subscribe or follow us:                    

Individualism vs. The Collective

10 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on Mar 16, 2011 in Anarchism, Featured | 10 comments

Collectivist speech seems to scare some individualists away, at the same time individualist speech seems threatening to those who consider collectivism to be a ‘greater good’. The western concept has been that of ‘individual liberty’ or seen as this ‘rugged individualism’. Whereas collectivist concepts is perceived as communist or oppressive to many who claim individualism. The fact of the matter is that both collectivism and individualism have elements that should not be looked over. The individual must work in a collective much of the time. This is not to say all individuals must be ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’ but there is an element of collectivism that exists in society. The collective can not exist without the individual. I have considered myself to be an individualist.

The reality is that collectivism exists in society out of interdependence. We often need others. I can not build my house, obtain my food, energy and other basic needs without the labor of others. Society and survival have a natural collective dynamic. To throw this out completely is to discredit basic reality. There may be the few who can or have abandoned society to live the life of a hermit but this is just not practical nor is it often reality. The Anarcho-Capitalist is a collective movement and philosophy. The very structure of society they seek is found on the market which is a collective of workers exchanging the products of their labor. They are correct in a belief that the utilitarian actions of centralized power can be very damaging or dangerous. The justification for these actions can often be from the use of collective language.

The language and actions of a state and ruling classes do not equate individualism or collectivism to the evil of the state. The state has hijacked the language of both the individualist and the collectivist at times to justify it’s aggressions against both individuals and groups of people. We have a tendency to ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’. If we continue to take this approach we will find that every concept can be chucked. Learning to not discredit completely because of ideas that have been associated with collective or individualist movements is a task that can help us move forward and reach more outside of our anarchist milieu.

The Objectivist takes the ‘individual’ to an extent where it has no safe boundaries. The boundaries are often to defend the ruling class, those who rule society with wealth. These ideas run into a paradox. The right of the individual is often towards certain individuals who do and will rule in place of the state. Market Anarchism is not to be completely discredited. There is a great deal of Market Anarchism that rejects the ruling capitalist elite. This idea to empower the empowered through some sort of corporate market domination is really not much different than the current structure of society. I do acknowledge the concept of non-aggression within this, but the reality is that if we hand unbridled power to the capitalist we have made no step towards obtaining no rulers we have only transferred the means of rule to the dollar as opposed to the gun.  Now the empowered can still rule without need to seek the law to rule but with it’s wealth as the tool of coercion.

I have stated before that I am an Anarcho-Inclusivist. I am not ready to throw out every concept but I am ready to embrace criticisms and to look at alternatives and elements of philosophies that can be used as a solution. As an Anarcho- Inclusivist I reject the idea that ‘communism is okay’ if it is under the confines of a free market. There is an element of market anarchism that is valid and can exist without hierarchical rule. At the same time there is the problem of the capitalist and the rule of the landlord. A ‘market’ is simply ‘human action’. Is this one of human action that is dominance or one where there is a boss or landlord who has been given power over others through the dynamic that is built. I stated that I do not accept the ‘communism is okay under a free market’ idea. This is because in an anarchist society we will not all agree on a market perspective. Communism, marxism, socialism, mutualism and more will exist side by side and not under the confines of the philosophy of one group that embraces a market. The diverse philosophies will continue to be embraced by a diverse people. Not one will dominate. When a stateless society has been achieved it will not be under a rule of a market or any other form. One shall not naturally dominate over another. It will not vary by land boundaries. One neighborhood can have many homes who all are partaking in different forms of human action to meet their needs.

The question is not how will socialism function in a ‘market’. How will market anarchists interact with other social forms of anarchism once implemented? The question is how will market anarchists, mutualists, socialists and  marxists resolve disputes between one another when they arise. This is something that will be found in the process. No one solution will bring the pure utopia it promises. The theory and the implementation of each will often look different than the ideal. It is a question of how will those with differing views of property and other issues of division handle those opposing beliefs when implemented? The concept that everyone will suddenly bow to your philosophical view of the world is just not a reality.

There is a Taoist idea of balance that could help in approaching the ideas of collectivism and individualism. The challenge is not only to look at cooperation between individualist and collectivist philosophies, but also in embracing both individualism and collectivism. As stated earlier, the individualist will always function in some collective fashion. The collective is not something that will be non-existent.

Can you transcend the basic rhetoric to begin to look and understand the wants and needs of ‘the other’? In reality there is more in common than many are ready to admit. We must look beyond to the wants and needs and leave our critiques of others behind us. Can we look at areas that we can find unity, and perhaps learn from one another. In this way we can help one another further our causes. We ware outnumbered as it is. An inclusivist stance will only help us to move forward.

 

 

Getting an eyeful ; New ‘Valentine’ returns to scares of yesteryear

The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY) January 16, 2009 | RICK BENTLEY The late 1970s and early 1980s was the golden age for modern horror films. The idea behind movies like “Chopping Mall” or “The House on Sorority Row” was to entertain the audience with over-the- top acts of violence. But in recent years that philosophy has been replaced by a desire to titillate moviegoers with acts of torture.

Back when Freddy and Jason were prowling theaters, the idea was to scare moviegoing couples enough to make them wrap their arms around each other. Now they just want you to wrap your arms around a toilet.

“My Bloody Valentine 3D” returns to those entertainingly scary days of yesteryear. There’s no way to watch this nonstop string of brutal attacks without seeing the absurdity in the whole thing. Toss in first-rate 3D, and the movie not only pays a proper homage to the 1981 original but kicks it up about 1,000 notches.

Fans of ’70s and ’80s horror films will recognize the familiar plot. An isolated community becomes the target of a killer. He chops his way through young and old while the local law enforcement show up just in time to crack bad jokes about the victims. here evo 3d review site evo 3d review

The killer in “Bloody Valentine” is the Miner. He is a pick- swinging maniac made crazy after being the only survivor of a mining accident. It appeared the Miner was stopped after his first killing spree, but 10 years later he’s back to his old ways.

The question is whether the original Miner has returned or someone new has decided to continue the tradition.

Director Patrick Lurrier spent years working as an editor on such films as all three “Scream” offerings and “Halloween H2O: 20 Years Later.” The knowledge he gained from those movies comes through as he skillfully blends acts of violence with graveyard humor. Despite the brutality of the acts, such a mix requires a delicate touch: Swing too far toward the violence or the humor, and the movie fails.

Lurrier doesn’t miss a step. Even a sequence with one of the longest gratuitous nude scenes in horror-movie history is played with a proper balance of tension and humor.

As with the scary films of two decades ago, the actors are really little more than props to get from one killing to the next. But Kerr Smith, who plays the local sheriff, is good enough to give the role some depth. His effort wasn’t necessary, but is is welcomed.

This kind of horror flick has never been about great acting, serious storytelling or even a plot. Such movies work if the violence makes you scream and laugh at the same time.

“My Bloody Valentine 3D” does that in spades. Actually, it does it with a pick ax.

*** MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D Review: 3 stars (Out of 4) STARRING: Kerr Smith, Jensen Ackles, Jaime King and Edi Gathegi DIRECTOR: Patrick Lussier RUNNING TIME: 100 minutes RATING: R for graphic violence, nudity and language.

THE LOWDOWN: Remake of 1981 slasher film.

RICK BENTLEY

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Anonymous

    Politically and philosophically the dichotomy of individualism vs collectivism is a false one. All societies have elements of both.If Collectivism is defined as belief the group is ALWAYS more important than the individual then it can be extreme and oppressive such as in a cult.However it is still accepting individuals matter since they compose the group. On the other side of the scale, Individualism in it’s extreme form can be misunderstood as being a-social,misanthropic etc as is evidenced in Randianism- that’s counter productive since the individual is isolating them off from a whole wealth of wisdom and love.It’s hermitism.

    The balanced ‘aristotelian golden mean’ or (as PJC puts it )Taoist position, is a synthesis. Simply believing in either/or is not only false it’s an incomplete picture of reality and leads to behaviour and philosophic problems. If you care about the group then you care about individuals who composed it .If you care about individuals it makes sense to care about groups since groups are composed of individuals and individuals can benefit from being part of groups.Neither cultish dependence nor a-social misanthropy are true representations of collectivism or Individualism.Within Anarchism this needs to be understood and that the differences in arrangements of societies are less opposed than it seems.

  • http://beyondtchotchke.wordpress.com Todd S.

    I feel like this is one of those areas where we need to define our terms. I understand “collectivism” to mean placing the good of the whole – which is generally represented by an intangible abstraction like “society” or “corporation” – above the good of the whole’s constituent parts. I would say the individual can continue to exist without the whole, but not vice-versa. The whole can survive the loss of some individuals, but not the loss of the population of individuals.

    Now, if you are talking about things like neighborhoods, voluntary communes, syndicalist workplaces or mutual aid organizations, I would be more apt to call that “socialism” than “collectivism”. I feel like trying to make “collectivism” equitable with “socialism” is similar to the conflation problem of the right when they try to equate “capitalism” with “free market”.

    • http://twitter.com/thisisnotariot Ben Murdock Jackson

      I agree that we need to be clear on our terms, however strictly speaking collectivism is just a small part of a wider socialist concept. Mutualism and collectivism are different, for instance…

  • Anonymous

    “This is not to say all individuals must be ‘communist’ or
    ‘socialist’ but there is an element of collectivism that exists in
    society.”  I disagree.  All individualists OUGHT to be socialists if they are consistent,   :-D Can I get a “damn the man”, anyone?!

    • https://profiles.google.com/117841393700095586962/about Kirsten Tynan

      Will a “how’s that now?” suffice? How am I being inconsistent if I am a non-socialist individualist?

      • Anonymous

        Because our society is structured in such a way as to infringe upon the individual. For this reason I seek to upset the existing SOCIAL order and change it, hence “socialism”. 

        • https://profiles.google.com/117841393700095586962/about Kirsten Tynan

          Okay. But I am not society. I am an individual. How am I personally infringing upon the individual. Tucker seems to be saying only that holders of wealth are infringing upon the individual, and even they only do so when they compel tribute.

          • Anonymous

            That’s more than I can answer here. Besides Benjamin Tucker, I would point you to Murray Rothbard and  Samuel Edward Konkin III for a rudimentary start. I also strongly recommend you keep reading Gonzo Times ;-)

          • https://profiles.google.com/117841393700095586962/about Kirsten Tynan

            No, I’m simply saying that I do not understand how it is necessary for consistency as an individualist. In other words, I am uncomfortable with the universality of your generalization when you don’t know me or how I practice my understanding of individualism.

          • Anonymous

            If I’ve offended you, I apologize. However, it is my belief that one either favors ending the system of priviledge, or does not. Sure it is possible to disagree over details on single issues of what constitutes priviledge, or how to accomplish this. However, in the overall scheme of things, I can’t see a “third way” on this particular issue.  In fact I realized a little earlier that you posted an article called “Living My Beautiful Ideal”. Does it offend you that I consider that the article presents a socialist message?

              “Emma Goldman, anarchist and anarchist activist, recognized this as well. She outright rejected the notion that TO BE PROPER ANARCHIST CHANGE AGENTS, we must abandon what makes life worth living for us and instead live according to someone else’s dour specifications:”

            Socialism is being a “change agent” without regard to specifying a whole lot of detail about the “whats” and “hows”. Hence my wondering that maybe you simply did not like the word “socialist”.