you as the protagonist, you would not be able to think like that without relating to the social order you are part of - just as one could hide themselves in their basement and play video games the whole day all they like, they are nevertheless relating to a wider social context, and this is what constitutes their way of living in the first place.

So my point is actually quite simple: There is no individuality as opposed to society and "social pressure". The framework for this opposition is totally contingent on the social order and its rationality. That one can be self-conscious and relate to his "personal" (again, in the modest sense, not in terms of privacy etc.) experiences does not mean anything, it does not prove any uniqueness or independence from society. This would simply be a sophism because the banal fact that people have an own mind and do not think collectively does not tell us anything about the constitution of their subjectivity.

It's *this scale* of social reality that readily comes to mind to cut against any nightmare dystopian 'totalitarian' (stalinistic) social order that might be imagined -- the needs of the individual include the need for some degree of *control* and concomitant subjective *meaning* over one's own existence, which will always mitigate any degree of top-down 'cookie-cutter' generic social imposition onto all persons of a population.

The problem here is that I'm not simply talking about "social impositions", I'm talking about ideology. The difference is that ideology, because it is an inevitable yet also socially defined reflection of one's relation to their social order, is a submission to the framework provided by the social order that is actively, willfully reproduced. In other words, ideology is not a "social imposition" because it necessitates the willful preservation of the individual. Hence I said: "Think of it this way: In communism, it's every individual's genuine will to be part of a greater collective. Solidarity is their self-fulfillment." Note that this conclusion derives from the argumentation that I have given above. Of course, one needs "meaning over one's own existence", but meaning does not cease to exist with the recognition that individuality is fake because society as a whole always constituted it - giving a meaning to one's own life does not necessarily entail "individual success" as opposed to "social duties". They can very well be congruent.

[ckaihatsu]

It should be noted that I'm speaking of "individual" in the bourgeois, presently prevailing sense here, that is, individual as associated with uniqueness, privacy, and so on.

Of course, self-conscious individuals do exist and there is such a thing as subjectivity. I'm not denying this, and my point remains consistent, but I'll elaborate on that in the next few paragraphs.

If you're acknowledging that self-conscious individuals do exist, and that there *is* such a thing as subjectivity, then that's a concurrence with the point that I'm making -- physical reality gives us the ability of consciousness / self-awareness, which is the very *definition* of 'individuality'.

[O]ne could go on like this and differentiate the empirical reality according to various degrees of "individualist freedom" and "collectivist imposition" all they like.

But this is exactly what I was trying to say: To speak of individualism/collectivism is already ideological.

No, not necessarily -- I'll refer again to physical, empirical reality, wherein people may potentially be *consuming* from heterogeneous lists of items / goods / services / infrastructure, the result of exercising one's own *subjectivity*, which you've already acknowledged as existing objectively.

That one can be self-conscious and relate to his "personal" (again, in the modest sense, not in terms of privacy etc.) experiences does not mean anything, it does not prove any uniqueness or independence from society. This would simply be a sophism because the banal fact that people have an own mind and do not think collectively does not tell us anything about the constitution of their subjectivity.

I'm not *trying* to prove 'independence from society' -- here's from my previous post:

I agree that we don't need to subscribe to a *false dichotomy* of 'collectivism vs. individualism' regarding *social being*,

---

That one can be self-conscious and relate to his "personal" (again, in the modest sense, not in terms of privacy etc.) experiences does not mean anything, it does not prove any uniqueness or independence from society. This would simply be a sophism because the banal fact that people have an own mind and do not think collectively does not tell us anything about the constitution of their subjectivity.

I'm also not trying to investigate 'the constitution of [one's] subjectivity' -- that's a *tangential* topic.

Of course, one needs "meaning over one's own existence", but meaning does not cease to exist with the recognition that individuality is fake because society as a whole always constituted it

You're *contradicting* yourself again because you've acknowledged 'self-conscious individuals' and 'subjectivity', yet you're continuing to deny that these are equivalent to 'individuality'.

- giving a meaning to one's own life does not necessarily entail "individual success" as opposed to "social duties". They can very well be congruent.

No argument.

I'll 'borrow from the future', so-to-speak, and point out that the principle of egalitarianism implies an even-handed approach, individual-to-individual, in all matters of collective (mass) decision-making, as over policy and/or project -- this is where *scale* is again relevant, because once a mass determination has been made over policy / project, there is inherently the *next-step* of *implementation*, which is different from the decision-making itself.

In other words not everyone worldwide (potentially) who *agrees* with a particular approach ('politics') is necessarily going to be physically, etc., *participating* in the actual realization of the same -- this is a clear case of empirical 'collectivism vs. individualism', because politics assumes self-consciousness / subjectivity from the individual (no automatic groupthink), yet resulting policy has to emerge as *uniform*, covering wide swaths of affected individuals.

[Thirsty Crow]

A game and a debate I recently had got me thinking about the left and what we represent.

Some claim we are collectivists because we are arguing for the the good of society and humanity as a whole, that everyone takes care of everyone, and, less positively as a criticism, we tend to concentrate power into the state and make the common good all about that (mostly applies to MLs and the USSR).

On the other hand we are claimed to be individualists because the most beneficial path of the individual worker to follow is that of communism/anarchism, that we promote free will and independence, and, critically, that we serve the interests of one individual in power, the demagogue (mostly USSR and north Korea).

So my question here is, which is it? Some have talked about the horseshoe theory and how since we're so far to whichever we're the other one at the same time, but I've never really believed that argument as it falls flat in many places. Are we collectivist, individualist, both, neither, some kind of mixture, or something else entirely?

It's neither. In other words, the starting framework, the dichotomy itself is an ideological mystification.

The reasonable element in the notion of collectivism is that, indeed, communists argue for the abolition of cannibalistic competition between individuals, in favor of a mode of social and economic organization that is based on free cooperation which is entirely premised on satisfying all of the needs of every individual. This also has consequences for, broadly speaking, ethical values and kinds of personality and psychological traits.

On the other hand, the precondition of communism is free expression and participation in shaping our own world; some would say that's "individualism" since the attitude completely shuns submission to tradition and hierarchical social roles derived from any of existing sets of cultural practices that constitute various ideological traditions (not that they are solely ideological). Some traits that might be associated with this, such as a strong sense of personality and self-worth, a certain kind of assertiveness and a complete distrust of any kind of submission to a mystified "greater whole" could be considered at odds with an equally mystified notion of the Party as embodiment of the proletariat which acts as the group who holds the privilege of initiative and command. Though, that is at odds with communism. The greater whole is a possible world human community in which every single individual can participate freely.

[Alet]

If you're acknowledging that self-conscious individuals do exist, and that there *is* such a thing as subjectivity, then that's a concurrence with the point that I'm making -- physical reality gives us the ability of consciousness / self-awareness, which is the very *definition* of 'individuality'.

No, you don't understand the point: I've talked about consciousness and subjectivity as clearly distinguished from notions of inividuality. My point regarding consciousness and subjectivity is very modest here. I'm saying that consciousness is the very axiom of human practice, and the interaction with other humans. And that's all there is to it: Consciousness is an axiom. To mention that physical reality is the source of our ability to think is not necessary here, as we all (at least purport to) agree on basic principles of materialism. Nobody claimed anything else. But furthermore, it's completely tautological to say that we all experienced different lives we refer to in our present existence, and that we therefore all have different minds. Remember, your argument was that everyone is the "protagonist" of one's own life. And the only thing this tells us is that there is not one single consciousness, that I am thinking what I am thinking and not what ckaihatsu is thinking. But this is a banal fact that is not being questioned here, that is actually not being questioned at all because it is - as I said - an axiom. To conclude that individualism does objectively exist from this banality is simply a sophism, just as it would be a sophism, if one concluded from this that egoism is the essence of human being. Individualism and egoism exceed the fact that there are many people with different minds. Notions of individualism refer to specific organizations of these interacting minds, i.e. a specific social order.

Again, self-consciousness and subjectivity, as I put it, are simply basic features of consciousness they are completely interchangeable. But this is not what is implied when one speaks of individualism or individuality, there is in fact much more behind it. And that's why it is such a tragedy that you simply ignored my first paragraphs because this is the reason you missed my point. The notion of individuality also requires the notion of an authority over one's own will, that is, a party's or society's authority, whatever you like - just as the notion of individualism requires the notion of collectivism. It requires a counterpart, it requires a limitation of so-called "self-fulfillment", else one wouldn't even be able to express their own individuality in the first place. You claim that thinking, mere thinking as such (because that's all there is to it) is "the very definition of individuality", yet, when people speak of individuality in our bourgeois society, they don't simply mean that they are able to be conscious of their own existence. They mean that they have will and wants others don't have, they mean that each human being is special, as all have different talents, skills, opinions, etc. They speak of individuality as the premise and moral legitimation of liberalism, they speak of individuality as opposed to the coercion to be part of a greater collective. This is what the whole collectivism vs individualism thing is about.

So I repeat, to mention self-consciousness is totally worthless in this context because individualism does not only refer to different consciousnesses but to different consciousnesses that are (politically, ideologically) conflicting. It does not simply mean that I think what I think and ckaihatsu thinks what ckhaitsu thinks, it implies that I must not "force" ckaihatsu to agree with me at gunpoint, and likewise ckaihatsu must not "force" me to agree with him at gunpoint. However, if mine and ckaihatsu's positions are congruent, if we agree, without being forced to, there is no need to speak of individuality.

No, not necessarily -- I'll refer again to physical, empirical reality, wherein people may potentially be *consuming* from heterogeneous lists of items / goods / services / infrastructure, the result of exercising one's own *subjectivity*, which you've already acknowledged as existing objectively.

What made you think that you could simply leave out what I have said before as if it wasn't important for the argument you are attacking? Can you tell me how I came to the conclusion that speaking of individualism/collectivism is already ideological in the first place? Did I simply claim this in a vacuum, doesn't it relate to the points I've made before and after this one? Let's just begin with what you left out in the very same sentence, that is: "Of course, if we agree on the bourgeois definition, one could go on like this and differentiate the empirical reality according to [...]" and so on. So I was starting from the premise that we are talking as bourgeois ideologues, in order to make my point. Therefore, the subjectivity which I acknowledge as existing objectively does not in any way entail individualism, for the latter is a bourgeois notion and the former a basic axiom of thought in general.

And did I arbitrarily start from this premise or did I have a reason for that, which I've mentioned above and elaborated on in the next paragraph? You are again referring to an empirical reality as if it by nature inherited collectivism and individualism - that is, as if collectivism and individualism were not human categories/abstractions but metaphysical entities which by themselves give meaning to the empirical reality. But this is what I have already attacked, also in relation to your example with an individual tending to their personal matters. As you wish, I will gladly repeat myself: There is no empirically existing thing that humans have to characterize as individualist or collectivist. This very characterization is a matter of practice, a matter of men and women expressing their characterization in order to engage in their practical life activity. They translate an objectively existing phenomenon as, say, collectivist because it offends their ideological position, that is, their liberal values. Only when they actually have a practical reason to make a distinction between individualism and collectivism, they are able to apply them to empirical reality. Where the two notions would be congruent, the need for this dichotomy and therefore the terms themselves ceases to exist. People don't speak of collectivism, if they collectively agree on a matter.

As to the consumption of items etc., this is totally meaningless as regards the controversy. "Exercising one's own subjectivity" can only be translated as individualist, if one fears the possibility to be forced to submit to society against their own will, which they would translate as collectivist. The dichotomy is therefore not a given, it is an ideological matter.

By the way, approaching and translating empirical reality is always necessarily ideological. There is no neutral, unbiased interpretation of both natural and social processes. Both require a set of ideological, philosophical axioms in order to relate them to one's practical life. Only when a future communist society doesn't relate to capitalism anymore does it become tricky: As there are no classes, there are also no ideological and philosophical disagreements, therefore there is no ideology or philosophy as such, as they are totally congruent with human practice. They don't need to differentiate themselves from other positions so they would not be called ideology or philosophy. Likewise, collectivism and individualism would not need to be differentiated from each other because they are congruent. That's why I claim that communism is neither collectivist nor individualist.

I'm also not trying to investigate 'the constitution of [one's] subjectivity' -- that's a *tangential* topic.

And it's precisely because you are not trying to engage in this controversy that I claim that you take the qualifications for individualism and collectivism for granted. One cannot speak of individuality without speaking of what constitutes individuality in the first place. One cannot speak of a dichotomy between an individual and the society without speaking of what constitutes this dichotomy and why this dichotomy exists in the first place. Only after this is clear we can critique notions of individualism and collectivism, only then can we tell how this dichotomy comes about - because, again, collectivism and individualism are abstractions, they are categories, which solely exist in the humand mind. So you cannot divorce this topic from that which constitutes the individual mind in the first place (i.e. his relation to society).

You're *contradicting* yourself again because you've acknowledged 'self-conscious individuals' and 'subjectivity', yet you're continuing to deny that these are equivalent to 'individuality'.

Because they are not. I have explained very clearly what I mean by "individuality": "It should be noted that I'm speaking of 'individual' in the bourgeois, presently prevailing sense here, that is, individual as associated with uniqueness, privacy, and so on." And: "There is no individuality as opposed to society and 'social pressure'." If you mean something else and insist on your own arbitrary definition, good for you. But I'm referring to what most people imply because this is what the thread is about.

No argument.

It is no argument for you because you fail to relate it to the rest of my post. In fact, it is an argument because you speak of individuals seeking to give their own meaning to their lives in the context of a debate about individualism as opposed to collectivism. So what you clearly imply, also by mentioning "social imposition", is that society does not tolerate the individual's meaning they prefer to give to their lives. My argument is an argument because I claim that in communism an individual's meaning of life is congruent with everyones meaning of life. There is no dichotomy at all, that's why it is nonsense to speak of individualism or collectivism.

this is a clear case of empirical 'collectivism vs. individualism', because politics assumes self-consciousness / subjectivity from the individual (no automatic groupthink), yet resulting policy has to emerge as *uniform*, covering wide swaths of affected individuals.

It's just ironic that you claim that you're in fact not trying to prove individuality in the bourgeois sense, that is, unique individual desires that exist independently from society, and yet you imply a dichotomy between the thought of self-conscious individuals (that is merely thinking subjects) and "automatic groupthink". This is exactly what I have argued against the whole time. One only speaks of collectivism and implies a criticism in the term "groupthink", if they don't agree with the framework of social decisionmaking in the first place - that is, if they feel that this very framework is against their ("individual") will, so they must oppose it politically. If everyone agrees on this framework, however, the dichotomy ceases to exist. This is why nobody from the bourgeois factions and everything left to them claims that (bourgeois) democracy is collectivist - even if there is a majority and a minority, everybody (at least every bourgeois ideologue) agrees that "you have to tolerate the decisions of the majority, even if you don't like it". They nevertheless translate it as individualist because this is the most effective framework for the bourgeois individuals to express their wills. It's no "collectivism" and no "social imposition" because they accept the rules.

[ckaihatsu]

I was starting from the premise that we are talking as bourgeois ideologues, in order to make my point. Therefore, the subjectivity which I acknowledge as existing objectively does not in any way entail individualism, for the latter is a bourgeois notion and the former a basic axiom of thought in general.

I'm seeing that *frame of reference* / viewpoint / mindset / perspective is crucial here -- certainly I can accept your bourgeois-ideological-based treatment, and your assertion of 'individualism' as being inherently ideological.

That said, though, I'll return to your thesis point regarding *individuality*, and not 'individualism'.


---

No, you don't understand the point: I've talked about consciousness and subjectivity as clearly distinguished from notions of inividuality. My point regarding consciousness and subjectivity is very modest here. I'm saying that consciousness is the very axiom of human practice, and the interaction with other humans. And that's all there is to it: Consciousness is an axiom. To mention that physical reality is the source of our ability to think is not necessary here, as we all (at least purport to) agree on basic principles of materialism. Nobody claimed anything else.

Okay, I'm in agreement that 'consciousness is the very axiom of human practice', and I'll continue in the same direction to *further* maintain that this consciousness is also the empirical basis of *individuality* -- differentiating oneself from others.

But furthermore, it's completely tautological to say that we all experienced different lives we refer to in our present existence, and that we therefore all have different minds. Remember, your argument was that everyone is the "protagonist" of one's own life. And the only thing this tells us is that there is not one single consciousness, that I am thinking what I am thinking and not what ckaihatsu is thinking. But this is a banal fact that is not being questioned here, that is actually not being questioned at all because it is - as I said - an axiom.

I would say, then, that this is an axiom of *individuality*, however you'd like to characterize / qualify it.

To conclude that individualism does objectively exist from this banality is simply a sophism, just as it would be a sophism, if one concluded from this that egoism is the essence of human being. Individualism and egoism exceed the fact that there are many people with different minds. Notions of individualism refer to specific organizations of these interacting minds, i.e. a specific social order.

Certainly. I have no differences regarding your points pertaining to *ideology*.

I'll include the following framework for reference / f.y.i.:


philosophical abstractions

---

Again, self-consciousness and subjectivity, as I put it, are simply basic features of consciousness they are completely interchangeable. But this is not what is implied when one speaks of individualism or individuality,

I'm making a distinction here between 'individualism' -- inherently ideological -- and 'individuality', which I see denoted as synonymous with self-consciousness / subjectivity.

there is in fact much more behind it. And that's why it is such a tragedy that you simply ignored my first paragraphs because this is the reason you missed my point. The notion of individuality also requires the notion of an authority over one's own will, that is, a party's or society's authority, whatever you like -

I have to either contend this assertion that 'individuality' requires 'authority', or else just note that there could be multiple *interpretations* / meanings for 'individuality'. (I'm sticking with the "banal" definition of 'individuality'.)

just as

the notion of individualism requires the notion of collectivism.

Agreed on this point itself.

It requires a counterpart, it requires a limitation of so-called "self-fulfillment", else one wouldn't even be able to express their own individuality in the first place.

I *don't* agree here -- one could certainly indicate one's own willfulness and preferences, as a toddler does at that particular age of social ability.

You claim that thinking, mere thinking as such (because that's all there is to it) is "the very definition of individuality", yet, when people speak of individuality in our bourgeois society, they don't simply mean that they are able to be conscious of their own existence. They mean that they have will and wants others don't have, they mean that each human being is special, as all have different talents, skills, opinions, etc.

You're bolstering my take on 'individuality' *for* me here.

They speak of individuality as the premise and moral legitimation of liberalism, they speak of individuality as opposed to the coercion to be part of a greater collective. This is what the whole collectivism vs individualism thing is about.

Yes, again, I'm subscribing to a distinction between 'individuality' and *individualism* -- I have no differences with your point about the *politicization* of 'individuality', into *individualism*.

So I repeat, to mention self-consciousness is totally worthless in this context because individualism does not only refer to different consciousnesses but to different consciousnesses that are (politically, ideologically) conflicting.

Yes.

It does not simply mean that I think what I think and ckaihatsu thinks what ckhaitsu thinks, it implies that I must not "force" ckaihatsu to agree with me at gunpoint, and likewise ckaihatsu must not "force" me to agree with him at gunpoint. However, if mine and ckaihatsu's positions are congruent, if we agree, without being forced to, there is no need to speak of individuality.

Yes, in the context of *politics* you're correct.

What made you think that you could simply leave out what I have said before as if it wasn't important for the argument you are attacking? Can you tell me how I came to the conclusion that speaking of individualism/collectivism is already ideological in the first place? Did I simply claim this in a vacuum, doesn't it relate to the points I've made before and after this one? Let's just begin with what you left out in the very same sentence, that is: "Of course, if we agree on the bourgeois definition, one could go on like this and differentiate the empirical reality according to [...]" and so on. So I was starting from the premise that we are talking as bourgeois ideologues, in order to make my point. Therefore, the subjectivity which I acknowledge as existing objectively does not in any way entail individualism, for the latter is a bourgeois notion and the former a basic axiom of thought in general.

Okay.

And did I arbitrarily start from this premise or did I have a reason for that, which I've mentioned above and elaborated on in the next paragraph? You are again referring to an empirical reality as if it by nature inherited collectivism and individualism - that is, as if collectivism and individualism were not human categories/abstractions but metaphysical entities which by themselves give meaning to the empirical reality.

Well, I *am* going to have to invoke the empirical, objective quality of *scale* here -- some societies / social orders will empirically be relatively more-collective in how production gets done, and others will be more-individualistic for the same.

But this is what I have already attacked, also in relation to your example with an individual tending to their personal matters. As you wish, I will gladly repeat myself: There is no empirically existing thing that humans have to characterize as individualist or collectivist.

No, (repeating), this is incorrect -- we only have to look at any given *social organization* for any given production.

This very characterization is a matter of practice, a matter of men and women expressing their characterization in order to engage in their practical life activity. They translate an objectively existing phenomenon as, say, collectivist because it offends their ideological position, that is, their liberal values. Only when they actually have a practical reason to make a distinction between individualism and collectivism, they are able to apply them to empirical reality. Where the two notions would be congruent, the need for this dichotomy and therefore the terms themselves ceases to exist. People don't speak of collectivism, if they collectively agree on a matter.

I appreciate your emphasis on the 'mass-subjective', or 'ideological', aspect of definition, but any such subjective-sided characterizations by anyone *are* subjective, by definition, and may or may not accurately describe the *existing empirical reality* of what's being described.

As to the consumption of items etc., this is totally meaningless as regards the controversy. "Exercising one's own subjectivity" can only be translated as individualist, if one fears the possibility to be forced to submit to society against their own will, which they would translate as collectivist. The dichotomy is therefore not a given, it is an ideological matter.

Okay, no argument.

By the way, approaching and translating empirical reality is always necessarily ideological. There is no neutral, unbiased interpretation of both natural and social processes.

What about *Marxism* -- !

Both require a set of ideological, philosophical axioms in order to relate them to one's practical life. Only when a future communist society doesn't relate to capitalism anymore does it become tricky: As there are no classes, there are also no ideological and philosophical disagreements, therefore there is no ideology or philosophy as such, as they are totally congruent with human practice. They don't need to differentiate themselves from other positions so they would not be called ideology or philosophy. Likewise, collectivism and individualism would not need to be differentiated from each other because they are congruent. That's why I claim that communism is neither collectivist nor individualist.

I *mostly* agree, but I'll maintain that *some* kind of objective / empirical reality would exist, as in terms of 'how-collectivist', or 'how-individual' social production winds up being. (We commonly subscribe to the notion that *much more* -- almost *everything* -- would be *collectively produced* in communism, and certainly much moreso than how production is done today.)

And it's precisely because you are not trying to engage in this controversy that I claim that you take the qualifications for individualism and collectivism for granted. One cannot speak of individuality without speaking of what constitutes individuality in the first place. One cannot speak of a dichotomy between an individual and the society without speaking of what constitutes this dichotomy and why this dichotomy exists in the first place. Only after this is clear we can critique notions of individualism and collectivism, only then can we tell how this dichotomy comes about - because, again,

collectivism and individualism are abstractions, they are categories, which solely exist in the humand mind.

No, this is incorrect because it implies that all notions of how social production is done are doomed to be nothing more than pure *imaginings*, and that the 'densities' of actual social arrangements in the world (material-network topologies) do not really exist and cannot be reliably ascertained.

So you cannot divorce this topic from that which constitutes the individual mind in the first place (i.e. his relation to society).

I'm not trying to.

Because they are not. I have explained very clearly what I mean by "individuality": "It should be noted that I'm speaking of 'individual' in the bourgeois, presently prevailing sense here, that is, individual as associated with uniqueness, privacy, and so on." And: "There is no individuality as opposed to society and 'social pressure'." If you mean something else and insist on your own arbitrary definition, good for you.

Thanks for understanding. (grin)

But I'm referring to what most people imply because this is what the thread is about.

The masses agree with *your* interpretation, huh -- ? (grin)


---

- giving a meaning to one's own life does not necessarily entail "individual success" as opposed to "social duties". They can very well be congruent.

No argument.

It is no argument for you because you fail to relate it to the rest of my post. In fact, it is an argument because you speak of individuals seeking to give their own meaning to their lives in the context of a debate about individualism as opposed to collectivism. So what you clearly imply, also by mentioning "social imposition", is that society does not tolerate the individual's meaning they prefer to give to their lives.

No, you're out on a limb with this line of reasoning, and you're putting words in my mouth -- I'm *not* arguing for 'individualism'.

My argument is an argument because I claim that in communism an individual's meaning of life is congruent with everyones meaning of life. There is no dichotomy at all, that's why it is nonsense to speak of individualism or collectivism.

I favor communism for the sake of a humane-rational *social production*, but that's as far as I'll go. You're more in what I term the 'heaven' camp of communist thought.

(I'll also again note that there's an objective *continuum* between 100%-collectivist production and 100%-individualistic production, empirically.)


---

[N]ot everyone worldwide (potentially) who *agrees* with a particular approach ('politics') is necessarily going to be physically, etc., *participating* in the actual realization of the same -- this is a clear case of empirical 'collectivism vs. individualism', because politics assumes self-consciousness / subjectivity from the individual (no automatic groupthink), yet resulting policy has to emerge as *uniform*, covering wide swaths of affected individuals.

It's just ironic that you claim that you're in fact not trying to prove individuality in the bourgeois sense, that is, unique individual desires that exist independently from society,

Regardless of socio-political context people are *not* all the same in their needs and wants, and such 'individuality' *will exhibit* going-forward.

and yet you imply a dichotomy between the thought of self-conscious individuals (that is merely thinking subjects) and "automatic groupthink". This is exactly what I have argued against the whole time. One only speaks of collectivism and implies a criticism in the term "groupthink", if they don't agree with the framework of social decisionmaking in the first place - that is, if they feel that this very framework is against their ("individual") will, so they must oppose it politically. If everyone agrees on this framework, however, the dichotomy ceases to exist.

I happen to see a potential post-capitalist 'politics' / social-production as being far more *complex* ('messy') than you do.

This is why nobody from the bourgeois factions and everything left to them claims that (bourgeois) democracy is collectivist - even if there is a majority and a minority, everybody (at least every bourgeois ideologue) agrees that "you have to tolerate the decisions of the majority, even if you don't like it". They nevertheless translate it as individualist because this is the most effective framework for the bourgeois individuals to express their wills. It's no "collectivism" and no "social imposition" because they accept the rules.

No argument.