Collectivism and Individualism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 бер 2013
- In this lecture we examine collectivism and individualism from the perspective of the 20th century economist and philosopher Ludwig von Mises
===================================================
Support us on Patreon: / academyofideas
Recommended Readings:
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises - amzn.to/1sAEWm3 (affiliate link)
Planning for Freedom by Ludwig von Mises - amzn.to/1OZSzpe (affiliate link)
Visit www.academyofideas.com for more videos, video transcripts and more!
===================================================
I often find it bizarre how individualism results in the disaster of the mass whereas the collectivism end up with the disasters of individuals
Both must be balanced
We have zero examples of individualism being a disaster for the masses, it is always collectivist ideals that are used as a tool to concentrate Government power in few hands. You are dropping this context.
We have the greatest example in human history of Individualism being correct, America rising to it's greatness. Now as socialist ideals infect the body politic, we see it's rapid decline.
@@user-ok7nw3hd4k True, but in recent years, we also witness the rise of an new, more authoritarian capitalist ideology, especially in Asia. Look at Singapore and China, and what they achieved. It almost becomes....Kind of worrying
The minions were good at collectivism :)
Thanks for asking, at the moment there isn't really other than just sharing the videos with others if you like them. The two of us who put these together don't have much of a plan, we are just going to keep putting up videos and see where it goes.
thanks for keeping it up until now sir
You keep hitting grand slams, comrade
Individualism Vs. Collectivism healthy and unhealthy consequences
Collectivism (healthy)
- Family/belonging
- Comfort
- Purpose
- Sexual gratification
Collectivism (Unhealthy)
- Tribalism
- Hatred
- Violence
- Inauthenticity
Individualism (healthy)
- Authenticity/Originality
- Self-Reliance
- Creativity
- Leadership
Individualism (Unhealthy)
- Depression
- Loneliness
- Suicide
- Narcissism
Individualism dosen't mean that you have to live alone .. Anyway depression can be overcome, loneliness can be overcome, sucide is the risk of the loneliness and depression but not the only cause and suicidal though can be overcome. Narcissism? depends on the person its not because you live for your life that you will become automaticaly narcissic
Individualism also promotes predation and survival of the fittest
On the most extreme unhealthy side.
Collectivism: Genocides, War, Lynch Mobbings
Individualism: Serial Murders, Mass Shootings, Possibly a nuclear or collateral crisis on the wrong hands.
Excellent video delving into such critical matters in such a succinct and straightforward manner. Was very lucky to come upon it at the very start of my inquiry into the ethics of individualism. Thank you
All societies are a mix of individual autonomy and collective activity. It is a continuum, not a mutually exclusive polarity.
That rhetorical polarity is often propounded when one wants to support a particular outcome. Both the political Left and Right use it so.
Putting my feet on the ground is what has brought me to become an individualist. Its not everybody's destiny to be together.
This video is very interesting indeed!
However, based on its title, I would have expected an objective presentation of both individualism and collectivism, whereas here you present individualism and collectivism presented from the perpective of individualistic and western thinkers. There are a lot of advantages and disadvantages in both ways of organising societies, and I find it very important that we understand them in an objective way! For example, you could have presented the Confucian philosophy, placing collectivism as a solution to social cohesion and social order, in opposition to disorder resulting from violent protests which individualism allows. Asian societies are also very interesting to analyse, and I find that we don't understand them enough, or at least we don't try to understand them enough.
But your video was very insightful to deepen knowledge on individualism! Thank you very much!!
Dude, I've watched every video. This by far is your most important video. God bless you buddy. You are doing something something very few people can do. You're introducing something to millions of people that is so important to human kind. Introducing Mises in the layman. It took me years to break down all of these works and your videos layout something special
I appreciate your comments, they force me to think harder about these issue. But now we are kind of arguing in circles/over the meaning of collectivism. Having a debate in the comments of UA-cam is not easy. Maybe if you see Mises’ views as flawed you should make a video that critiques, Mises' critique of collectivism ;)
Love your work .. well elaborated !
Glad you enjoy them and thanks for the comments you post on the videos, they are always an interesting read!
Another commenter pointed out the lack of pro collectivist arguments. Listening to you, I assume you're from Canada? Is it not a nation? A collective of people as is any nation?
@@johnnytocino9313 Collectivism has nothing to do with the separation of people into nations.
@@user-sf3pg6fi1j col·lec·tiv·ism
/kəˈlektəˌvizəm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it
Em. Substitute the word nation in the sentence above where the word "group" is. Then read outloud to yourself whilst looking in a mirror.
Here's another definition to qnnoy you.
Collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class.
@@johnnytocino9313 That’s the beauty of democracy and liberalism. Nobody under these systems gives PRIORITY to the NATION/STATE. The existence of the NATIONS has something to do with cultures and genetic background of a concrete group on a concrete geographical location.
This quote on individualism by Hayek is a great complement to this lecture, it really helps dispel some of the myths that people use to criticize the individualist position:
"This is the fundamental fact on which the whole philosophy of individualism is based. It does not assume, as is often asserted, that man is egotistic or selfish, or ought to be. It merely starts from the indisputable fact that the limits of our powers of imagination make it impossible to include in our scale of values more than a sector of the needs of the whole society, and that, since, strictly speaking, scales of value can exist only in individual minds, nothing but partial scales of values exist, scales which are inevitably different and often inconsistent with each other. From this the individualist concludes that individuals should be allowed, within defined limits, to follow their own values and preferences rather than somebody else's, that within these spheres the individual's system of ends should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others." (The Road to Serfdom)
"should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others."
Value is subjective, so there is nothing that intrinsically should, ought, nor deserves to be supreme nor paramount.
Furthermore, aside from that, individuals as are colloquially conceptualized are indeed subject to the whims of other individuals as well to their external environment, ergo parading around any virtue of autonomy is ill-founded & futile.
Frank T Absolutely agreed. The limit is set by when it encroaches (actually, not in imagination) on another individual's rights and liberty.
Kevin Navarro What Hayek insists is that the will should emanate in the individual's mind. Rest of the factors doesn't matter.
Individualism leads to demographic replacement.
Kevin, value is not subjective. The scale of values vary from person to person as stated in the quote, but that does not make them subjective. Start with thinking about your needs (no, men, sex is not a need) and then tell us that those are subjective.
>makes a collectivism and individualism video
>only examines arguments in favor of individualism
I agree with you on this. He should have more info on collectivism. I have been searching for a trully fair video on individualism vs collectivism but so far I have not been able to find one. All are like this. Either supporting collectivism or supposrting individualism. It's like there is no person willing to try to step in both pairs of shoes. Which is stupid when people are trying to defend one side over the other when they clearly don't want to examine both sides with an open mind and critical thinking. You see big names on the defense of collectivism when they haven't even read books on individualism or have read just a small portion on it and you see individualists that have forgoten how to keep an open mind and stay reasonable and cool tempered when they have to defend their views. Pointless debates on a simple question.
its the right view
Because collectivism is dangerous. ie Nazis, Soviet Union, China
@@lo-fiFromChicago That is an opinion formed through only taking negative extremes of collectivism.
@@Mariusweeddeath That's an opinion formed over years of studying the matter actually. Would you like to make an argument for it? Or just form YOUR opinions from a short UA-cam post? Ignoramouse.
Why is this called "Collectivism and Individualism" if all he's going to do is talk about how Individualist philosophers didn't like Collectivism?
Brain Adams because he’d undermine his points on individualism
Because individualism is better.
Becuz he's not a fuckboy
Because he is fundamentally biased on this issue
Awts gege
Mises was talking about the “goals” of collectives and individuals, not “rights”. The only thing I said about rights in the lecture was that Mises believed that each individual should respect the rights and freedoms of others. I am sorry, I may be misunderstanding you but I really think we are talking about completely different things.
Great topic. So fitting for our times more than even the renaissance and the enlightenment.
It's a balancing act we are forced to play born unto this world. We desire individuality and freedom but no man is an island and we are not wired to be antisocial beings. What is the best way to balance these two extremes? To choose one over the other? Of course not. Because then you are punished severly for your decision by others or by yourself.
You're wrong. As an individual, you are literally no way you can be a threat to a group.
@@Jay-Jones sure you can.
@@Jay-Jones Clearly, you've never seen an M249
collectivism is pursued through authoritarianism, individuals is pursued via liberalism
Idk, too much individualism feels like it fucks people's psychies. We've got the biggest ego culture in all history of humanity going on.
Gigatless And?
@@danielhart7435 Fuck you.
Collectivism strives to liberate everyone, Individualism strives to chain most for the betterment of some
Then how do you explain libertarian collectivist ideas like libertarian socialism or anarcho-communism?
If the majority agrees on something it doesn't' make it true or moral.
@Sean Francis Waters Lancaster true. However you cannot argue in one way or the Other simply by referring to popular opinion.
Love your work, Thanks man!
You seem to be defining collectivism in a much broader manner than I do. The video defined collectivism as the view that the goals of the collective should be supreme. Cooperation or acceptance/enforcement of societal norms does not necessarily entail the promotion of collectivism in the sense which is being critiqued. Cooperation/acceptance of social norms are not an end/goal, they are a means to allow the individual to achieve their goals.
@@dancingbanana627 Well, back in the golden days of 8 years ago, replies weren't a thing on UA-cam.
I'd much rather value my individualism where my voice is usually heard, rather than uphold a collectivist approach where my voice is shadowed over by a group that can very well castrate me for a different mindset.
You would be in a collective group that shares your values and be an individual in another
Roger roger
@@sponge7464 you would never have a collectivist who has a exact ideologies as you naturally, so basically the system is flawed
@@abisek.e7636 Is not flawed you don't need to be correct about everything, is good thought when individual search for the true amd then comes in to agreement that influemce them collectively, even though is not exact thing they have in mind.
@@martillodelajusticia7211 I agree, as I told you can't have a true collective Civilization, just collectivism as necessary evil and individualism together
Again I think we are probably arguing over semantics. Mises’ point in his critique was not to dispute that cooperation/some form of consensus would be needed to allow for individual freedom. Rather the point of his critique was that if one values peace and prosperity then they should favor the establishment of a society that was organized so as to allow for the individualistic position.
Well, regardless of what he argued, that is incorrect. No consensus is needed for individual Freedom, you describe the opposite of individual freedom. No one gets to decide or organize anyone else. The individual should choose what to participate in and what to refuse to participate in. No Force. If someone begins to show a pattern of poor Behavior, ostracize them. Stop doing business with them. Currently, the West lives under socialism and therefore is in a gridlock wherein we cannot get away from those who wrong us. And in fact, they are protected under the law.
I think there is a golden mean between the two. I see both camps fighting each other yet they're both right and wrong about different things.
I think it depends on what aspect of life you're applying collectivism or individualism to.
The truth is no individual exists as a singularly.We're part of our environments, or environments mold us and we also inherent things and have a closer relationship to people more than others. Be it a genetic or just ideological, or what ever.
So we're all composed of different combinations of influences around us. And we're all different because those influences are never exactly the same in the same two people. But some people are more alike than others. And we're like and unlike others in different respects.
Individually is on a scale anyway. There is the general norm wnd then there is differing extents of deviation.
So is there many philosophers who have a good middle ground on this issue
Great presentation.
Collectivism doesn't necessary implies a dictatorship. After all, democracy is a form of collectivism as well, and we all agree that at lest in politics sometimes the collective will (like majority vote) should override the will of a particular individual.
One of the great books on this issue is the book "Out of Step," the autobiography of the individualist philosopher Frank Chodorov. What makes Chodorov's analysis superior to that of von Mises and others who consider themselves libertarians is his recognition that there is a just distinction between those produced, tangible assets rightfully considered to be private property versus natural assets the indivdual control over which is rightfully considered a monopolistic privilege requiring a payment of the market-determined rent to the community.
Edward Dodson,
At least one person is drawing attention to the need for a firm starting point:
Natura-given resources exist independently of human agency. Modifications of these by human use is a derived thing. A house, for example, is the proper subject of private ownership; but the plot on which it must be built is not the creation of the builder and must be rented from the community whose members are excluded from utilising that plot.
@@jabel6434 There are others of us scattered about the globe. Consider getting involved with the International Union for Land Value Taxation, which has been in existence since the 1920s based in London.
@@nthperson , Thanks for the reminder. I am a disappointed "ex-activist".
Something is missing from our strategy, but can not clearly identify that something: The majority of economists recommend a Location Value based public revenue policy, but politicians are allowed to insist that it is not politically feasible.
Why can politics trump sane economics?
@@jabel6434 Changing the course of history peacefully is a real challenge. There are a few hopeful signs that the message is finding a growing constituency. One city in Germany has voted to move to a two-rate property tax and begin to collect land rents. There is growing interest in the UK, particularly in Scotland. In the U.S. legislation has been introduced in Minnesota and Maryland. So, there is reason for hope if not broad optimism.
@@nthperson "...there is reason for hope..." Thanks to all the Georgists living and working with the hope of eventual realisation.
Love your videos!
Seems to me the answer is, as if often is, inbetween opposite thoughts; the freedom to choose your goals and pursue them, accompanied by the general consensus we need a fairer world. As too ambitious people break the individualist perk of freedom when money/power become a goal, rather than a midstep.
Thanks. Well I'm not a very fluent english speaker to make videos, and not as skillful as you at making such great presentations :)
I'm Mr. Mises! Look at me!
look at the english subtitles they wrote Meeseeks xD
@@wassimelghawthi9808 I thought he was really Meeseeks
That episode just became a lot smarter to me after watching this video.
@@justenpeters3988 ME TOO LOL WTF
Hello Dave Mises. I am looking at you.
This is really helpful.. Could you please give me the references?.. There are certain points that i can use in my presentation...
For collectivism I’d read the conquest for bread by kropotkin
are an individualist ? if so how do yoy cope in our collective oriented cultured in our country ? or you are and collectivist one ? if so how do you deal with times when your alone or isolated?
I love individualism even though I live in a collectivist society
Would a union be an example of collectivism? Unions have brought some great things for workers worldwide
Read the passage at 2:17. Unions are damaging to the economy anyway
@@VX-cy4du sure but they’re great for the workers. They’ve brought better wages, shorter hours, and better benefits
Unions are fine as long as they are freely created based on the wishes of the individuals AND as long as they do not have more rights, power, etc. than does the individual.
@@csfischer007 I’m a collectivist anyways. I think our extremely individualist culture in the US is pretty toxic in some ways
@@clintonbaird5465 Extreme individualism in the sense of egoism, a lack of empathy, and narcissism are very toxic. However, this is not the same as individualism in its purest sense. And yes, those for and against individualism often conflates these terms. I agree that this Extreme individualism has fostered a lot of hate. However, collectivism has taken this same hate and manifested history’s gravest atrocities from Fascism to Communism or Socialism, colonialism and imperialism, extreme nationalism, human rights violations… all of which where carried out in the name of “the greater good”.
The problem begins when trying to define “the” collective or trying to create a hierarchy of collectives, predominantly the oppressed vs oppressor or trying to blame one collective on the failures of another collective.
Collectives in general are not bad and do allow an avenue of support in a number of ways. And an individual would do best to recognize the importance of these collectives and act in a manor that would benefit him/herself through the collectives that they themselves place the highest value(s). However, no collective, whether the state or any other group should have the power to decide for any individual what collective(s) they should place the greater value over another collective, or individual for that matter.
If collectivists are consent adults without mental health issues and do not want harm towards other beings and don't want to gain control over other people's choice that opposes their (their children etc) then I don't have a problem with that. It goes same for religions or really any group of people
woon ko you still don't get it either
Thank you for the video!
we can create smart collectivism if we understood the individualism.
+Ashenafi Geb No we can't.
A community is merely a measure word for a group of individuals.
A forest is a measure word for a group of individual trees.
A flock is a measure word for a group of individual birds.
A community is only as strong as its individuals. Elevating the 'idea' of the collective over the actual individuals within the community merely erodes the community.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. See the Knowledge Problem for an explanation of why attempts of top-down control such as collectivists espouse can never result in an effective solution. There are incomprehensible amounts of contextual, ever-changing, and sometimes incommunicable mundane knowledge needed to organize multitudes of spontaneous actors in what is currently largely handled through decentralized market systems. No centralized solution can possibly cope with its human limitations, and substitute itself for the multitudes of individuals in the problems of choice which the market responds to minute by minute. It's a great naivete that any person or group of people could possibly take the place of the market and expect peace, liberty (in any sense), or prosperity. The world is *far* too complex for systems of human design to manage, but evidently not too complex for decentralized, spontaneous systems of human action to manage.
no isms do anything good for anyone except predators
Excatly
What do you guys actually want? I'm an actor doing research and your guys' definitions change faster than the moon phases. Can you explain it (what yall actually want) in 3 sentences?
1. Why it's important to you? (did you grow up feeling your family life would have been a certain way if social conditions were different or whatever)
2. What is your personal life goal?
3. How will it (Marxism or whatever you believe) help you achieve your goal?
Collectivism vs. individualism hasn't been solved? What about that Android advertisement that was like "Be together, but not the same"? There, problem solved.
People now days aren't smart enough to take those kind of messages to heart ... Especially the youth
communism is together and look how that played out
E Pluribus Unum, you mean. As was printed on erstwhile US Dollar notes. Not bad.
So we'll collectively be individuals?
No internet communism is individualistic.
I'm both. And yes, it's possible. Difficult as fk, but possible.
But here's a question for the fanatic individualists: Do you enjoy your life when eating food cultivated by others, with plates and cutlery made by others, while talking with the family, or using your smartphone, made by others, with the electricity provided by others and the internet invented, distributed and always actualized by others?
How is that in contradiction with 'pure individualism'? My quality of life with the specialization and advanced technologies that entails is a result of individuals fulfilling their own desires
@@mouwersor I doubt there are people working in McDonalds because of their own desire.
@@Meta-trope Well apparently they prefer it over the natural state. Nothing is stopping them from going full-amish and abandoning modern society.
@@mouwersor right
"yes we are all individuals. yes we are all individuals." Monty Python hammering it again.
COLLECTIVEISM > Individualism
@@slavUKR VIDEO GAME NPCS or something else
@@piglin469 collectivism is nothing more than tyranny is disguise.
we can switch back and forth depending on the situation
....no
Can people cooperate? Absolutely. for a greater good? Absolutely not. For you can not work for that which does not exist.
@@maltahighjacker9842 the greatest good is individual good, and for some reason collectivists can't grasp that the collective is MADE UP OF individuals. lol
Individualism is under attack ... Even in the USA where I live people do NOT respect uniqueness at all
+Obey Rostipher it's not only USA ...i live in india where people do not respect uniqueness at all.
+Sushobhon Samuel Morrison
Te he said Even the US. He didnt said just the US but YES
+Sushobhon Samuel Morrison How so ?
I'm interested
They are bringing about their own demise, as always.
Obey Rostipher Yeah there some values a culture posses which you have to follow, some may seem obvious, but not running around naked is as well as having a style related to the mainstream
How can I site this as a source in APA format??
Asian society: collectivism
Western society: individualism
Africans and south Americans too are collectivsts. Only western culture is individualist
Since the 1960s perhaps, and now the west is dying, who could have guessed
Hm
Long term, short term
That’s right, respect the rights and freedom of others! I totally agree. I’ve been saying these exact ideologies.
Could you please make a video about personalism? And contrast that to individualism and collectivism?
Thank you, and you're very welcome.
What's the book cover at 1:23?
Collectivism alway think that you can make an perfect type of life while still being a group, but the collective seem to not understand that human are more likely wishing for more of an individual merit then a collective merit. The individual seek more than the group that want the freedom of thought. Indépendant and the freedoms of our self merit is the ultimate freedom for everyone while collective freedom will just be another way of saying that the group of individual matter then self esteem yourselves into a greater world while not wanting to have an government like person in your mind that will want you to give the same amount of money to the public without wanting to be able to make it yourself
True but remember BEES CAN DO IT SO CAN ANTS AND SO CAN YOU join the hive mind
Great video. I'm about to start my reading of the Great Books of the Western World, and am planning on injecting Human Action by Ludwig von Mises into the order to balance out the collectivist ideas with the individualist idea. Any other suggestions are welcome.
This guy was ahead of his time
Well, I can make a sort of a reverse argument to the first one in your presentation. We know that individuals vary greatly in their goals and interests, I mean there are always going to be people who won't accept any social institution like property rights. So because you are never going to satisfy the goals of all the individuals, you'll have to go something like with the majority by an appeal to their interests as a group and not as individuals, because the individuals themselves disagree.
The Individual. Collectivism only allows those above to ignore the plights of the Individual, you, over the collective, the party in power.
But the thing is people often find purpose in the collective and not necessarily in themselves and so even if the goals of the group leader become the goals of the whole group often people will accept as it gives them a purpose by once themselves.
Collectivism does have its uses though. A group of individuals banding together to push better working conditions and pay (unions)
Coming from the UK, a universal single payer health system is essential to provide that liberty of health - available to all regardless of wealth, not at the whim of a corporate insurance company.
do Max Stirner
Collectivism and Individualism: two sides of a coin. Like Inferiority / Superiority complex. Both cannot exist without the another, not only theoretically but factually. Ideally, these two are in a 'positively' symbiotic relationship. Anyhow, never can they exist separate from one another.
@KLJF Oh yeah right... violence is the answer... how haven't I thought about that?
@KLJF Right, so ... "force" is the answer? That escalated very, very quickly. Force is almost never the solution to problems... not to talk about broad societal problems. That's getting way too close to the idea of violent dictatorships and/or terrorist organizations what you're proposing.
How about a little bit of minding your own business, and not being obsessed with society as a whole? It'll do you good.
Does that impose that there is no true group and the spell of exclusivity propose not every liberties will be understood?
Great video
An important point is raised at 3:34.
There is no 1 collective but multiple collectives that rival each other. As they all seek for everyone to adopt 1 doctrine. Which isn't going to happen. So this is a very unstable state of human population.
Individualism however, is stable, as every aims to just gets their needs met, and by pursuing that will also interact with the other individuals in a mutual beneficial way instead of a default rivalry way. And ironically but beautifully, this benefits the whole human population as it is much more stable.
This kind of structure doesn't waste as much time, energy and resources on figuring out what is best for everyone else, and lets just everyone figure that out on their own accord, because they know that best.
Yes, individuals could still compete, which is a way that encourages one another (to make a better product or be the best at athletics), but this ultimately benefits others as well since new records will be broken and new goals will be reached.
Also, if things do go bad and 2 individuals do rival each other: to benefit only when the other is eliminated. Then the impact will not envelop an entire population or group of people. The incident will remain small scale, and could even be mediated when other individuals feel they need to step in.
In short, you can't universalize collectivism when the aim is to include all but when there's no 1 single doctrine, but you can universalise individualism as it allows for as much doctrines as there are individuals (and voluntaryism for that matter)
+Bananas and Bass At 3:34 we hear an important point ... there is no WE in individualism .. just saying ..
Well, for lack of a better term. I use "we" as in the plural of individual, "multiple individuals".
Like if there was a thunder storm. *BAAANG!* I can say "Hey I heard a loud bang".
You say "I heard that too".
Another says "I heard something".
3 people heard the same thing, they might say "we individually observed the same thing, we 3 agree that is was thunder right?".
Does this mean the individuals are now the same? No. The external thing they observed was 1 and the same. Their perceptions of it or reactions to it might completely differ though.
They are not a group, they don't act the same, but just because of 1 shared instance they can use the term "we" to simply express that 1 instance. How else would you call it?
+Bananas and Bass Although what you are saying is not wrong, its not the whole story. Individualism doesn't go away in the presence of collectivism, as you can from example, that is how our reality works. The argument shouldn't be individualism vs collectivism. it should be how much individualism, and how much collectivism? its not a black and white issue. Individualism works best for those with an advantage, which is perfectly acceptable to be born with an advantage. The argument for individualism is that everyone benefits when everyone cooperates out of self-interest. That's a happy positive thought that is just not a reality. And if you think that collectivists deserve to be in their position because they are not an individualist, then you are disillusioned by the fantasy that individualism is good for everyone. The underlying question is; what is more important to you, protecting a myth that perpetuates the billionaire's flow of income at the expense of the well-being of working underclass citizens, or providing a minimum standard of living for the less fortunate members of our community. I'm not advising to make everyone equal, that would be absurd. Just enough collectivism to alleviate people's suffering around us. And if you think they are suffering because they haven't make good choices for themselves, that doesn't change the fact that they are suffering. If you are ok with that, then that's your prerogative.
you cant "universalize" individualISM either. Only if you have a collective that can appreciate the individual and to the extent they do, is it good.
Perfectly defined and described in such a short passage. Collectivism annihilates the individuals’ uniqueness, dignity and needs for the sake of satisfying the interests of the individuals’ who are controlling and manipulating the masses. Thank you for great food for thought.
An example of a natural monopoly is electricity transmission in NZ. Those who promote your ideology have claimed before that such natural monopolies being a constant in a free market environment would only be "theoretical"; but then again, so is their "free market cures all" a theoretical possibility.
Great video. But it cuts off too quickly at the end, thereby diminishing the impact of the final quote. I suggest a simply fix and reupload
Where do relationships/ life partner/ family) stand in these world views( individual & collective)
You don't have to sacrifice yourself to enter into a relationship... Family, friends and our relationships are a vital component of healthy human development. You don't have to be isolated to be an indivual, is indivualism not more a state of mind?
Relationships become by choice and through love and respect instead of just because you're in the same Collective together that you can't escape. Like it would be as if we went from grade school to a grad school cohort. You share interests and loves and therefore love each other all the more. This also highlights why unconditional love is bullshit. If you give your love with no conditions, then how can you say it is of high value? Love that is given with high standards and strict requirements is all the more special.
Everything must be balanced for without balance nothing will stand
How would you "balance" these two ideologies together?
collectivism = sheep, so... I want to be an individual like everyone else? lol
David Hastings it is due to the fact that majority of people in third world countries believe in collectivism and most of them suffer dictatorships, big government, etc
It can even be called as majoritism.
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 yes, but is the individualism like that is in US a good idea?
Is there anyway your fans can support these videos? somewhere to donate, or otherwise help?
This debate and the issue itself are some of the symptoms of the shortcomings of the human's brain. We need to remind ourselves that it is not always black or white. Our brain thinks in simplicity. We most of the times find it to be a combination of both.
there is no debate/// you can have an individual without a collective... but no collective without individuals.
MIC DROP!!
Human are social animal in nature.
-Aristotle
Individuals only make up 2% of the humans population. Most humans are just parts of collectives and can't be individuals.
LOL. How do you think human reproduce? By Splitting itself? You need collective ( male + female ) to reproduce an individual.
Problems arise when too much outside force beyond the core collective ( male + female union ) get their hands in reproduce/shaping the individual. It will become so unnatural for the individual growth :)
4:25 Denies that people can create collectives because they all agree to meet a common goal. This is why groups dissipate and divide when there are disagreements within them. If what Mises is saying was correct there would be no civil wars.
An interesting discussion. But I think any video on individualism that does not include De Sade does a disservice to it. It's important to consider that whilst most indivdualists would add a proviso that it's not okay to kill or rape others etc., I think it's only fair that we take into consideration there are those individualists who do see the ego as the principle drive and that there is therefore nothing wrong with killing others if it brings you pleasure. As abhorent as these ideas are, they are also very important to the debate.
a hybrid of inidividualism and collectivism is the best. Its stupid to choose one over the other, we need both. Individualism allows us to express our unique self. But at the same time humans are social creatures and live in the same planet so collectivism is just as important. A balance of both is the key
+Super Capacitor Being social has nothing inherently to do with collectivism. Cooperation and social habits amongst humans isn't collectivism -- collectivism is believing there is a metaphysically real entity ("the Collective") which should be served and prioritized over the individuals who actually comprise that given society. No such thing exists, and to prioritize it as though it does always leads to deterioration of the individual and some dominant political power destroying individual lives and happiness in the name of authoritarian virtues.
Community, society, family -- all of these things are words that merely measure a group of individuals living, working, and sharing together. But this very different from the idea of a "collective", which is treated as an entity that exists apart from the individuals which comprise it, as more than just a measure word. It has it's own virtues, needs, demands, and does not recognize that any virtues, needs, or demands it has must necessarily be merely ones of its individual members (which surely do not all share the exact same ones). This usually leads to an authoritarian regime claiming to have the gospel message and leadership of the collective asserting control and suppressing individual agency and sovereignty.
The debate wasn't about disregarding th existence of collectives nor of individuals, it's about how to base humans on... is the rights and actions of individuals must be held higher than one of a collective? Or should it be the collective to trump over the individual?
Brilliant.... Inspiring & Enlightening! Proving that for most times we have an option as individuals to think & hopefully act outside the 'box' (provided we do not destroy other people's individual rights in the process of course). Wake up so called 21st. century civilised humanity & seek the meaning of life for yourself as an individual. After all on this earth we only get a limited amount of time to have a 'Crack at it'. Don't we??
This channel is heaven for INxx
I would've liked to hear arguments for the collectivist side
Im in team individuality however that being said I agree if we as people we do need to come together to achieve certain goals and etc.so basically if we can agree to work together a least for common goals and good causes it's a good thing to work together without sacrificing individuality
While your heart is in the right place and I do believe in cooperation it shouldn't be toward a common goal just a mutual exchange with a agreed upon set of rules other wise it would just continue to be nothing but ideological factions waring between one another.
I am all for collectivism. I will always prefer collectivism over individualism, always.
What the moral philosophers asked us to consider was whether claims by individuals to OWN any portion of the planet is a legitimate claim. We impose some restrictions on our control over nature, restrictions over which consensus emerges over time (e.g., one owner polluting the property of others). Henry George, in particular, made the case for a labor and capital goods basis for property and for exempting wages and material assets (.e.g, homes and buildings) from taxation.
Collectivism is rational selfishness and individualism, the individual works for the good of the collective, and the collective works for the good of the individual.
Might be a stretch but does anybody think that Mr. meeseeks from Rick and Morty was named (similarly) after Ludwig von Mises?
In tense times the rise of collectivism is well observed.with group minding via causes as means to cohesions .
The distractions of scape goating diversions are also implemented to further enhance the unity.
From this being a fearful moveto a diversionary use in the foreign threat. diversional tactics thats mostly used.
I think it's about having a good balance of the two. Can anyone suggest some philosophers who are in between the extreme collectivist and individualist camps?
Is there any philosophers who think it depends on what aspect of life we're talking about.
Because sometimes a collectivist approach is best and other times an individualist approach is.
It depends on the circumstance
Just as in politics (left/right divide) most people who care enough to write about a subject are strongly on one side or the other. Fence-sitters/moderates/centrists tend not to want to offend anybody on either side, so they would probably write pretty boring books anyway, though I'm with you - I would like to find some material written with strong convictions from a more moderate viewpoint if it exists. Haven't been able to find it. I think the important thing is to learn about both extremes and try to understand how they interact, as well as which side you tend to fall on. No matter how moderate you may be you're more on one side than the other in general, though you probably have certain tendencies from the other side too. Look into r/K selection theory if you're not aware of it - it's really about animal breeding habits but accurately describes human traits of individualists and collectivists. the r is the collectivists (I think of rabbits) and the K is Individualists (I think of wolves and use the term Killers because they're carnivores - it just works as a memory device - it does not mean Individualists are killers).
What it's really describing is the difference between the survival strategies of predators (K) and prey (r). The prey animals - rabbits - use a strategy of massive breeding - cranking out as many babies as possible to try to ensure survival of the species. They don't invest much energy into teaching them skills, just crank them out and turn them loose and depend on the numbers game alone. Predators on the other hand rely on intelligence and skill, so they have to invest a lot of energy and time into training the young to hunt.
I'll just refer you to an excellent video on the subject by Stefan Molyneux: ua-cam.com/video/W8N3FF_3KvU/v-deo.html
I forgot - it's actually several videos - that's a playlist. Not sure if #4 & 5 are really about r/K theory? Anyway, keep in mind - Molyneux is firmly on one side of the debate, as everybody who cares enough to post videos or write books on a divisive subject is (as far as I've been able to determine). So the only way to get info is to look at what people on both sides have to say and keep in mind each have their biases.
Read , Plato , extremely collective but facist also !
In dealing w/ COVID -19 , COLLECTIVISM seems to work better .
Collectivism is responsible for violence and oppression, individualism is responsible for progress.
japan also has the highest suicide rate of any country. explain that.
i should have been more specific, i meant that they have the highest suicide rate of any country in the western world. i have to disagree that the culture of Japan is causing the suicide rate to sky rocket. Japan has been highly influenced by western culture in the last 20-30 years. the population has grown exponentially and so has the GDP on the nation. Japan has a highly influenced collective society. If you look at the city streets and subways, you are looking at sardines in a can. This attitude and way of life makes the individual feel minute and unimportant to the society as a whole. therefore, you seem more individuals taking their life because they do not feel important in society. they feel like another snowflake in the snow, and unfortunately, this causes a lot of mental detachment from the society as a whole. This is my fear of collectivism. i have always been an individual and had my own thoughts about the world. Collectivism would take that away from me and i would be scared of the results.
It doesn't matter when you look at it from the moral position that no one has a right to impose their will on anyone else, thus making the very concept of government immoral.
Liberty thrives on voluntary cooperation! It's the coercion that we need to get rid of.
*****
"This anarcho-capitalist (or whatever they call it) fantasy of the far-right will never be possible just as a socialist utopia will never be possible."
I just call it anarchism, and it's not a fantasy. It is synonymous with freedom and yes, it is that black and white. Freedom or slavery, take your pick.
"man owns himself (mind and body)"
This relies on the assumption that one can even "own" ones self, in a possessive sense. Do you own your arm as you own your leg? the Austro-bot attempts to objectify the human being; a dangerous notion, since it was the same driving concept which reinforced slavery (to many Austro-bots, "voluntary slavery" contracts are completely permissible, granting they don't violate any "free market" principles).
Name calling is the lowest form of an argument.
You have to take into account whether it is voluntary free association and if harm is being done to others. The Voluntarian lifestyle is the best path forward.
I generally think collectivism should be built-as-suitable/possible. starting from a foundation of individual rights and freedoms, collective movements and groups have to build up in a way that achieves public and common goals without sacrificing the individual freedoms and rights, at least too much, or in a compromise that favours individual their relief. At least some level of laws, rules and regulations for the processes of the collective that are in place to protect and uplift the individual also.
otherwise what results may be a group of people where the major portion of individuals are unhappy or unsatisfied in their personal interests/needs, unless they (are made to) fanatically devote their individual identities ("souls") to the image of the collective. But you could bet a fair penny that in such a unsatisfied / much demanded mass collective, a small number of people in power will exist who are privileged and their own needs and arbitrary desires fulfilled to the brim due to station and status (unfairly considering many live in a disproportionately poorer state).
if a collective does not acknowledge rights of individuals, then it may be problematic or even dangerous.
One sign of a bad collective system is where an individual is caught in a collective process and are suffering from extreme demands from the flow of the process, however are powerless to ease those demands, unless the person breaks away from that collective altogether and go along or somewhere else, as a single person.
Generally as far as I know,
collectives tend to act in a more weighted, large-scope, simplistic way,
and have heard that sometimes the behaviour is "weird", /extreme/extremely emotionally or ideologically charged/motivated, or not very reasonable, and that sometimes the ideologies and rhetoric of collectives are not surely based on truth. (worst cases I know are of mobs or riots, discriminations or scapegoating on other sects of people, economic-social-and-land conquest funded by the wealthy-class roots of the collective, and of military and martial misdeeds committed by one group against another, a minority or on an individual).
-
maybe due to things such as
collective interests obscuring some views of reality or others,
insensitivity or no respect to life and lower classes of beings, lack of some degree of empathy in the rulers, status family institutional or corporate abstracting and distancing away from hardships of individuals and the wider society of beings, lacking of some true philosophical or principle basis on why a collective or ruler must be good or nice to the individuals and other groups,
greed, corruption, money having its consuming, buying-off or hoarding effect,
the handed down traditions of dynasties of groups, lack of understanding of something other than that which the group is, and the unwillingness to share a different view to own self's group,
different ways individuals identify with the identity of collective, the various emotions people collectively invest on images of the group,
the imperfections of communications, comprehension, education between individuals of a collective,
various group or individual delusions, unfounded beliefs, distortion of how reality is viewed as a collective, charging of group emotions and sentiments affected upon individuals.
the systems and their imperfections on how decisions of the group are made and enacted (such as dysfunctional democracies, corrupt governments, inconsistent/altering monarchies, theocracies, or totalitarianism),
what individuals of the group decide and have power (and their own character features), etc.
that's is what I think anyway. not that I'm an expert in this.
Thus, while I hold a deed to the land on which my home sits, I have come to see that I am really a tenant on the land, a tenant who enjoys a privilege not enjoyed by everyone. Justice requires that I compensate the community for this privilege. Market forces determine what the compensation should be. This process already exists with land held under lease, either from private interests or community agencies. These are my perspectives and those of at least some others.
Awesome video, bro. But try to put a little bit of collectivism in it too. Otherwise it must not be called "Collectivism and Individualism". Both sides have strong points of view, strong enough to afford the price of adopting no matter which position.
Is not the concept of the individual simply the survival tool of the collective. The individual has now become atomised and separate, in an attempt to compensate for the sense of isolation that accompanies this a perpetual need for connection is pursued by means of social media. The strange thing is that I believe at an unconscious/primitive level we are connected anyway, this has been traditionally upheld through religious belief, which due to our vanity and hubris we have rejected due to a complete misunderstanding of the idea and purpose of deity.
My point is that the moral ground on which current claims to ownership of any part of the planet are based on relativism and not objective reasoning. This does not mean changing the thinking of people will be easy. Yet, there is some reason to believe attitudes are changing, that (for instance) there is a growing appreciation of the environment as a commons and that the right to an unpolluted environment is a human right and not simply a civil right. (continued)
I prefer individualism because I prefer what is best for me
Not my community because what if what the community wants
Is not best for me
So you're ready to kill 50 people, if it saves only your life?
@@aldebenevmg So you're okay for the 50 people to kill one person for not agreeing to their collective needs?
Yeah, extremes go on both ends.
Im an individualist to my core
Is that jungian mask im sensing?
tbh.. I only came to understand the ideas behind individualism. watched the video to try to understand the two sides as it was foreign to me, video is then partially helpful
You correctly observe that an equal division of the planet is impossible. The most practical solution to the problem was first put forward by Richard Cantillon, which was to require that anyone who controlled land compensate society by payment of the ground rent in taxation. The French physiocrats argued that this payment should be the only tax anyone pays. Many other great thinkers developed the idea further: Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, and Henry George among others.
dude, change your video title to “the goodies of individualism”, and delete “collectivism”. Your title is misleading...
Exatcly.. no wonder UA-cam recomend me his videos. Just more propaganda about western psychological manipulation that benefit the very few.
There is not goodies in collectivism unless you like walking the road to totalitarianism
@@GamingLoadown101 That's not true and you assume collectivistist ownership is state ownership, where as the opposite end of that are credit unions, worker and consumer co-ops, community spaces like makerspaces and communal woodshops or even free classes for community members. These services do an amazing service for the community and benefits the individual.
@@GamingLoadown101 The concept is everyone shared what they have, Equality is the key
@@forgaoqiang Worked just fine for '*insert every failed communist state*'
Thanks, this was a video I was in much need of after having to suffer through one of the most disappointing games I've ever played. The game was practically nothing but a collectivist slant, severely anti-individualist, deep in the strawman fallacy. And it's somewhat ironic given that the series the game belongs to have always been strongly individualist.
What game is it?
@@martimxavier9690 Shin Megami Tensei IV Apocalypse. Seriously don't play it. The story is really, really bad which is a shame as the gameplay was at least good. While the series has dabbled in those themes before, it was never as poorly done and one-sidedly patronizing as in that game. And while the regular SMTIV was decent, it still wasn't up to series standards.
Seriously, the first game in the series without the original creators involved in any way and they immediately manage to screw it up big time.
Bro with the greatest sincerity that’s just a game, why not apply this to your actual life?
@@matteste the creators of smt IV are japanese and japanese citizens are highly collectivist, so no wonder that happens. That's why many anime and games cry for individuality, because there's a lack of it in Japan
I'm not sure, but my concern is only with democratic collectivism, when people organize socially by consent. In fact even extreme libertrianism must be collectivist to some extent, because social institutions like property rights can't exist without a broad collective consensus that must be imposed on individuals who don't obey it (like thieves).
The value of the individual is the deposits of acquired knowledge.
Woot. Mises FTW
Yes, Mises was a rare man who "got it."