"Individualism" vs. "Collectivism"

[GenesisNemesis]

A lot of people on the right wing appear to believe that "collectivism" leads to totalitarianism. I've always found this argument puzzling (to put it mildly) because in order for a totalitarian state to exist there has to be a single individual, who believes themselves to be excessively important, who obtains control over the state and acquires all political power. And, obviously, there is no way a single individual can simply take control over a state without some kind of movement behind them. How would that be the fault of "collectivism"? If there were no egotists whatseover, would Hitler or Stalin have existed? It's quite clear they were both egotists.

[epronovost]

A lot of people on the right wing appear to believe that "collectivism" leads to totalitarianism. I've always found this argument puzzling (to put it mildly) because in order for a totalitarian state to exist there has to be a single individual, who believes themselves to be excessively important, who obtains control over the state and acquires all political power. And, obviously, there is no way a single individual can simply take control over a state without some kind of movement behind them. How would that be the fault of "collectivism"? If there were no egotists whatseover, would Hitler or Stalin have existed? It's quite clear they were both egotists.

It comes down to a horseshoe effect. Extreme collectivism and individualism are both leading to totalitarianism as both of them end up crushing people for the benefit of ideology.

[jerry mcmasters]

A lot of people on the right wing appear to believe that "collectivism" leads to totalitarianism. I've always found this argument puzzling (to put it mildly) because in order for a totalitarian state to exist there has to be a single individual, who believes themselves to be excessively important, who obtains control over the state and acquires all political power. And, obviously, there is no way a single individual can simply take control over a state without some kind of movement behind them. How would that be the fault of "collectivism"? If there were no egotists whatseover, would Hitler or Stalin have existed? It's quite clear they were both egotists.

If you remove human nature from the equation, any and all utopias can be imagined.  "If men were angels, no government would be needed."

[GenesisNemesis]

A lot of people on the right wing appear to believe that "collectivism" leads to totalitarianism. I've always found this argument puzzling (to put it mildly) because in order for a totalitarian state to exist there has to be a single individual, who believes themselves to be excessively important, who obtains control over the state and acquires all political power. And, obviously, there is no way a single individual can simply take control over a state without some kind of movement behind them. How would that be the fault of "collectivism"? If there were no egotists whatseover, would Hitler or Stalin have existed? It's quite clear they were both egotists.

If you remove human nature from the equation, any and all utopias can be imagined.  "If men were angels, no government would be needed."

Yes, but what is human nature? Individualism and capitalism are not "human nature", humans did not evolve to be individualists or capitalists- these concepts are both human inventions. It was only until very recently in human history that anyone could afford to be an "individualist", capitalism is also very recent.

[jerry mcmasters]

A lot of people on the right wing appear to believe that "collectivism" leads to totalitarianism. I've always found this argument puzzling (to put it mildly) because in order for a totalitarian state to exist there has to be a single individual, who believes themselves to be excessively important, who obtains control over the state and acquires all political power. And, obviously, there is no way a single individual can simply take control over a state without some kind of movement behind them. How would that be the fault of "collectivism"? If there were no egotists whatseover, would Hitler or Stalin have existed? It's quite clear they were both egotists.

If you remove human nature from the equation, any and all utopias can be imagined.  "If men were angels, no government would be needed."

Yes, but what is human nature? Individualism and capitalism are not "human nature", humans did not evolve to be individualists or capitalists- these concepts are both human inventions.

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha.  Hell, put five guys in a room, they will sort out a pecking order.  The innate will to power, given the right tools, results in a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, etc.  "Capitalism," "Communism," "Anything else ism" are just laboratories that provide either greater or lesser opportunities for the "cream" to rise to the top.  It is the very heart of why "checks and balances" and "separation of power" are cornerstones of the enlightenment and basic principles of stable government.  (And I mean "cream" in the worst way, it could well be the person with the lowest character and self esteem and most social pathologies that takes best advantage of the situation.)

[GenesisNemesis]

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha. 

For as long as humans have existed, how long have humans been trying to dominate one another? 7,000 or 10,000 years, perhaps? Do we have much evidence of it happening on a widespread scale before civilization arrived ('civilization' being yet another human invention)?

[jerry mcmasters]

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha. 

For as long as humans have existed, how long have humans been trying to dominate one another? 7,000 or 10,000 years, perhaps? Do we have much evidence of it happening on a widespread scale before civilization arrived?

Why would it have been absent before that?  It just wouldn't have been able to result in the scale of dominance civilization allows.  A hunter-gatherer through his prowess would have sought to dominate his clan in pursuit of maximum mating options not greatly different from men of "civilized" power- kings, aristocrats, etc- that came later.

[epronovost]

A hunter-gatherer through his prowess would have sought to dominate his clan in pursuit of maximum mating options not greatly different from men of "civilized" power- kings, aristocrats, etc- that came later.

Anthropology has shed a certain light on it and in the overwhelming amount of case the answer was no. It's not the case. Structure of dominance you will see in "civilized" societies cannot easily be reproduced in hunter-gatherer societies.

[grympy]

A hunter-gatherer through his prowess would have sought to dominate his clan in pursuit of maximum mating options not greatly different from men of "civilized" power- kings, aristocrats, etc- that came later.

Anthropology has shed a certain light on it and in the overwhelming amount of case the answer was no. It's not the case. Structure of dominance you will see in "civilized" societies cannot easily be reproduced in hunter-gatherer societies.

 Quite right .

Hunter gather societies tend[ed] to be composed of family groups, of perhaps 20 people. Their  'political organisation' was anarchic .IE no  form of 'government' .It was not possible for an individual to  become personally  powerful. Any 'political leaders' were elected by consensus  and were situation-specific only.     Here  in Oz, the the term "aboriginal spokesman"  is an oxymoron in the sense of a permanent title .

It is virtually impossible to reproduce a "civilised' society within an anarchic society.  Hunter and gather societies often do not have any notion of  possessions ,or ownership of 'their' land.  It is 'theirs' just as their parents are 'theirs' ; through relationship, not ownership . Even pre industrial societies  had a quite staggering division of labour.  Societies  comprised of relatively small groups do not permit refined division of labour  .

[jerry mcmasters]

A hunter-gatherer through his prowess would have sought to dominate his clan in pursuit of maximum mating options not greatly different from men of "civilized" power- kings, aristocrats, etc- that came later.

Anthropology has shed a certain light on it and in the overwhelming amount of case the answer was no. It's not the case. Structure of dominance you will see in "civilized" societies cannot easily be reproduced in hunter-gatherer societies.

 Quite right .

Hunter gather societies tend[ed] to be composed of family groups, of perhaps 20 people. Their  'political organisation' was anarchic .IE no  form of 'government' .It was not possible for an individual to  become personally  powerful. Any 'political leaders' were elected by consensus  and were situation-specific only.     Here  in Oz, the the term "aboriginal spokesman"  is an oxymoron in the sense of a permanent title .

It is virtually impossible to reproduce a "civilised' society within an anarchic society.  Hunter and gather societies often do not have any notion of  possessions ,or ownership of 'their' land.  It is 'theirs' just as their parents are 'theirs' ; through relationship, not ownership . Even pre industrial societies  had a quite staggering division of labour.  Societies  comprised of relatively small groups do not permit refined division of labour  .

I'm not sure why you guys are ignoring the sentence I wrote right before the sentence you quote.  Jerry said: It just wouldn't have been able to result in the scale of dominance civilization allows.

Power and dominance come from the ability to control and allocate resources, mainly food resources.  Even the best most skillful hunter in the tribe could only control and allocate so much of the overall resources of the tribe, thus no one person was indispensable to the group and not dependent on the group.  If any one person started getting too Alpha and swinging his dick about too aggressively he would be quickly put back into his place.  But we're still talking about humans with human nature.  Just because the mechanism wasn't yet there to enforce dominance on the group doesn't mean they weren't still competing for attention, authority, as many mating opportunities as possible- aka dominance.  

Once that mechanism came along- "Civilization," mainly the rise of organized agriculture and the ability to control and hoard food resources on a massive scale- the basic nature could flourish in all its decadent and evil glory.

[epronovost]

Just because the mechanism wasn't yet there to enforce dominance on the group doesn't mean they weren't still competing for attention, authority, as many mating opportunities as possible- aka dominance.  

Anthropology and evolutionnary psychology also answered to a good portion of this hyopthesis and while of course there is a certain amount of dominance in every single social species (but that's such a self-evidence it doesn't even deserve mention) what you seem to be alluding to, some sort of germinating dominance conflict, wasn't really a thing because dominance and violence is highly inheritable as a trait for conflict resolution amongst most social species including primates. Societies like hunter-gatherers are still affected by natural selection and people with high level of dominant and violent traits are selected out thus being both less numerous and less "intense" as in the population of a civilization where such trait can become a boon. 

What's important to remember is that there is no such thing as a "human nature" at best we can say there are "human natures" and they are plastic. Some are more abundant then others and their level of abundance is affected by multiple factors. One thing that pretty much all humans have in common despite their various nature is the ability to reason. We are not slaves to our pulsions, habits and instincts. We can change our behaviors and mode of thinking in radical ways if given the proper education, environment and social structures. "Human nature" isn't much of an excuse for a social project to fail. The faillure comes most often from improper planning and application.

[jerry mcmasters]

Just because the mechanism wasn't yet there to enforce dominance on the group doesn't mean they weren't still competing for attention, authority, as many mating opportunities as possible- aka dominance.  

Anthropology and evolutionnary psychology also answered to a good portion of this hyopthesis and while of course there is a certain amount of dominance in every single social species (but that's such a self-evidence it doesn't even deserve mention) what you seem to be alluding to, some sort of germinating dominance conflict, wasn't really a thing because dominance and violence is highly inheritable as a trait for conflict resolution amongst most social species including primates. Societies like hunter-gatherers are still affected by natural selection and people with high level of dominant and violent traits are selected out thus being both less numerous and less "intense" as in the population of a civilization where such trait can become a boon.

I think you're underplaying ("that's such a self-evidence it doesn't even deserve mention") this "certain amount of dominance in every single social species." It has played a major role in shaping human society and it didn't appear out of nowhere with the rise of agriculture/civilization.

I understand what you're saying and yes it is reasonable that such dominant and violent traits would be more likely to find fruit and flourish in a civilization than in a hunter-gatherer environment where the same traits would be selected against.  The offenders with the most egregious (let's call them) "dominant traits"- the hunter-gatherer Hitlers and Maos- are likely going to get weeded out.  But that doesn't leave the other males with an equalibrium of traits, all more or less equally cooperative and egalitarian. You still would have had a range between males with less of these traits and males with more (maybe we could call them the hunter-gatherer Titos and Castros?). Maybe the more Alpha man gets access to that one or two extra females, maybe he gets the prime cut of meat that makes the difference between starvation and survival, but there he is, a human with a nature that's going to be magnified exponentially when the conditions- agricultural civilization- are there. If the traits weren't there, then Civilization wouldn't have become as exploitative and radically power imbalanced (especially with gender) as it immediately did and we would be living in a golden age now.

What's important to remember is that there is no such thing as a "human nature" at best we can say there are "human natures" and they are plastic. Some are more abundant then others and their level of abundance is affected by multiple factors. One thing that pretty much all humans have in common despite their various nature is the ability to reason. We are not slaves to our pulsions, habits and instincts. We can change our behaviors and mode of thinking in radical ways if given the proper education, environment and social structures. "Human nature" isn't much of an excuse for a social project to fail. The faillure comes most often from improper planning and application.

I agree with most of that, yes, “we” are not slaves to our anscestrial impulses. But history shows that all it takes is for a few of “we” to take advantage of a situation, to give in to the impulse for control, for dominance, to fuck up the various utopias we dream of. To say the failure of social projects doesn't come from “human nature” but from “improper planning and application” is just to say that human nature damn well has to be properly planned for.

[julep]

I personally am a collectivist, if forced to choose.

As an excellent test-taker, I should be individualist to the max, but I just can't. Too much experience with people who aren't great test-takers but have so much to contribute...and all of us are marching towards oblivion (my preferred compensation metric) together.

[GenesisNemesis]

I think you're underplaying ("that's such a self-evidence it doesn't even deserve mention") this "certain amount of dominance in every single social species." It has played a major role in shaping human society and it didn't appear out of nowhere with the rise of agriculture/civilization.

No one's saying it appeared out of nowhere, just that civilization provided many more incentives for domination to occur, and so it appears more amplified now because of how many incentives there are to act in such a way, but so many incentives to act in that way did not exist prior to civilization (as mentioned "individualism" and "capitalism" are both products of this concept of "civilization"). Thus we are biased towards the view that "humans are inherently selfish", and that could be in itself a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[jerry mcmasters]

I think you're underplaying ("that's such a self-evidence it doesn't even deserve mention") this "certain amount of dominance in every single social species." It has played a major role in shaping human society and it didn't appear out of nowhere with the rise of agriculture/civilization.

No one's saying it appeared out of nowhere, just that civilization provided many more incentives for domination to occur, and so it appears more amplified now because of how many incentives there are to act in such a way, but so many incentives to act in that way did not exist prior to civilization (as mentioned "individualism" and "capitalism" are both products of this concept of "civilization"). Thus we are biased towards the view that "humans are inherently selfish", and that could be in itself a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If no one's saying it appeared out of nowhere, I don't understand why you and Epronovost don't think that it was already there.  That's the simplest explanation.  Civilization just provides the new playground for it to flourish.

[epronovost]

If no one's saying it appeared out of nowhere, I don't understand why you and Epronovost don't think that it was already there.  That's the simplest explanation.  Civilization just provides the new playground for it to flourish.

Now we get into the demarcation problem. What does it mean "to be there" or "to appear out of nowhere". What I'm arguing for and what the relevent sciences seem to point at is that "dominant traits" were of lower intensity and very rare in hunter-gatherer societies and early sedentary ones, but became more and more prevalent as civilisation developped themselves. Epigenetic also might be a missing piece of the puzzle. The rise of civilization caused a radical change of environment which changed the way certain genes expressed themselves repurposing them to new uses and producing new traits. Epigenetics is, in its own way, a non-gene based form of evolution.

[jerry mcmasters]

If no one's saying it appeared out of nowhere, I don't understand why you and Epronovost don't think that it was already there.  That's the simplest explanation.  Civilization just provides the new playground for it to flourish.

Now we get into the demarcation problem. What does it mean "to be there" or "to appear out of nowhere". What I'm arguing for and what the relevent sciences seem to point at is that "dominant traits" were of lower intensity and very rare in hunter-gatherer societies and early sedentary ones, but became more and more prevalent as civilisation developped themselves. Epigenetic also might be a missing piece of the puzzle. The rise of civilization caused a radical change of environment which changed the way certain genes expressed themselves repurposing them to new uses and producing new traits. Epigenetics is, in its own way, a non-gene based form of evolution.

We may be really splitting hairs here. I don't think you think humans radically changed from HG times to civilization times, as if there were Homo-Niceguy and then suddenly the knowledge of hoarding resources creates Homo-Asshole. I hope you don't think I think there was literally no change as humans went from HG to Civ, I just can't imagine there was much change and don't know how such a thing could even be proved, “traits” seems like something innate and part of ones nature whereas what is being observed are actually “behaviors.” So we are quibbling about degree of change and probably not as far from each other as it seems.

“Traits” are actions that give evidence of themselves in behavior. Everyone's behavior changes when introduced to a new environment. It doesn't mean there is any kind of fundamental change in the actual human being. If I take 100 people accustomed to living in, say, a modern first world environment, then drop them down in a large third-world prison, their behavior will change. But are they in some fundamental way different humans? Not really. The human nature that was forged by hundreds of thousands of years is going to do what it does, and that may result in different observable outcomes that should not be mistaken for some kind of fundamental changes in nature.

So experts see evidence that “dominant traits” (selfish, physically and sexually aggressive, exploitative) were less evident in HG than later in Civ. But evidence can't be seen if the environment literally didn't allow it to exist, which we have both granted is the case- new environment, new opportunity to dominate/exploit. The HG environment didn't give the opportunity to exploit that the Civ environment did, so of course you're not going to see it, but the underlying exploitative software was surely there ready to run.

I don't want to derail the thread, so to tie this back to possibilities and potentials for fruitful collective societies, this conversation does seem to imply that, if correctly ordered to account for humans at their worst, they could be successful. 20th century history, though, says “be careful

[epronovost]

We may be really splitting hairs here. I don't think you think humans radically changed from HG times to civilization times, as if there were Homo-Niceguy and then suddenly the knowledge of hoarding resources creates Homo-Asshole. I hope you don't think I think there was literally no change as humans went from HG to Civ, I just can't imagine there was much change and don't know how such a thing could even be proved, “traits” seems like something innate and part of ones nature whereas what is being observed are actually “behaviors.” So we are quibbling about degree of change and probably not as far from each other as it seems.

I agree with the fact that we might be splitting hairs on this one and that both our positions are probably a lot closer to each other than it might appear, but stated in different fashion. Since none of us are anthropologist or evolutionnary psychologist and since we don't share the same the ontology due to not being academics in the domain we can't really delve much deeper than that.

[jerry mcmasters]

We may be really splitting hairs here. I don't think you think humans radically changed from HG times to civilization times, as if there were Homo-Niceguy and then suddenly the knowledge of hoarding resources creates Homo-Asshole. I hope you don't think I think there was literally no change as humans went from HG to Civ, I just can't imagine there was much change and don't know how such a thing could even be proved, “traits” seems like something innate and part of ones nature whereas what is being observed are actually “behaviors.” So we are quibbling about degree of change and probably not as far from each other as it seems.

I agree with the fact that we might be splitting hairs on this one and that both our positions are probably a lot closer to each other than it might appear, but stated in different fashion. Since none of us are anthropologist or evolutionnary psychologist and since we don't share the same the ontology due to not being academics in the domain we can't really delve much deeper than that.

You're farther along than me on the hard academic side of this but good discussion.

[Mark]

If you remove human nature from the equation, any and all utopias can be imagined.  "If men were angels, no government would be needed."

Yes, but what is human nature? Individualism and capitalism are not "human nature", humans did not evolve to be individualists or capitalists- these concepts are both human inventions.

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha.  Hell, put five guys in a room, they will sort out a pecking order.  The innate will to power, given the right tools, results in a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, etc.  "Capitalism," "Communism," "Anything else ism" are just laboratories that provide either greater or lesser opportunities for the "cream" to rise to the top.  It is the very heart of why "checks and balances" and "separation of power" are cornerstones of the enlightenment and basic principles of stable government.  (And I mean "cream" in the worst way, it could well be the person with the lowest character and self esteem and most social pathologies that takes best advantage of the situation.)

That isn't always true.  Is it true for you?  Do you find pissing contests irresistible?  I don't.

So do you find it lamentable that such is the case or do you prefer that men be 'real men' and fight for the top position in every room.  To the degree that it is true very often I find it lamentable.

[Cavebear]

If you remove human nature from the equation, any and all utopias can be imagined.  "If men were angels, no government would be needed."

Yes, but what is human nature? Individualism and capitalism are not "human nature", humans did not evolve to be individualists or capitalists- these concepts are both human inventions.

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha.  Hell, put five guys in a room, they will sort out a pecking order.  The innate will to power, given the right tools, results in a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, etc.  "Capitalism," "Communism," "Anything else ism" are just laboratories that provide either greater or lesser opportunities for the "cream" to rise to the top.  It is the very heart of why "checks and balances" and "separation of power" are cornerstones of the enlightenment and basic principles of stable government.  (And I mean "cream" in the worst way, it could well be the person with the lowest character and self esteem and most social pathologies that takes best advantage of the situation.)

I had to think about that. On one hand, I have no desire to dominate. Heck, I don't want to tell other people what to do. It's why I never became "management" in the office world. But, on the other hand, I was always pretty much "unmanageable". I did what I did and no one could stop me. And pretty much didn't dare.

I knew what I was doing in telecommunications management analysis, my supervisor hadn't the slightest idea what I was doing, I never caused any problems, and people who aren't causing any problems tend to be left alone. So of us just know what to do in our jobs. I wasn't ambitious. I just liked what I was doing and did it perfectly.

I always thought having to tell OTHER people how to do their jobs better (what I assume management is supposed to do) was too annoying.

[Deesse23]

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha.  Hell, put five guys in a room, they will sort out a pecking order.

You do know that there is an abundance of matriachal societies in human history? Particularly in early human history?
Human nature is not just the male will to be Alpha. Looking at archaeological evidence it seems that matriachy rather was the first result of human nature in terms of forming societies.

[jerry mcmasters]

Yes, but what is human nature? Individualism and capitalism are not "human nature", humans did not evolve to be individualists or capitalists- these concepts are both human inventions.

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha.  Hell, put five guys in a room, they will sort out a pecking order.  The innate will to power, given the right tools, results in a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao, etc.  "Capitalism," "Communism," "Anything else ism" are just laboratories that provide either greater or lesser opportunities for the "cream" to rise to the top.  It is the very heart of why "checks and balances" and "separation of power" are cornerstones of the enlightenment and basic principles of stable government.  (And I mean "cream" in the worst way, it could well be the person with the lowest character and self esteem and most social pathologies that takes best advantage of the situation.)

That isn't always true.  Is it true for you?  Do you find pissing contests irresistible?  I don't.

So do you find it lamentable that such is the case or do you prefer that men be 'real men' and fight for the top position in every room.  To the degree that it is true very often I find it lamentable.

It doesn't have to be always true of every individual without exception to be an accurate generalization.  Something can still be true without you or I liking it and of course I find it lamentable.  Jealousy, aggressiveness, selfishness, and competitiveness are all I would think undeniable aspects of human, especially male, nature.  They evolved alongside traits we rightly value and celebrate, like love, cooperativeness, compassion, and the capacity to think and reason.

[jerry mcmasters]

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha.  Hell, put five guys in a room, they will sort out a pecking order.

You do know that there is an abundance of matriachal societies in human history? Particularly in early human history?
Human nature is not just the male will to be Alpha. Looking at archaeological evidence it seems that matriachy rather was the first result of human nature in terms of forming societies.

Where did I say human nature is only the will to be Alpha?  Why do you all pull this kind of shit?  Very frustrating.

You would have to define matriarchal before I just accept your word.  I don't know if archeological evidence demonstrates conclusively that these early societies were ruled by women, if that's what you mean.

[Cavebear]

The male will to dominate, to be Alpha.  Hell, put five guys in a room, they will sort out a pecking order.

You do know that there is an abundance of matriachal societies in human history? Particularly in early human history?
Human nature is not just the male will to be Alpha. Looking at archaeological evidence it seems that matriachy rather was the first result of human nature in terms of forming societies.

How early and how sure are you? How do you know?