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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Isn't that national socialism? Aren't we terrified of the consequences of our 'imagined communities' going rogue with tragic consequence? I disagree with your post, I'm just pointing our that this will always be the response

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

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.

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

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.

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!!!

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

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 don't know if the average person from Bhutan would want to move to America. America is full of crime and inequality and if you're poor your life is miserable. I think if they did want to move, they'd quickly realise how much their wellbeing would suffer. They'd want to come back within a week. People are really ok being 'poor' if basic needs are met because poor is relative, the problem is when there is inequality. Inequality is so so bad for us.

Experiments in living should be flourishing, but they're not. Because individualists can't commit themselves to anything for a greater good because their greater good is always going to be their own hedonic treadmill they're pounding away on, which can never be satisfied because pleasure gives diminishing returns and desire is infinite. The only collectives that survive and do well are religious ones.

In short, JS Mill couldn't be in charge because he sees the will as the only thing that should have true sovereignty. You can't build anything with that. Only consume and use up the institutions built by those who came before. And with a society full of people who can't agree on the fundamentals of life and what is real and true let alone good - there's going to endless ever growing conflict. So you need greater authoritarian measures to try and control this. Which leads to more competition and struggle over getting to influence what ever fragmenting groups these laws will favour. You're back to a war of all against all, I feel like that's where we are now, we just don't quite kill each other yet, but many of us would if we could. Far better to have a tight cohesive community united by wills - wills aligned to goodness and truth. A solidarity that works from within, not external diktat.

My neighbours are all nice enough. I can't think of how anyone I'd cut my nose off to spite my face over. Did the survey contain a line like "your neighbour is a convicted violent pedophile" or something?

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.

That collectivism is bad for women is not clear. Yes women have had a pretty raw deal. But, with developments in biotechnology I think things are going to get far worse.

It was the main one I had in mind when I created the thread but I was trying to keep it open

This is quite a sad thread. There's very much a way back from all this rampant "no such thing as society", individualism and it's easy - speak to your neighbours.
Say hello, ask about their garden/dog/kid, just the I'm a person and so are you noises that human are so good at.
Do a wee job that benefits both of you (salt a slippy pavement, clean a communal area, that kind of thing), make an environment where small reciprocal things are normal, bulid up to taking out each other's bins, watering gardens, getting in bit of shopping.
We're social animals, this is how we evolved to behave. I worked to develop this sort of micro society with my nearest neighbours and it's so much less stressful than trying to do it all yourself.

People are scared to do those things in case they're misrepresented because people take offence so easily, they get sued because they didnt salt that pavement properly etc etc

It all seems to boil down to money, and the inequality of it in society. Many millionaires will leave the country due to Labour's tax laws-they aren't interested in their tax contributions being used for the greater good of society. What I really hate about social media is how it has made people focus solely upon themselves and their lives. They look inward rather than outward. Quite ironic that it is called 'social' media.
Regarding climate change-this is one major issue which will be affected by how society deals with it, but as individuals, people do not want to give up their many devices, which need constant recharging and use of power, their streaming services, their gas guzzling vehicles and so on.

Me too! Very interesting.

Sounds like the title of an essay

@soupfiend I've been trying to Google it but can't come up with it unfortunately! But I promise you I did read about it was totally surprised by this. I spoke to someone about it and was shocked that they said they would take the 1 million too as they hated their neighbour.
Maybe they asked too many people who had horrible neighbours.
I'll keep trying.