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

I don't think it's true...

@User09678

No, my perfect society would be an absolute Catholic Monarchy, but we all know how that thread would go!

Ah, that explains a lot!

An absolute monarchy would be about my worst form of society. Though if I had to have one, I think a Catholic one might be better than many.

I’m surprised at that winnings thought experiment! I’d much rather have the £5mil.

Can you explain the 300 years comment? I think there’s been a change even in the last few years.

Yes, I fully agree. That's why we need to be careful about what we enshrine as a right. 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.

The main way I disagree is about rights in our polity: they should be individual rights, not group rights. And in practice too.

But what about say gun rights in the US. I'd rather have children's collective safety at school, than an individuals 'right to bear arms'

@User09678

Did Obsma not bail the bankers and leave homeowners gasping for air?

There's plenty wrong with a system that privatises gains and socialises losses.

But the rationale for bailing out banks but not individuals was fundamentally about systemic risk, ie it was a collectivist one. Unfair on an individual level, but better for us collectively.

The people who would most strongly agree with you that it was wrong are libertarians. Left wing governments provided huge bail-outs. I'm not aware of any major right wing ones that didn't, but I doubt, say, Milei would have done.

So I think what you are really aiming at is not individualism vs collectivism, per se, but something different.

@User09678

It would help this discussion a lot, I think, if you defined your terms.

Also, what are the best bits of individualism and collectivism, and the worst bits of each, in your view?

But there’s also the fact that it’s much easier to determine the common good in a small homogenous society than a large diverse one. Who gets to decide what is the common good? For example during covid there would be a fairly logical argument that UK society would have been best served long term by “let it rip” but the same people who are anti individualism would probably not have gone for that! Things that are in the collective interest ( especially on a longer time horizon) can end badly for certain groups and it’s who makes the call on whether the sacrifice is worth it. In some ways our individualistic modern society accommodates non contributors much better than most collective models.

I agree in some contexts and disagree in others. Overall, I think I disagree.

The aspect I agree with is about humility, fundamentally: talent and opportunity are distributed very unevenly (between people, and in time and space), and people with the ability to succeed (mostly I'm thinking financially, but in other ways too) owe that at a deep level to luck. They/we owe a lot to others, and should remember that and think of their spoils as not entirely their own.

Also, community is very important to us as humans. We should not ignore that.

The main way I disagree is about rights in our polity: they should be individual rights, not group rights. And in practice too. It's not 'the good of the white/black/Muslim/Chinese/etc etc' community we are trying to optimise. The rights of a child abused by a priest are more important than the good of the community of churchgoers, or of the church. This is incidentally why we should think carefully about what rights we grant.

Planning law is another interesting arena for this debate, but not space in one post for that!

I don't think it will be perfect but I do think it could be better. Take private education for ex. There are schools which are so bad that no one wants to send their children to them. The people with a bit of money use it to opt out and go private, but the poor have no choice. If the schools were properly resourced and managed, then poorer kids would have better outcomes and middle class families (who are stretching themselves with school fees) would also use them. Everyone would be personally invested in how that school was working.
It's the same with healthcare, transport, housing and benefits.
We need a system where everyone feels personally invested.
And a govt who doesn't lie at election time and actually deals with child grooming, immigration, waiting lists for treatment, provision for those who have disabilities, capping gas/electricity bills, water companies who make massive profits but don't plug leaks etc.

I'm not quite understanding the proposition being put forward. What is a 'collectivist mindset'? Are we talking about society organised more like Chinese society, for example?
What about the tensions between family/ community and at a wider level of government/ authority? How big is the 'community'? Is it realistically possible to truly feel part of a community that is as big as, say, an entire country? The whole world? In a way that you would, for example, donate an organ (which we would do for a close family member - would we do it at the drop of a hat for a stranger we have never met?) If we are talking about lower level and traditional communities is it not an argument against global societies, immigration etc?
Also the importance of human nature and how we are driven, motivated. What makes a person want to work hard, for themselves and their family, or for everyone else?

People are no longer reliant on family and neighbours because they don't need to be. Because women are now independent from men and can work to earn money and support themselves, because there's now less stigma (won't say none) associated with being a spinster. Because men don't need a woman to look after them now housework is so much less time consuming. Because of contraception.
You can't have it both ways - either everyone is reliant on others and there's no escaping your role, or there's freedom and no reliance.
Choice means selfishness which is just human nature.
Whether it's ultimately more satisfying is a moot point but presumably women of times gone by didn't find it that great or they wouldn't have fought so hard for emancipation

If this were to happen, then what would be the point in working long hours to study, and the long hours in a stressful job.

If your wealth would be distributed, then why not relax..?

Indeed. And in terms of my family and those close to me, the whole mass of other humanity isn't anywhere near a priority. Society is a mass collective of collective interests, it's not a bunch of individuals all each going in a different direction.

So do you think one day it will just be perfect and everything will go well?

Of course governments and the collective get things right or wrong. It's only a collective of imperfect humans.

I agree with you that we need a collective mindset to solve humanities problem. But I don't think it's right that there can't be any individualism. I actually think individualism is an important human characteristic and can sometimes be helpful. There needs to be a balance.
I tend to look at it as personal and public. Society could do with a lot more joined up collective focused thinking in public life. However in people's personal lives there does need to be some individualism.

As a woman I find this particularly important. It's easy as a woman to be pushed into a self-sacrificing traditional gender role.

What an interesting thread. I was having a similar conversation with DS last night. I have nothing to add for now, but just want to mark my place!

The root of this is that our democracy is failing - the governments we've elected haven't done what they were elected to do. So people wonder what the point of it all is and that they might as well just do what's best for themselves!

If there's to be any meaningful change, the govt has to start actually representing the people and protecting the most vulnerable. We need properly functioning public services that everyone feels invested in and that both rich and poor use.

@User09678 I agree - like how some teenagers will leave their villagers for London etc. at 18 and then only live in cities for the rest of their lives. (But obviously other people love rural life and recreate it for themselves as adults)

@andIsaid - I don't understand what you don't understand. Op captured her discussion point succinctly in her post. This clip demonstrates why individualism it is not in society's best interests . 1_

Perhaps you are very young but I don't notice a big change in attitude from 30 years ago. That was 1994!

Most people don't think about this stuff at all and are not affected by neoliberalism or any other social or political movement. Certainly not in as short a space of time as 30 years. And of those who are politically engaged as many reject political ideas as others embrace them.

The 1960s were a lot about collectvism but also about the cult of the individual. As were the 1890s. Know your history first.