Over in the 'Liberal Fascism' thread, I was discussing collectivism and individualism with PI, specifically the nature of certain societal principles and actions. Since PI ignored my last response to him, and has since gone off on a tangent with raytri and I don't want to derail that thread I'm opening up the discussion and starting a new thread.

So, below is the last response I gave to PI. If he wishes, he can resume the discussion. However, I would also like an outside perspective. Anyone agree/disagree with myself/PI? Anyone want to expand on a point already made? Anyone have anything to say about collectivism or individualism in general?



http://politicalforum.com/showpost.p...&postcount=133

__________________
It's the difference between suicide and slow capitulation... - Jim Morrison

I'll respond to that, but I'm probably going to give you more than you bargained for.

I think many can agree that the apparent contradiction in belief between "liberals" and "conservatives" is similar in many ways to the contradiction in belief bewtween those who apparently favor "collectivism" and those who apparently favor "individualism". When the apparent contradiction is reduced to it philosophical core, I belief it is similar to a paradox known to some as "the one and the many."

A simple illustration of this paradox is known as Zeno's paradox. My favorite variation of Zeno's paradox is known as "The Turtle and the Hare." It goes something like this:

If a turtle and a hare are in 40 yard race, and the turtle gets a 20 yard head start, which one wins? Most people will say the hare wins because it can run much faster than the turtle. However, before the hare can catch up to the turtle, he has to get half-way there. Right? By that time, the turtle has moved forward a step or two. The hare is starting to catch up, but before he reaches the turtle, he has to get to the next half-way point. Again, the turtle has moved forward slightly. The hare always has to reach a new half-way point before he reaches the turtle. He never catches up, because the turtle is able to move forward a little bit each time.

For the same reason, if you want to walk to the end of the block, you first have to get half-way there. Once you do that, you have to get to the next half-way point, and so on. You never reach the end of the block, because there is always a new half-way point you have to reach first.

This paradox can be reduced to the following: Is a continuum actually continuous, or is it made of parts? If your city block for example, has a continuous sidewalk made of four foot sections, then all you have to do is walk each four foot section to reach the end. Right? The problem is, you are assuming that each four foot section is a continuous surface. Isn't a four foot section made of parts? Gravel? Grains of concrete? Molecules? If that's the case, before you can walk across a four foot section of sidewalk, you first have to walk each individual rock, grain of concrete, and molecule of lime. But each molecule is made of atoms. You have to walk each atom. Each atom is made of something. You never even move. Motion is impossible if their is no continuum.

Obviously the paradox is ridiculous. Tell that to the hard-core individualists! If their philosphy is accurate, and we reduce it to it logical core, they will never move a micron, because all is "many." However, if the philosophy of the collectivist is accurate, they can just fly to end of infinity instantaneoulsy, because all is "one." That's the new paradox of the one and the many. That's why I think it's smart to be neither an individualist, nor a collectivist, and, for the same reason, neither a liberal, nor a conservative.

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address

I agree with what your saying, but I'll contest one thing:

That would only be the case if the Turtle and the Hare were travelling at the same speed.

Collectivism & Individualism, well if you want to judge which is best, just look at History. Collectivist governments of the past (USSR, Medieval Kingdoms etc etc) they were unable to match the economic growth of societies with which had implemented Individualism.

Purely economically and in terms of Realpolitik then Individualism is the best. However Individualism simply does exactly what it says, it is Individualistic encouraging people to rely on no one. The problem is, is that if everyone in a society is looking after number one, then how can any progress be made to implement social harmony?

__________________
I'll tell you this no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn
Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too
You may bury my body, down by the highway side,
so my old evil spirit can get a Greyhound bus and ride.

Zeno's paradox does not consider rate of change.

How do you really decide if a government is collectivist or individualist? Isn't that what a lot of the arguing between "liberals" and "conservatives" is about?

I think you need something to support that hypothesis.

That's an interesting question. It may be the essential question we are trying to answer as political thinkers, and it presents us with a another paradox: What is the role of government? My favorite answer to that question is the Preamble. I think of the Preamble as a sort of poem. A good poem is much more than the sum of it's parts. It's more than the words. A good poem uses the power of metaphor. It conveys "profound and impassioned concepts respecting man and nature." Metaphors can only be understood by thinking humans beings. The nuances of human understanding are shaped by experiences, attitudes, and endeavors. Our challenge is to try to recreate in our own minds the thinking and understanding of the wise men who wrote it.

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address

I don't think the American experiment is either/or. The tension between I and the tribe is dealt with in a unique way in the American experiment. We have a nominally fettered state. Our constitution and its BoR embodies the idea that we are nominally dedicated to the concept of protecting each of us from the unfettered power of all of us--something that like all human efforts is only done imperfectly.

What is freedom? It is freedom from oppression. What is oppression? Ultimately, it is the overwhelming unfettered power of all of us over any of us--of the tribe over I. It is never 'a' tyrant--it is always 'a' tyrant at the head of a unfettered mob that enables oppression, ie, the eater of freedom.

The Paradox of Freedom is, Americans consider individual rights a principle worth mobbing up to defend. That is the (faltering) American experiment.

The free world, in the middle of the last century, faced virulent totalitarianism, fascism and communism. America, in response to that threat, built its own fascist entity(a melding of business with the guns of state) to face down Hitler's fascist threat, and that fascist entity has never stood down since. It shifted seemlessly into fighting the Cold War, and thank God it did both of those things. But it came with a side effect: we've been unable/unwilling to get our own soft fascist beast to stand down.

Has anyone ever calculated the benefit to our subsequent economies of that generation having made the decision to do that? A nation half our present size put 16 million in uniform, left over 400,000 of themselves in a meatgrinder, and borrowed the equivalent of over $3T dollars in todays dollars to wrestle an uncertain future from a world going mad. It did so in a do or die effort to help create the free world.

It also did so with the side effect of creating and leaving our own fascist entity in place in this country. A $oft fascism, but fascism just the same. When the guns of state -- the overwhelming force of all of us over any of us-- is permitted to meld closely with the economies, that is fascism, not capitalism. It is one thing to be a nation of laws and regulated commerce. It is another thing to blend commerce and the power of the state, and we have--once by necessity to face down Hitler's fascist machine--permitted out own soft fascist machine to stand, aka the CronyFest on the Potomac.

We do so not just because of shadowy unseen 'special interests', but because collectively, 'we' court the continuous unfettering for what we think is our really good cause of the day, in the plain light of that day.

ie, we are imperfect in conducting our experiment. Well, film at 11:00.

As individuals, it is impossible to live in America without acknolwedging the benefit we have recieved from collective action, and that is also the Paradox of Freedom.

reguarda,
Frediano

I appreciate your thoughts, by I disagree in particular with the above. I'm familiar with the argument that FDR took an essentially corporatist approach to the war mobilization. Corporatism=Fascism. Yada, yada, yada.

I dispute the idea that corporatism equals fascism, but that's another issue. The issue is the difference between the American response to the crisis, as opposed to the German response. The Americans, for the most part, chose to place the General Welfare of the population first and foremost, even if it meant changing the financial architecture at the expense of the most powerful financiers. That's why FDR was hated by Morgan, for example. The Third Reich, on the other hand chose to protect the existing financial architecture at all costs, even if it meant using up a large segment of the population. That's why Hitler was loved by Thyssen, for example. With that in mind, I would modify your argument considerably.

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address

What's so wrong with having a sound balance of collectivism and individualism? Human nature is egotistical and yet we are naturally social beings. People need to have their own identities at the local levels while being governed by standardized rules at the collective levels. The beauty of the human race is that we are not simply ants nor are we lone wolves.

Now, if anyone has the above perfected, please run for president. You'll fit right in.

Amen. If anyone has that perfected, I'd vote for 'em.

__________________
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." FDR-First Inaugural Address

The Germans didn't respond to the crisis, the Germans were the crisis. What else could FDR do? I'm (*)(*)(*)(*) glad he did. I agree that there was a difference in our response to their crisis. The practical need to spring up 'the Arsenal of Democracy' on short order demanded a soft fascist solution. We did not send an all volunteer Expeditionary Force funded by public boat ramp user fees or whatever. We welded up the guns of government to our economies and let rip. I'm (*)(*)(*)(*) glad we did, but IKE's MIC has never stood down, we have been spending at WW levels ever since, and some of that actually makes it to the pointy end of the stick. I'm not a demonizer of corporations, and corporatism is indeed another matter. Hell, I are a corporation, and tied for the world's smallest defense contractor to boot. The CronyFest on the Potomac has done fine by me.

But, history is just one (*)(*)(*)(*)ed thing after the other, followed by politicos painting to suit. So, here is my spin on the German crisis. Germany's Volksgemeinschaft was teaming with the tribe uber alles before and between the WWars. There were no parties, major or otherwise, of classic 19th century liberalism. The SD, the commies, and the NSDAP engaged in a local turf war. The SD were the polite cheerleaders who enabled the eventual meat eaters, who brushed them aside. But, they were all begging to unfetter their state for their really, really good. The Nazis and the commies waxed violent the hardest, the enabling SD cheerleaders got brushed aside, and 50 million eventually took the big dirt nap as a result of unfettering the state in the hubristic name of Titanic era scientific statism. They all hated the liberal West, and as was recently pointed out by presidential historian whatsername, Churchill said "If Hitler had invaded Hell instead of Russia, I'd be speaking well of Satan today." But, the Nazis/Commies were a totalitarian turf war, period, Bloods vs Cripps, unfettered tribe uber alles.

Yes, there were industrial smokestacks in Germany, Moscow, Britain, and America, as well as banks, bankers, and lawyers, but the crisis was the rampant unfettering of scientific statism that was on the march.

FDR had to face power with power, Paradox of Violence wrapped up with Paradox of Freedom. Do or die, imperfectly, which is all we can ever do.

But, our remnants of soft fascism are alot like Rhodes' philanthropy: "Imperialism is philanthropy, plus 5%" (David Reiff, A Bed for The Night). It's good to be a defense contractor, and forget about 5%. We wave our flag and do the people's good work, and we throw trillions of dollars of OPM at the gauntlet of after all naked sweaty apes on the CronyFest on the Potomac, and don't you know? Some tiny fraction of it actually gets to the heros at the pointy end of the stick, why don't we all pat ourselves on the back. We do this because we can't help ourselves but to help ourselves when begged to do so.

There is not a special species called 'the fascists.' 'The fascists' are what comes running out of any tribe full of naked sweaty apes that toys with unfettering the tribe for a really good cause. American's are no less susceptible to the boundary condition of 'on average, we are average' than Germany was.

reguarda,
frediano

If we wait for perfection, we'll wait forever.

But in fact, Obama has written about the tension between the individual and the tribe in "Audacity of Hope." He addresses the issue remarkably well for a politician, takes it headon. It's worth a read.

reguarda,
frediano