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

[User09678]

Which we need to solve most of our most critical and existential issues?

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..?

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

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?

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 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!

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.

The irony of Biden warning us of oligarchy, did Harris not shout loud and proud her advisors were Goldman Sachs? Did Obsma not bail the bankers and leave homeowners gasping for air?

@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?

@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.

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'

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

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.

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

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

The advantage of collectivism is that we could, for example, tackle climate change. The negative aspect of a tight cohesive society, as I said upthread, is that some find it oppressive. I suppose this is really about the failure of liberalism

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

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.

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

School shootings are a symptom of our fragmentation and atomisation though. The ideal would be an armed society but one where it would never enter into anyone head to harm a member of their community.

Think about the potential of a population where only the state are armed. It's not that much of a reach to imagine a near future where that means law enforcement are basically Musks private militia. And he knows you have no defence against that.

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.

@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.

Bhutan was an absolute monarchy until not long ago and a very happy and equal society, where everyone had what they needed and the king wore a tracksuit. In a monarchy, you know who is in power. And if they don't serve the people, they can storm the Bastille. Rory Stewart recounts a story in his recent book which recounts an incident during his time as a minister, it reveals that he had no power in that circumstance over what British tax payers money was spent on, but moreover, it was impossible for him to find out who did. When power is diffuse and opaque, it can do what it wants, with little to no accountability. I'd rather a transparent monarchy than the invisible oligarchy we have at present. But we're straying slightly from the subject!

What does that look like? The West at present can't even agree on fundamentals like male or female or when life even begins. Without consensus over these, how can we arrive at collective goals? Let alone the means with which to achieve them

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

They don't get the irony of that.