To be frustrated that people don't understand that individualism is not compatible with a collectivist mindset?

Great thread. Interesting that climate change only gets a cursory mention fairly far down the thread -as far as I'm concerned, it is easily our most pressing existential issue by far.

I chuckled at OP's reference to RS as to that point, I'd been reading OP's posts in the voice of the same.

In The Righteous Mind, the author describes humans as "part chimp, part bee" to explain how humans are both competitive and cooperative in our natures. This is a helpful metaphor for me, because I think we are individualistic in many ways, our competitive chimp brains are wired that way - e.g. the sharp elbows of the middle class. But our 'bee' side is very much evidenced also in many ways, too - a PP gave a list of examples that are replicated around the world in other small communities.

My opinion is that humans have evolved into and existed within small communities for thousands and thousands of years, and the large groups of towns, cities, and nations aren't compatible with how our brains are wired. We need to have some kind of connective tissue between each member of our community, so we can work towards a common good and damp down our competitive nature when it doesn't serve that community. And that connective tissue also has the ability to create a self policing system, so people will pick up their dog's mess because they have a sense of responsibility to their neighbours and friends that overrides their inherent selfishness.

How this plays out in a wider nation-state context I'm not sure. But for myself and my family, I'm learning to place a higher value on local connections with people, and build relationships with neighbours. I've recently moved to a new area, and we've been warmly welcomed by people. It's been lovely, and I want to build on that.

I think you're going to have to come up with the goods on that one, that sounds like a load of rubbish!!

The French weren't very keen on their absolutist Catholic Monarchy but Napoleon wasn't great either (ask the Haitians).

Collectivism is very bad for women. As in all things a balance between individualism and collectivism is needed. Which is, incidentally, what Margaret Thatcher was saying when she said 'There's no such thing as society'. Here's a longer quote from that interview:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

… [It] is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate … [t]hat was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system … when people come and say: ‘But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!’

I always say that if I was in charge I would be a benign dictator. I would do things for the main greater good and be ruthless about people who countered that

It means that some people wouldnt get their needs met but ultimately the country would function more effectively and the majority would be happy, healthy, functioning and have their needs met

Not ideal. Dont vote for me!!!

Social media has a lot to answer for. I’m in high end v.expensive luxury retail and the attitudes of old money/ truly wealthy haven’t changed anywhere near as much as the aspirational customers. Average earners (ie not millionaires) have a sense of superiority and entitlement that was simply unheard of 10 years ago. Gen Z aspirants particularly are a different beast altogether- technology and being connected has created monsters- who’d have known being so connected would bring such disconnect.

A dictatorship is only as good as the dictator surely ' leave my life to the whims of some other flawed human no thanks

People dont want collectivism. The current narrative of 'me and my needs' is conveniently packaged up as diversity and meeting needs and 'a good thing' so when people say 'but it jars against the greater good/disrupts the majority' its shouted down.

Children/adults are told they are special and different, all of us, and so have expectations in line with that. No one wants to be part of the bog standard majority and have to do things that are uncomfortable or put you out because of your own needs.

Its convenient because it means the state can get ever smaller and ignore problems that mean that the collective has to work together.

I think it is an expectation/rights issue where Individuals are happy to assert their rights and expectations but not prepared to accept and fulfil their Individual responsibilities - too many people taking the piss - it needs to be a better balance but that is not a dictatorship or communism

I was going to say this.
Im not fully convinced it is the way to go. As much as I am not fully convinced that what we have now is any good.
But a dictatorship with a long term view run by people who aren’t self serving would be the ultimate. The problem is, as the saying goes, that power corrupts and absolute power…. You know the rest!

There's something here about the difference between power and responsibility. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch would be responsible for all spending - so his head would be the one to roll. But in a complex modern society he might not have the power to control the spending, any more than Rory Stewart could. To run a large, modern state (with state education, healthcare, international aid, infrastructure projects etc etc) you need a large standing civil service. It's the complexity that gets you, not the man in charge.

If I could have a leviathan-like absolute monarch with the instincts of JS Mill, wandering the palace thinking about correcting market failures, sending thunderbolts to eliminate petty tyrannies so that experiments in living could flourish, I would be very tempted.

But all we know about absolutist systems at scale tells us that that's not what we would get.

I think the best chance is in very small places (like Bhutan). I don't know it well, but I'd still bet most Bhutanese would move to the US if they could. It's a very poor place, and some part of that is probably down to collectivist thinking.

I had an interesting conversation recently about something sort of linked.

we live in a safe Tory seat, true blue here! Reform got a fair chunk of votes as well. People here don’t like their taxes going on benefits or helping people. They aren’t interested in climate change conversations etc or “woke” anything.

Yet- the charity shops have masses of donations of quality items that could be eBayed (or thrown, it’s more effort to donate), and crucially plenty of volunteers. Schools are full of volunteers, teachers who’ve moved from poorer, Labour seats have been surprised at the number of volunteers they can get, not just for one off events but weekly volunteer. The food bank receives large amounts of donations. When they put on volunteer events to clean up parks, masses of people turn up to help (including people who had Tory posters in their windows). School fairs, scout events, charity events for local charities etc raise eye watering amounts of money and are well attended.

As a group, they aren’t against their money and time going to help those less fortunate- they just want it to be those less fortunate in their community and it to be their choice not “the government” choice of how much and who.

they aren’t against caring for the environment- but they mean they want their own environment to be clean.

people you would think would be selfish and against collective action/funding are actually ok with it, if they feel it’s their community that’s benefitting.

The trick is to make people feel “their community” includes people across the whole country. That their environment is the macro too.

People want 'rights' but don't like the fact that with 'rights' come 'responsibilities'.

We have a responsibility to each other and that is severely lacking, along with personal responsibility. Too many people want the state to fix everything, parent their children, pay them etc.

We used to survive in family and village groups, relying on each other.

The Left seem to want collectivism but only if it benefits them.

They don't get the irony of that.

@User09678

Framed like that, actually, I realise I strongly disagree with your original post. i.e. not only are individualism and a collectivist mindset not incompatible, that the best society can only come through weaving the two together. And ‘individual action/mechanism, collective mindset’ is a good way to describe the sort of thing I think works best.

I think a big distinction needs to be drawn between individualism-with-all-externalities-accounted-for versus one without.

I think one of the best ways we can address climate change is through market solutions (carbon tax, public investment in public goods, private sector innovation, etc).

I see that sort of thing as making individualism work though (that’s I suppose what most of my political philosophy is about), though it requires a state apparatus that’s, loosely, trying to maximise the collective good to make it happen.

that was meant to be a shop, not sure I've ever breastfed on a ship 😊

But the correct level to put rights at is the individual level, and enforcement should not depend on what group a person is a member of.

As long as we'd still get rights because we are part of a group, that makes sense - as you need them for anti-discrimination legislation (e.g. 'new mum' group for maternity discrimination etc.) E.g. no one has ever told me personally to stop breastfeeding on a ship, but I still feel reassured that the legislation is there for new mums as a group.