Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am Thinking

About how trendy it is right now to admire collectivist cultures, and have melancholy over being of a culture that premise is based upon individualist values, but the irony is that I haven’t met a single person on that soapbox who has any interest, or.. awareness really that even their ‘grass is greener’ sentiment is still seen through an individualist lease. I hear a lot of talk about wealth/resource distribution, but I can’t recall any American I’ve met yet who would be willing to toss out their sense of individuality/personal expression/ Independence ‘for the whole’ to preserve sociological cohesion for ‘the greater peace ’ ( Which is how actual collectivist cultures operate/sustain their collectivist values /practices)

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

ViciDraco · 36-40, M

There is certainly a challenge in introducing a more collectivist economy while maintaining an individualist sociology.

Part of that trick is the need to separate wealth and material possession from identity. That's actually quite challenging, but is a core component to both seeking a more collectivist economic system as well as a more liberated public. To my knowledge, none of the so called collectivist societies managed to reach that point.

Another challenge is to have celebration of the differences in others to become a shared value. This is also hard because most people have a first instinct to fear what they do not know.

I support a collectivist economy that enables an individualist sociology. Mainly because most individualistic desires in our current time are limited by wealth rather than enabled by it.

SW-User

@ViciDraco The thing of it is, every successful collectivist society I can think of, even the more flexible ones, values their traditions, principles, code of conduct, and social expectations. The core values are oriented on the well-being of the whole, which is modeled throughout their laws and economy. “Individuality quote is completely contradictory to what would be necessary for a sustainable collectivist culture.

I hear what you’re saying, but The separation of wealth and monetary possessions from personal identity sounds like an oxymoron since both represent one’s level of personal power, in a finite sense and and in self concept sense. Even if wealth were completely evenly distributed, that would result in a level of disempowerment because you were limiting people’s ability to ever improve upon your situation or be in a mat even if wealth/resources were completely evenly distributed, that would result in a level of disempowerment because you are limiting peoples’ ability to ever improve upon their situation ( at best providing them complacency ) and removing motivation for Innovation.

As far as celebrating differences, it’s a nice ideal until one starts to really look at the “differences”, especially the conflicting ones , which at Best requires a level of cultural tolerance that accepts in order to keep the collectivist peace no one’s ‘unique’ preferences can be entirely satisfied, which means sociological unrest, and be counterintuitive to sustaining a collectivist society.

ViciDraco · 36-40, M

@SW-User I think we have a fundamental difference in opinion on the value wealth can play in establishing an identity. Or as a measure of self improvement. Think not of equally distributed wealth and think more of equally available wealth.

For example, most people do not need a musical instrument most of the time. Rather than the people who wish to use musical instruments having to purchase their own, there was a library of sorts where you would check the musical instrument out. Being a musician is then no longer tied to your ability to purchase or maintain such an instrument. If you out the effort into learning and playing, you can work it into your identity.

An identity should not be about what you own. It should be about what you do. And if what you can do is limited by what you own, then we are wasting enormous human potential to grant a minority of people a sense of entitlement they don't really deserve.

SW-User

@ViciDraco it’s an interesting proposal, but that still comes down to an agreed upon social unrest because you would have to have enough ‘musical instruments’ at all times to satisfy all requests to keep the power distribution neutral (the removal of possession from Self concept) Inevitably, there would come a time, Even if only momentarily, that there were not enough Instruments to go around, and the ‘doing’ tied to one’s self concept would be dissatisfied/disempowered.

Add a comment...