BTW, the more egalitarian and inclusive the US becomes the less it would be a nation-state. A nation is usually a group of people who have ethnicity in common. — frank

An 'ethno-nationalist state'? :eyes:

My concept of 'nation-state' is decidedly cosmopolitan, n o t "ein volk, ein reich, ein gott". :mask:

My concept of 'nation-state' is decidedly cosmopolitan, — 180 Proof

That's just a state, not a nation-state.

Well then the US, at least, has never been a nation-state. 'Country', I suppose, is a less tribalist term.

Well then the US, at least, has never been a nation-state. 'Country', I suppose, is a less tribalist term. — 180 Proof

Some political scientists say it was between the Civil War and the early 20th Century. I think some say it still is. I guess it depends on your outlook on opportunity in the US? My point was just that if it becomes more egalitarian, it definitely won't qualify.

it's easier for like-minded to come together to form a small commune (where people can come and go), — jorndoe

Granted that setting up a commune is comparatively easy. It's also the case that communes often fall apart. I don't know what the history of kibbutzim are. Perhaps there was historical precedence that members shared; perhaps there was institutional support. I don't know how long any particular kibbutz has been operating, I'm pretty sure the kibbutz were not the same as the 1960s communes that came and went pretty swiftly.

Any society that gravitates too much towards either side will collapse. — Christoffer

All societies eventually collapse, don't they, given time?

A given cultural region--pre-Columbian North America, Europe, E. Asia, South Asia, etc--may maintain consistent features over long stretches of time, but social structures within the cultural region collapse and re-form continuously. It seems like an organic process, different than when a society is crushed by outside forces of various kinds.

The soviet system collapsed, but not merely from internal flaws. There was the German invasion of 1941 which was immensely costly. Then there was the Cold War, which drained the resources of the soviet system. (The Cold War drained capitalist resources too, but the drain was proportionately more tolerable.)

is a well-defined system of governance, and one with an absolutely disastrous track record at that. — Tzeentch

It has zero track record on a large scale. A label is not a system.

Lets answer the question: "is communism a feasible method of organizing states and large communities?" — Tzeentch

Of course it is. Put an incorruptible AI administrator in charge instead of self-proclaimed leaders who seek power, glory and wealth.
It isn't the system that corrupts the organizers; it's the organizers who corrupt the system - every system.

That's what I said, both are extremes that eventually lead to collapse. And we've also seen somewhat of a pure individualistic society through the neoliberalism movement in the 80s. Most of the Millennial generation has been formed as individualists and many of the problems today are the result of individualism, even though we've not seen a nation embracing it fully, since that would almost be anarchistic.

It cannot be said that any of the problems of today are the result of individualism. Greed, egotism, self-concern, which are often associated with individualism, are all of them perennial problems, not limited to any specific political epoch, and found in collectivists as much as in individualists.

There is no individualism. There has never been any individualism. Everywhere we look the individual is subordinate to a collective state, bound to act in compulsory cooperation with people that are not his brethren or friend, and under rules that are not his own.

This is inherently built into the Westphalian system of international relations, which is essentially anarchistic. Look at which being in the world is considered sovereign. Look at which being in the world is afforded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the dominion and jurisdiction over all lands, all behaviors, all interactions, that occur within the bounds of its property. Far from a liberal individualism, we have adopted the individualism of Carlyle, "the vital articulation of many individuals into a new collective individual". We have adopted collectivism.

The individual has no rights, but only the rights the state provisionally grants him; the state may suspend them, modify them, or take them away at its own pleasure. It's how a nominally liberal democracy can get away with subjugating its entire population, as they did during the most recent pandemic. That's why the notion of a res publica, a government for the people by the people, is the greatest stroke of propaganda ever written. It has convinced people that their master is themselves. They now believe the conditional life of a conscript, a serf, a slave, is freedom, and an absolutist oligarchy is democracy. They believe that since they get to exercise their sovereignty on an astronomical basis (according to how many times the earth revolves around the sun), every few years voting for which mammal gets to dominate them, that they too are in control.

I suspect that this condition more so than individualism has led to the problems of today.

I do not think communism is feasible in the modern world although understandable in its aim of creating an equal almost utopian socialist society …the methods of doing so are questionable. You’re stripped off your assets that is your house or any other property that you’ve managed to acquire and given to the state who in their wisdom wish to share it with the not so well off.

This is where things start to fall apart for all your hard work that went into building or buying your house is wiped off at the states want of redistribution of wealth in the name of creating equality which although admirable are then distributed to say a crack addict in an extreme scenario.

This done in the name of equality of course…

It has zero track record on a large scale. A label is not a system. — Vera Mont

This sounds like the "not real communism" argument.

Communism, as stated earlier, is a clearly defined way of governing states.

As such, there are clear examples of it. The Soviet Union, Maoist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.


I'm assuming you have an idealized version of communism in mind, that (hopefully) doesn't include all the atrocity.

What you need is to put a new term on that idealized, non-horrific version of communism and call it something else, because there's no point in trying to defend something that has been so utterly and completely poisoned by its real, real-life implementations.

Put an incorruptible AI administrator in charge instead of self-proclaimed leaders who seek power, glory and wealth.
It isn't the system that corrupts the organizers; it's the organizers who corrupt the system - every system. — Vera Mont

I agree with the last part wholeheartedly - we (humanity) are for the most part trying to limit the damage done by the corrupt organizers.

Whether AI is the solution is a question I'll leave for another thread.

Communism, as stated earlier, is a clearly defined way of governing states. — Tzeentch

Indeed. And it has never been tried in a state.

I'm assuming you have an idealized version of communism in mind, that (hopefully) doesn't include all the atrocity. — Tzeentch

Yes. The clearly defined "ism" according to which a state might be governed, which entails no atrocity. The experiments so far attempted on a large scale did not conform to that definition - partly because of the means employed to achieve them. The means always determine the ends; that's why the USA is also a failed state.
I can comment on one or the other: governance as witnessed in those authoritarian states or the communist theory of government - it obviously can't be both, as they are not congruent.

there's no point in trying to defend something that has been so utterly and completely poisoned by its real, real-life implementations. — Tzeentch

Sorry. I will not collude in the corruption of language to conform to the corruption of philosophies.

I voted yes. I don't believe human nature is fixed, and I don't believe human beings are bound by necessity such that a "system" is in place to make them behave this or that way.

The future is open. And we can demand the impossible.

Do you think a new political system can be born from the minds of people beholden to the establishment? — Ying

Nope.

, societies do differ, though. Some go intentional systematic organized genocide, others take offense from that and observe fair rights, ... There are a good deal of different kinds of governance and political systems. Surely we can assess/analyze them comparatively?

You’re stripped off your assets that is your house or any other property that you’ve managed to acquire and given to the state who in their wisdom wish to share it with the not so well off. — invicta

As I've come to understand it (which may be wrong), you're part of that state. It's not supposed to be "elsewhere", "hidden" or "them", rather it's supposed to be you in part.

, possible (technically), sure, what about realistic/feasible (in light of observations)? You mentioned "not fixed", which might imply diversity, yes?

because there's no point in trying to defend something that has been so utterly and completely poisoned by its real, real-life implementations. — Tzeentch

Yet so many still defend capitalism. Responsible for more deaths and brutality than imaginable.

Supposed communist countries tend to become something else, something that (to me anyway) is not what the philosophers envisioned. — jorndoe

Yes, of course. There is no pure, official statement of communism — so it’s hard to talk about. But if we take worker control of the workplace, the means of production in workers hands — then yes, USSR and China are very different indeed. But there are different stands. Some statist, some anti-statist.

So it goes for capitalism too, incidentally. What we see today in our neoliberal era is pretty far from anything in, say, Adam Smith.

And we've also seen somewhat of a pure individualistic society through the neoliberalism movement in the 80s. Most of the Millennial generation has been formed as individualists and many of the problems today are the result of individualism, even though we've not seen a nation embracing it fully, since that would almost be anarchistic. — Christoffer

Individualism is perhaps the biggest myth and scam of modern times. Philosophically dubious at best, ignores one of human beings’ most basic traits (social creatures), accepts the illusion of “self” as a kind of irreducible entity a la the atom, and is an outgrowth of some of the worst parts of Western culture.

All that aside, the most important point is that this kind of self-worshipping fundamentalism has been adopted and used by the ruling class, since at least Von Mises and Hayek in modern times, culminating in Friedman and, to a less serious degree, Ayn Rand. Much like Christians who want to justify what they want, they cherry-pick the ideas, these ideas become the ruling ideas, and provide cover and justification for plutocracy.

We see the results of neoliberal policies, as you rightly point out. By almost every measure, the results have been egregious — except for the ruling class, to which 50 trillion dollars have been transferred over 40 years. All in the name of individualism: small government, “government is the problem,” and other “libertarian” (read: unwitting plutocrat apologists) slogans.

And when this undeniable wealth inequality, monopolization, failure of the “free markets” (another useful fantasy), financialization, bailouts, etc., is pointed out — what’s blamed? The “state,” of course.

So yeah, individualism is a complete sham. But even if it wasn’t used to rob the population to enrich .0001% of the world, it’d still be quite ridiculous.

So yeah, individualism is a complete sham. But even if it wasn’t used to rob the population to enrich .0001% of the world, it’d still be quite ridiculous. — Mikie

:clap: :clap:

I never said it works on large scale. Of course, nor does any other ideology; all political systems are more or less dysfunctional; all collapse sooner or later in their history. — Vera Mont

But some functions better than others, and the ones that don't function well are the ones falling into the extremes.

I said all thought is individual. — Vera Mont

And with careful programming, over a long period of time, you can Pavlov an entire people into obedience, i.e thought crimes.

Anyway, in a nation-state or tribe or empire, you have to contribute. In a monarchy, a theocracy, a military dictatorship or a democratic socialist republic, you have to contribute in order to receive a share, unless the polity or ruling elite exempt you for some reason (illness, injury, extreme age or youth are the standard exemptions) and the society has the wherewithal to carry you. There is some variation in the range of choices any individual has in deciding what, when and how much to contribute, but that's more a function of prosperity and technological advancement than style of social organization. — Vera Mont

What is easier, higher taxes for social welfare/UBI? Or that everyone individually thinks of ways to contribute? Problem is that people are more laid back and apathetic the better a nation has it. I wouldn't trust any of my fellow Scandinavians to pick up the tools and contribute on their own accord. A minority does, but a minority won't carry the rest of society on their backs. That's why a large-scale communist society either forces people to contribute or programs them to do it. And yes, it is the same as in neoliberal capitalism, in which society programs you to value work as a form of high status and achievement.

Pavlov-driven societies are always in a downward spiral.

What's difficult is deliberate transition from one kind of economy to another. — Vera Mont

Which is what will happen soon with automation if predictions fall correctly.

All societies eventually collapse, don't they, given time? — BC

Mainly due to influences from other nations and economies that people want more. They don't collapse just for the sake of it, they collapse due to the foundational supporting pillars being corrupt or badly built, and hopefully, the new pillars of the new system are built better.

The problem with just looking at history is that we don't know how modern times function on that scale since we've never had a globalized society before. Earlier in history, new cultures and ideas flowed into society at a constant rate and influenced progression, but today we see those influences happening over the course of months, not nearly enough time to reshape the foundation of society while the foundation also isn't clashing against other cultures in the same manner as before.

The cultural clashes today are primarily between fringe ideologies and larger nations with morons at the top, but we have all cultures out in the open, everyone is looking at every culture everywhere and evaluating what they think about them. Cultures and ideologies aren't "imported" as whole systems, we take fractions here and fractions there and form a collage of stuff rather than tumbling into a nationwide adapted singular ideology that later falls and a new rises. Society today falls and rises on a yearly basis, sometimes monthly, daily.

The soviet system collapsed, but not merely from internal flaws. — BC

Sure, but it was the people's will to be part of the rest of the world that broke the camel's back. Viewed through a simplified lens, it showed that the strict collective ideology that tries to hold everyone together towards a singular goal couldn't accommodate the chaos that is individual thought and will.

The bottom line is, if someone doesn't want to contribute because they feel like the state isn't moving in the direction they want, are they punished or are they allowed to try and change that direction? Is it even possible to manage a collective direction without force? And without that force, is it even possible to keep such a state in its form for longer than an instant? People do not agree with each other, it's basic human nature, so how can a society be built upon keeping society moving in a singular direction without force? The more singular that collective direction, the more force is required to keep on that path.
Therefore, communism is a house of cards in a hurricane.

It cannot be said that any of the problems of today are the result of individualism. Greed, egotism, self-concern, which are often associated with individualism, are all of them perennial problems, not limited to any specific political epoch, and found in collectivists as much as in individualists. — NOS4A2

Yes, but we have a society (western society) where the neoliberal explosion of the 80s pushed individualism to a greater extreme. The "me me me" generations and narcissistic behaviors being handled like virtues for such a long time formed generational behaviors that influence society on a large scale. Basic human traits of course exist in any form of society, but these things have formed cultural behaviors that aren't just basic human traits.

There is no individualism. There has never been any individualism. Everywhere we look the individual is subordinate to a collective state, bound to act in compulsory cooperation with people that are not his brethren or friend, and under rules that are not his own. — NOS4A2

Yes, I'm not speaking of individualism as a form of state, but as a form of opposite to communism. What I'm describing is individualism in the extreme, when the ego becomes so important that the only incentive to participate in society is through state force. The rise of extreme right-wing groups is a result of this. There are so many people today afraid of the ghost of Marx and scared of any form of collective movement and at the same time, there are a lot of people on the opposite side who are fed up with this ego-focus and blindly want to march into communism. I'm saying both sides are hopelessly confused, but I'm not advocating for any passive centrism, I'm advocating for taking the best from both sides of the spectrum and building a society based on a balanced principle that is constantly evolving based on problem-solving per problem that arises using empathic strategies, knowledge, and science, but that's just me. Society will still crumble at the hands of AI automation so we need a system that works in that kind of world, which we don't have a system for yet.

Far from a liberal individualism, we have adopted the individualism of Carlyle, "the vital articulation of many individuals into a new collective individual". We have adopted collectivism. — NOS4A2

Isn't that just the result of cultural extreme individualism? As I mentioned initially, individualism today creates a clustered society of smaller ideologies since things like the internet today work as a radicalization machine. We actually don't see nations as collectives with individuals, we see groups that are borderless, forming pseudo-societies online, groups that adhere to extreme ideologies or ideas. It can be harmless like a community of Apple users trash-talking PC users, or it can be harmful like racist Qanon conspiracies and anti-vaccers.

Society today, in the west, is structured as a globalized clustered system based on individualized chaos gravitating towards groups of similar ideas and ideologies that radicalize them further. There are no real actual borders today, figuratively speaking.

It has convinced people that their master is themselves. They now believe the conditional life of a conscript, a serf, a slave, is freedom, and an absolutist oligarchy is democracy. They believe that since they get to exercise their sovereignty on an astronomical basis (according to how many times the earth revolves around the sun), every few years voting for which mammal gets to dominate them, that they too are in control.

I suspect that this condition more so than individualism has led to the problems of today. — NOS4A2

Yes, I agree about how society today is basically a slave state in which the slave thinks they are the master. A brilliant scheme to hack the literal interpretation of the master/slave analogy. And to top it off, confuse everyone through extreme capitalism that creates a white noise experience of life in which value and meaning are infused into materialistic wants so that the needs get confused with the want.

I'm not really defending Western society, I'm just pointing out how both communism and individualism (as foundational virtue in Western society), are extreme forms of societies that collapse fast.

But I don't think liberal individualism works either. It is further fragmenting society and can easily just tumble down into anarchism. There's an illusionary idea that society can work without a collective quality. People are selfish and the problem with liberal individualism is that it only works for the ones fortunate to find balance within it. Any stroke of bad luck, which most liberal individualists ignore as an existing problem, can throw anyone out of this wonderful freedom since there's no one in society that have any incentive to help them on their feet. Some liberal individualists argue for just letting them die off, and some think that people will help them out of empathy. Looking at the world today, the virtue of individualism forms narcissists who pay a small sum to charity in order to program themselves into feeling good while not actually helping to fix the underlying problem that put people in harm and trouble, it's clear that this idea of self-forming collective empathy without incentive is an illusion in order to brush the dark side of liberal individualism under the rug.

There has to be both a collective and individual part of society that works in tandem. Just look at how Sweden handled the pandemic, we had no lockdowns. We had recommendations, and people followed them for the most part because we culturally have a collective sense that isn't forced by a state, but by cultural values. I'm not saying we have the perfect system, but we still exist high on that list of best places to live. But we also live in the "slave" system like any other capitalism. I'm just saying that the solution is never to turn to extremes.

Individualism is perhaps the biggest myth and scam of modern times. Philosophically dubious at best, ignores one of human beings’ most basic traits (social creatures), accepts the illusion of “self” as a kind of irreducible entity a la the atom, and is an outgrowth of some of the worst parts of Western culture.

All that aside, the most important point is that this kind of self-worshipping fundamentalism has been adopted and used by the ruling class, since at least Von Mises and Hayek in modern times, culminating in Friedman and, to a less serious degree, Ayn Rand. Much like Christians who want to justify what they want, they cherry-pick the ideas, these ideas become the ruling ideas, and provide cover and justification for plutocracy.

We see the results of neoliberal policies, as you rightly point out. By almost every measure, the results have been egregious — except for the ruling class, to which 50 trillion dollars have been transferred over 40 years. All in the name of individualism: small government, “government is the problem,” and other “libertarian” (read: unwitting plutocrat apologists) slogans.

And when this undeniable wealth inequality, monopolization, failure of the “free markets” (another useful fantasy), financialization, bailouts, etc., is pointed out — what’s blamed? The “state,” of course.

So yeah, individualism is a complete sham. But even if it wasn’t used to rob the population to enrich .0001% of the world, it’d still be quite ridiculous. — Mikie

Exactly, and it's scary that Millennials and Gen Z have been brought up in one of the most extreme forms of this myth and we now see the result of this. The falling mental health, the fragmentation of society into extreme groups who desperately seeks out these social places because society as a whole doesn't have that place for them. As mentioned above, the enslavement of the people by the radicalized allure of individual greatness that has been a pipedream fed to everyone under the age of 45.

In some ways, I'm really impressed by the ruling class's ability to form a perfect system of oppression. While previous states tried to beat the people into submission, the modern era has been feeding self-improvement opium and divine meaning to the people based on a Baudrillardian simulacra of existence.

It's not individualism that is a sham. It's our western society pretending it works for the benefit of the individual that is the sham.

In fact, there's nothing individualist about our society. In the west it is not uncommon for half one's income to be taken directly in the form of tax. Meanwhile governments infringe pretty much at will upon individuals' constitutional and human rights whenever it suits them.

These are signs of a deeply collectivist society. We simply do a good job at hiding that fact, because governments have no interest in furthering ideas that would seek to limit the powers of government. Likewise, people who seek power over others have no interest in futhering ideas that seeks to take that power away.

Better pretend that philosophies of individual worth and freedom are the problem.

possible (technically), sure, what about realistic/feasible (in light of observations)? You mentioned "not fixed", which might imply diversity, yes? — jorndoe

In my experience feasibility is an assessment from the perspective of the people in charge. But realistically we only need other people which we unite with, so insofar that enough people unite together for something that they want then you can obtain it. The main barrier to communism is how people don't seem to want it. The cultural antibodies are simply too thick at the moment, and we ourselves are too sick for such a beautiful idea.

But given that the world isn't static it doesn't have to stay that way. That's what I mean by not fixed. The way we relate to each other is ultimately up to us.

It's not individualism that is a sham. It's our western society pretending it works for the benefit of the individual that is the sham.

In fact, there's nothing individualist about our society. In the west it is not uncommon for half one's income to be taken directly in the form of tax. Meanwhile governments infringe pretty much at will upon individuals' constitutional and human rights whenever it suits them.

These are signs of a deeply collectivist society. We simply do a good job at hiding that fact, because governments have no interest in furthering ideas that would seek to limit the powers of government. Likewise, people who seek power over others have no interest in futhering ideas that seeks to take that power away.

Better pretend that philosophies of individual worth and freedom are the problem. — Tzeentch

What I said about individualism is not that there's any individualist states, but individualist traits. Politics didn't form individualism during the 80s, individualism is a trait that has become a virtue out of the neoliberal movement during the 80s and it's a foundational ideology not in practical politics but as a value system that forms how people act and group together. It's what fragments people into small radical groups, intensified by the internet as a catalyst for such fragmentation.

We can view society as collectivist, but that's not a conclusion for society as a culture and social structure. The political system has collective functions, but we as a Western society are not even close to communism as a collective. We're at the opposite end, infusing the individual, the ego, with fantasies of greatness that blinds the individual into believing irrelevant trivialities has existential values.

Society isn't structured around collectivism, it's structured around a simulacrum of individualism and subjective agency, while a ruling class builds wealth and power on the backs of the people.

The fact that a state has systems in place to form some communal functions in order to balance society does not mean we live in a purely collectivist state. Social structures and culture are far more complex than a simple label.

Scandinavian social democracy is more politically collectivist than the US, which is more individualistic. But Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, are extremely individualistic on a cultural level, while the US has an extreme focus on collectivist cultural forms like the ideology about hegemony and national identity. This is why such labels don't really work or mean much. Most Western nations today have individualistic values in their culture. It is what forms how people behave, regardless of how the political system looks.

Better pretend that philosophies of individual worth and freedom are the problem. — Tzeentch

That's the positive side of individualism, but the negatives like social fragmentation, inequality, egoism and selfishness, lack of social responsibility, loss of meaning and connection. Forming radicalized groups, incel culture, narcissism, and personalities like Trump. These are consequences of a culture with a focus on the individual.

As I've argued above, there has to be a balance. Individualism is the polar opposite of communism, but individualism itself does not produce a society that is good for everyone. Any stroke of bad luck and there's nothing to help you, so everyone is living on the edge and that leads to only caring for the self and the people closest to you, i.e society fragments into groups and everyone ends up alone in their own misery.

That's the positive side of individualism, but the negatives like social fragmentation, inequality, egoism and selfishness, lack of social responsibility, loss of meaning and connection. — Christoffer

What I'm trying to get across is that those negatives aren't necessarily the result of individualism.

Individualism first and foremost states that the individual has inherent value, and from a moral perspective cannot simply be bulldozed by states or collectives. In my opinion, that idea is the very cornerstone of humanism. Wherever the value of the individual is not acknowledged we find, pretty much categorically, inhumanity. Human rights and constitutions are based on the idea that individuals have rights. I could go on.

This is why I find it deeply disturbing that people on this forum have taken such an adversarial stance towards individualism, apparently attributing to it all the negative traits of our society.

Individuals left to their own devices will generally seek voluntary, mutual beneficial relations with others. They will pursue happiness, but that happiness often includes the happiness of others. They will prefer coexistence over conflict, etc.

Note also that individualism understands every individual to have inherent value, so self-aggrandizement at the expense of others - egotism - has nothing to do with individualism.

Individualism first and foremost states that the individual has inherent value, and from a moral perspective cannot simply be bulldozed by states or collectives. In my opinion, that idea is the very cornerstone of humanism. Wherever the value of the individual is not acknowledged we find, pretty much categorically, inhumanity. Human rights and constitutions are based on the idea that individuals have rights. I could go on. — Tzeentch

Yes, agreed about the positives, but if you say that those things aren't part of individualism you simply ignore those parts of it. "Individualism" is more than just those humanistic positives and it's not wrong to postulate that the narrow focus on uplifting the individual, the singular subjective individual, also creates negatives as a result. To argue that individualism as a societal trait and cultural value has formed those negatives, is a logical conclusion out of the psychology that emerges from such cultural and societal perspectives.

To uphold humanistic values does not equal individualism. To give individuals human rights and inherent value is not the same as individualism. Individualism is the central focus on the individual, the singular person as separate from the rest. It spills over to not just be about rights and values, but about putting the individual at the center, which forms a detachment from the collective. That's the basic foundation of individualism. What you refer to is simply humanism and human rights.

We can still set those human rights as an axiom and still talk about individualism as a negative without it conflicting with that axiom. Because the focus on the individual has just as much to do with individual rights as it does with egotism and narcissism.

This is why I find it deeply disturbing that people on this forum have taken such an adversarial stance towards individualism, apparently attributing to it all the negative traits of our society. — Tzeentch

I would say that is a misunderstanding of the concept being discussed. You interpret it as being against human rights, but that's not what's being argued.

Individuals left to their own devices will generally seek voluntary, mutual beneficial relations with others. They will pursue happiness, but that happiness often includes the happiness of others. They will prefer coexistence over conflict, etc. — Tzeentch

That is a very simplistic psychology of people and not at all true in all situations. That is true for people who had the best upbringing, good luck, a good social circle forming a balanced social psychology and who have time to care for themselves and strangers. In the real world, however, people don't always, even rarely, have a really good upbringing, many don't have good luck in their life, far too many ends up in bad and dangerous social circles or they don't find any people in their life and all of that forms a toxic psychology that more often than not doesn't lead to any care for strangers and other people in their life.

To say that people function perfectly well left to their own devices is pretty much a utopian ideal of the individual and I don't think anyone with insight into psychology and sociology would agree that this is a general truth that can be applied at mass.

Note also that individualism understands every individual to have inherent value, so self-aggrandizement at the expense of others - egotism - isn't has nothing to do with individualism. — Tzeentch

You are still talking about humanism, not individualism.

But some functions better than others, and the ones that don't function well are the ones falling into the extremes. — Christoffer

The way they're all doing right now? Even the more robust socialist-leaning democracies. They're not all the same age, or at the same point in their economic development, or in the same circumstances and international relations. But they are all facing the same global threats and reacting individually, with mutual distrust - which pretty much assures their destruction.

And with careful programming, over a long period of time, you can Pavlov an entire people into obedience, i.e thought crimes. — Christoffer

I doubt any authoritarian regime has the longevity to control a people's collective thought. Obedience is easy to obtain through fear; controlling thought is a different matter. In that, capitalism is much more effective: they do it though misdirection, flattery and blandishment, rather than threats. Religion, of course, is the ultimate system of thought-control.

What is easier, higher taxes for social welfare/UBI? Or that everyone individually thinks of ways to contribute? — Christoffer

Level of difficulty doesn't come into it: what's easiest is whatever people are willing to support, and the government is competent to organize - but coercion works, too. In all social organizations, it is necessary for members to contribute. The more fairly and evenly the burden is distributed, the more stable a political system tends to be.

What's difficult is deliberate transition from one kind of economy to another. — Vera Mont
Which is what will happen soon with automation if predictions fall correctly. — Christoffer

I'm not convinced that that transition is deliberate. It seems more like a logical conclusion of capitalism which has been steadily sawing at the branch it sits on. The contingency plans for when the inevitable happens seem to me far less developed than the catastrophe. (Not unlike the covid crisis: it had been predicted for a couple of decades; intelligent precautions laid out by responsible health agencies -- governments balked, blathered and pretended to prepare, each according to its systemic nature.)

Viewed through a simplified lens, it showed that the strict collective ideology that tries to hold everyone together towards a singular goal couldn't accommodate the chaos that is individual thought and will. — Christoffer

But the Russians had Pavlov! Why didn't they program all those individuals?

People do not agree with each other, it's basic human nature, so how can a society be built upon keeping society moving in a singular direction without force? — Christoffer

Who picked the singular direction? It's relatively easy to get general consensus on matters that benefit the population at large. People contribute for their common good or defence. What they object to is making sacrifices for the benefit of a few. And they usually put up with quite a lot of that, too, as long as the system feels stable; they don't revolt until the rulership is already teetering on its corruption.

The way they're all doing right now? Even the more robust socialist-leaning democracies. They're not all the same age, or at the same point in their economic development, or in the same circumstances and international relations. But they are all facing the same global threats and reacting individually, with mutual distrust - which pretty much assures their destruction. — Vera Mont

Scandinavian social democracies aren't falling, they're far more stable than most other nations with less socialist systems. Not sure what you are referring to, but what I meant is that systems that aren't leaning toward the extremes survive better, and some function better than others. Generally speaking, we haven't had such stable systems historically as we have today because of things like the EU, the UN etc. pushing people not to invade each other and defend against developing dangerous ideas without intervention. The transparency is far greater today than ever before so we're in a better place than ever in terms of stability. Overall we don't know where this leads, but the clash of cultures happens far less now than back at the start of the industrial revolution. Even the analogy about the fall of the Roman Empire is not really valid since the Roman Empire wasn't all that "modern" in sense of human rights and stabilizing systems, so the collapse was much more likely and it still managed to keep going far longer than we've seen of this modern era. Forming a prediction based on history requires a much more detailed analysis of the contemporary than just "big empire fell then", "big empire will fall now". The fall of large societies requires a fundamental flaw that takes over every part of that society. We have flaws in the world today, but we view the world as a globalized unity of many societies wrapped in a global society through systems of unities (EU, UN etc.). Little today actually resembles something like an empire or singular society. If someone falls today, the others still stand, we even try to help nations in trouble through peaceful means, something that didn't really happen in history before, other than through trade and war.

I doubt any authoritarian regime has the longevity to control a people's collective thought. Obedience is easy to obtain through fear; controlling thought is a different matter. In that, capitalism is much more effective: they do it though misdirection, flattery and blandishment, rather than threats. Religion, of course, is the ultimate system of thought-control. — Vera Mont

Well, we had Nazi-Germany, which formed the reason why psychologists and sociologists conducted psychological studies post-war to figure out why people behaved like that. They didn't all act through fear, they were convinced, and they put their blindfolds against the holocaust on willingly. The ideals and ideas echoed throughout society, they deified Hitler and cried at his appearance as if he was Elvis. They believed the bullshit, deep into their souls.

And having extensive knowledge in marketing I can say that this brainwashing happens all the time and is extremely effective. Reprogramming people is so easy that I think one of the worst problems in the world is that people don't understand just how gullible and biased they actually are. People actually believe they have control over their thoughts, far more than what psychology has shown us. It's even so bad that people agree and talk about bias, disinformation, and manipulation, but they still think they are immune to it.

And yes, as I also said, capitalism, our simulacra of life through materialistic meaning is far more impressive as a means of control. And marketing controls so effectively, it has pretty much-replaced sermons in a world where the store and mall became our church.

Level of difficulty doesn't come into it: what's easiest is whatever people are willing to support, and the government is competent to organize - but coercion works, too. In all social organizations, it is necessary for members to contribute. The more fairly and evenly the burden is distributed, the more stable a political system tends to be. — Vera Mont

Of course it is more difficult to hope that people will just contribute on their own. Taxes are just like money itself. Before money, we traded with goods, it was cumbersome and problematic on a large scale, and hard to scale value differences. So we invented money which made it a hell of a lot easier for trade and transactions. The same goes for taxes, a much better way to distribute means to support society than hoping people will just do it on their own. It is impractical on a large scale and it is prone to collapse very easily if people just stopped helping on such a large scale that it stops vital functions of society. Of course, we have problems with corruption within taxing systems, but to say that people will just help out on their own and everything just falls into place naturally is a utopian idea in the same manner as wishing money disappeared and that we just traded with goods again.

So all you have outside taxes as a form of means to manage societal functions is coercion, whip that comrade into doing his job, or send him to a working camp.

I'm not convinced that that transition is deliberate. It seems more like a logical conclusion of capitalism which has been steadily sawing at the branch it sits on. The contingency plans for when the inevitable happens seem to me far less developed than the catastrophe. (Not unlike the covid crisis: it had been predicted for a couple of decades; intelligent precautions laid out by responsible health agencies -- governments balked, blathered and pretended to prepare, each according to its systemic nature.) — Vera Mont

Of course governments and people aren't prepared, because they didn't care. AI was about Terminators and The Matrix, that they would take our jobs wasn't part of the fiction and that it was about to become reality soon wasn't on anyone's map, except those who actually understood the tech and have been warning about this for a long time.

But that is what governments and people need to develop right now. We need a system that's philosophically prepared and can house 99% of unemployed people hundred years from now. An economic system that doesn't revolve around our traditional "work for money, pay for goods"-economy, but an economy that produces the means of living without anyone getting paid, since no one is working. Or rather, pay people for not working so they can finance a small industry still existing as a traditional economy.

But the Russians had Pavlov! Why didn't they program all those individuals? — Vera Mont

They have, and even now there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Russia still believing in the Soviet dream. Some people still believe that Russia is the biggest empire in the world. And everyone who doesn't think like that should be shot like a dog.

Who picked the singular direction? It's relatively easy to get general consensus on matters that benefit the population at large. People contribute for their common good or defence. What they object to is making sacrifices for the benefit of a few. And they usually put up with quite a lot of that, too, as long as the system feels stable; they don't revolt until the rulership is already teetering on its corruption. — Vera Mont

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Even a society that in its formation formulates a singular direction that everyone at that time thinks is a good collective direction might soon end up disagreeing and then the leaders need to remove such people to protect the glorious nation and singular vision that everyone agreed upon. So even if everyone agrees at first, it's still the leaders and rulers who decide the direction and to uphold a collective form, a commune where everyone is on the same page, it's always easier to just remove the deviants than to try and work with the chaos of individuals who disagree with the direction. This is why communism always fails, it's a pipe dream of collective will in the utopian idea of "one people". As I'm saying, arguing against both individualism and communism, both produce negative sides that slowly degrade and destroy society. There's no future in either extreme and we have far better examples of fusions like social democracy that evidently produced far better societies with healthier and happier people... if we ignore the overall eldritch monster that is capitalism and simulacrums of meaning.

Conflating selfishness and individualism is a collectivist canard as old as the word itself, and flips the dictum that man is a social animal on its head. I can’t take anyone who repeats it that seriously because it posits a glaringly false anthropology, that man is a fundamentally anti-social animal—as soon as individuals were set free from the bonds of subordination and are afforded rights they’d become hermits and care only for themselves.

It was the conservatives and royalists who invented the term and the communists, socialists, and fascists that keep using it with this meaning today. Consequently it was collectivists who historically stood in opposition to freedom, human rights, individual worth, and human dignity. Apparently this meaning persists on philosophy forums.

Yeah, like I said, individualism is a pretty stupid religious belief even without it being used as a veil for plutocrats. Mostly just a cover for extreme selfishness. A good example is the constant whining about taxes.

What it really boils down to is a rejection of the idea of democracy and a denial of human beings as social creatures. And this is why those who profess to care about “individual rights” always end up defending corporations, billionaires, Republicans, Donald Trump, neoliberalism, etc. Literally on the wrong side of ANY issue. You name it: abortion, drugs, education, voting rights…

Another important aspect is that these ideas basically grew out of the desire to own and keep slaves.

When a set of beliefs lead to such absurd and embarrassing outcomes, trying to engage it rationally is as productive as talking to a creationist about science.

Scandinavian social democracies aren't falling, they're far more stable than most other nations with less socialist systems. — Christoffer

Yet. But they are heading rightward, and all the way far right: xenophobia, isolationism, repression, authoritarian conformity. If they fall in lock-step with the anti-vaxx, climate-change-denying faction, they won't take long to fall. https://civic-nation.org/finland/society/radical_right-wing_political_parties_and_groups/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/15/far-right-sweden-intolerance-liberalism-election-results
In the face of global threats - especially climate change, which hits fastest and hardest in northern climates, which also affects the incidence of virulent epidemics, they're in far more trouble than they seem to realize.

They have, and even now there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Russia still believing in the Soviet dream. Some people still believe that Russia is the biggest empire in the world. — Christoffer

They've also flocked back to the Orthodox church, embraced western fundamentalism and consumerism, supported conservative measures regarding the personal life of citizens, fresh waves of antisemitism; lots of illusion, delusion and collusion, as well as lots and lots of organized international crime. All the symptoms of a very sick nation. What's any of it to do with communism?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. — Christoffer

Sez who? And what does it mean? That anyone who intends to do good is damned? God hates good intentions and Satan likes them? So, if you want to be saved, plan to do evil?

Even a society that in its formation formulates a singular direction that everyone at that time thinks is a good collective direction — Christoffer

Where does this "singular direction" idea come from? Who said a nation needs to go anywhere? What's wrong with just living the best way you can and making decisions as circumstances demand? The majority can usually agree on what to do in a flood or fire; they usually know who on the scene is best qualified to organize the effort.

might soon end up disagreeing and then the leaders need to remove such people to protect the glorious nation and singular vision that everyone agreed upon. — Christoffer

What leaders? Whose vision? Why shouldn't both change as circumstances change? Comunal life doesn't requite stasis; it merely requires the shared ownership of resources. Beyond that, it can be based on religious principles, or utilitarian ones, or secular humanist; it can be agrarian or urban, highly technological or primitive, paternal or maternal, hedonistic or puritanical, segregated by sex or one big extended family. Why would you expect it to be rigid or authoritarian?

In fact, there's nothing individualist about our society. In the west it is not uncommon for half one's income to be taken directly in the form of tax. Meanwhile governments infringe pretty much at will upon individuals' constitutional and human rights whenever it suits them. — Tzeentch

Against taxes (along the lines of @NOS4A2)?
That would rule out communism and whatever socialist aspects of society.

There's a bit of the tired old "Us-versus-Them" here.
I suppose, with

elected officials like the Frump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Wendy Rogers, Ted Cruz, ... — Jan 27, 2023

that might be understandable, for the US at least.

Against taxes (along the lines of NOS4A2)?
That would rule out communism and whatever socialist aspects of society. — jorndoe

Yes and no.

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint. I am against taking things from other people at gunpoint, whether it's done by a common thug or a state.

I'm not against voluntarily contributing to one's community.

Communism proposes the absence of a state and self-governance. That doesn't imply taxes.

Obviously an almighty state will never abolish itself, so the communist utopia is pretty much a pipedream, but that's a different discussion.

@Christoffer

A good example is the constant whining about taxes. — Mikie

….

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint. — Tzeentch

Case in point.