💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › morpheus-what-is-social-individualism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:54:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What Is Social Individualism Author: Morpheus Language: en Topics: individualism, Individualist Anarchism Source: Retrieved on 2nd August 2020 from https://web.archive.org/web/20081205074043fw_/http://question-everything.mahost.org/Philosophy/Social_Individualism.html
Social Individualism is the combination of both the importance of the
individual and the importance of the group. Is the belief that both must
be combined. Both groups and the individuals who make it up are equally
important. Both (traditional) individualism, with it’s focus on the
individual, and (traditional) collectivism, with it’s focus on the
group, are not only wrong but actually two sides of the same coin.
Individualists often claim that “there is no society, only individuals.”
But this is untrue, there are not only individuals but also relations
and interactions between those individuals. Humans do not exist in a
vacuum but interact with other humans from the time we are born. Groups
and associations are an essential part of life; individuals cannot
discuss or live by themself. By cooperating together individuals can
achieve goals which would be more difficult (or impossible) on their own
and to improve their situation. Forming groups enables individuals to
meet their needs and coordinate their actions. Individualism actually
leads to forms of collectivism such as capitalist companies. Because of
their abstract narrow focus on the individual individualists do not see
any signifigant difference between groups structured in hierarchical or
non-hierarchical manners. As such they generally end up supporting
hierarchical organizations which in practice operate in a very
collectivist manner. How a group is organized has a great deal of effect
on the individuals in that group; hierarchical organization tends to
destroy their individuality. In hierarchical organizations individuals
are subordinated to those on the top of the hierarchy and expected to
obey them. This destroys the individuality of those in the organization;
instead of thinking and acting for themselves they are turned into
drones who obey the great leader(s). This leads to collectivist results,
with individuality destroyed. Capitalism is actually a very collectivist
system; it turns the majority of the population into worker-drones who
obey their wealthy masters. Individuality is reduced to choosing between
pepsi and coke.
For the purposes of this essay “collectivism” refers to the idea that
the interests of the individual must be subordinated to that of the
group (the term can mean other things in different contexts). The most
obvious problem with this idea is that groups are made up of
individuals; putting those same individuals above themselves is absurd
and self-contradictory. You can’t subordinate them to themselves, that’s
the same as not subordinating them at all. What this really means in
practice is subordinating most of the individuals in the group to other
individuals in the group. A hierarchy is created with some individuals
controlling other individuals. The “interests of the group” (often
called “the common good” or “national interest” or some other euphamism)
really means the interests of those on the top of the hierarchy.
Collectivist ideaology acts to legitimize hierarchy and solidify the
control of those on the top by demanding that those on the bottom
subordinate themselves to the “common good” which means the interests of
those on the top. The interests of the elite are falsely equated with
the interests of everyone in the group. A common defense of this is that
individuals and groups need coordination, which is often true, but this
does not mean that we need a hierarchy or any kind of centralization; it
is entirely possible for individuals and groups to coordinate their
actions without hierarchy based on voluntary cooperation. Collectivism
actually results in an odd form of individualism, the cult of
personality and leader worship. This it not surprising, since all
individuals in the group are expected to suppress their own
individuality in order to do “what’s best for the group” (which is a
euphamism for what’s best for those are on the top). Those on the top
are thus the only ones with the individuality necessary to make
decisions and leader worship develops partly out of this. This can be
observed in practice by looking at the various Marxist and Fascist
regimes, all of which suppressed the individuality of everyone but the
great leader, whose individuality was taken to an extreme and glorified.
Even small Marxist and fascist groups, not whole regimes, tend to
exhibit this tendency.
Usually individualists value freedom over equality, while collectivists
do the reverse. Social individualism, on the other hand, values both.
Opponets of freedom often claim freedom must be limited because the
freedom of different people conflicts with each other. For example, the
freedom of one man to own slaves conflicts with the freedom of the
slaves to be free. The problem with this is that it is based on an
overly broad conception of freedom. To consider the ability to own
slaves “freedom” is a rather perverted conception of freedom. Freedom
should properly be concieved of as control over one’s own life; I am
free when I control my own life instead of being bossed around by
others. Control of other people (whether this is slavery or some other
form of control) is not freedom but hierarchy. Human beings do not exist
in a vacuum but constantly interact with each other, which is where
equality comes in. In order for social relations to be chracterized as
free they must also be equal. Opponets of equality like to invent all
sorts of straw men about equality meaning some totalitarian society
where everyone is forced to be identical in everyway and other nonsense.
Few advocates of equality, even hardline collectivists, advocate
everyone being identical in every way. Equality is a social relation in
which all have equal power and wealth; it does not mean everyone being
identical. Inequalities of wealth tend to create inequalities of power
and vice versa.
Equality is necessary to have freedom and vice versa. If there is no
equality then some people do not have as much power as others and are
thus subordinated to them; there is a hierarchy. If some are
subordinated to others then there isn’t freedom because those
subordinated do not have control over their own lives; some people have
control over other people. Equality is a requirement for freedom. The
inverse is also true; freedom is a requirement for equality. If there is
no freedom then there is a hierarchy, some have control over (and thus
more power) than others. If there is a hierarchy then there is no
equality because some people have more power/wealth than people. Far
from being mutually contradictory, (individual) freedom and (social)
equality are two sides of the same coin. The usual arguement that
freedom and equality conflict is based on overly broad conceptions of
freedom (or straw men of equality). Typically this involves including
private property as part of freedom. Private property obviously
conflicts with equality but it also conflicts with freedom. Private
property means some, the owners, dominate others and is thus not
comptable with freedom. Thus removing private property (and any other
form of hierarchy) from freedom means that it is not incompatable with
equality.
Both individualism and collectivism are two sides of the same
authoritarian coin. By focusing only on freedom and rejecting (or
downplaying) equality individualism ends up opposing freedom as well. By
focusing only on equality and rejecting (or downplaying) freedom
collectivism ends up opposing equality as well. Both oppose freedom and
equality and act to legitimize authoritarian social relations whereby a
small elite dominates and exploits the majority of the population.
Neither individuals nor groups are more important than the other nor do
they conflict with each other. To value one over the other is just a
veiled apology for authoritarianism.