CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
15
Collectivist Individualist
Debate Score:23
Arguments:19
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Collectivist (6)
 
 Individualist (12)

Debate Creator

Amarel(5669) pic



Collectivist Perspective VS Individualist Perspective

A friend recently told me that she thinks most of the socio-political-economic divide can be explained by the differences in these two perspectives. She equates collectivism with most left leaning positions and individualism with most right leaning positions. 
So which  perspective do you most often alone with? Which direction do you lean? Which perspective is better, more realistic, or more practical?

Collectivist

Side Score: 8
VS.

Individualist

Side Score: 15
Oceaneer(13) Banned
1 point

Economic individualism as we understand it today is something which has been purposefully indoctrinated into society as a direct result of the development of merchant capitalism. It is less than a millennium old. Individualism is a necessary prerequisite of the validation of ideology which puts people into competition with one another for the acquisition of finite resources. For the other ninety nine thousand years, humanity organised its resources on a considerably more collective basis. On a socio-cultural level, people must have identity in order to feel socially self-aware and/or valued, but this logic unequivocally does not extend to economics. One can prove this by simplifying juxtaposing both positions:-

A) Work with your fellow man to distribute resources to the things most important and/or beneficial to the species.

B) Work against your fellow man to distribute resources to yourself and/or your own pleasure.

I am in no way a religious man, but if you'll forgive the analogy then one is the road to epiphany and the other is the road to hell.

Side: Collectivist
WinstonC(1225) Disputed
2 points

What would you say to arguments that self-interest is a powerful motivator for success and drives innovation? Or to arguments that societies which grant their citizens greater autonomy are more prosperous? Further, what would you say in response to the statement that freedom itself is a moral good that societies should strive toward?

Side: Individualist
1 point

Apparently, the answer to all of the above is "nothing". .

Side: Individualist
2 points

Hello A:

I'm a liberal. I'm VERY liberal. But, I'm NOT a collectivist.. Oh, we need to band together for SOME things, like how to defend our country and how we allocate our resources...

But, the context in which the word collectivist is used here smacks of socialism, and I'm NOT a socialist.. I am very much a capitalist.. Am I a fan of your local fire department, which is a PERFECT example of how a touch of socialism WORKS in a capitalist society?? I AM!!

excon

Side: Individualist
2 points

I agree, excon. I am a liberal and NOT a "collectivist". I think BOTH capitalism and socialism are good, but, neither one is AS good without the other. BOTH need to be balanced. Runaway capitalism is as bad as runaway socialism. BOTH are in danger in the hands of radical conservatives. They would destroy any semblance of socialism, destroy any restrictions on capitalism, both acts leading U.S. into an oligarch, a two class system which can NOT be a democracy!

Side: Individualist
Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

How do we need band together to allocate resources? If you don't believe resource allocation is the purview of the free market, you may not be as capitalist as you suppose.

Side: Collectivist
1 point

I think this is an oversimplification and unintentionally demonstrates what is wrong in the USA. All of life is a balance, including government. The rights and needs of individuals have always had to balance with the overall needs of society. Sewer systems and roads come from what you call collectivist and there is no doubt that we need them. Ultimately, people need to be active citizens of their nation, meaning they need to advocate for themselves but also understand and respect what is needed for their society to succeed. A strong individual who advocates or votes for good public schooling is not a collectivist, s/he is a "citizen." Start being citizens and stop being ideologists. Her rationale explaining what is wrong is proof she is not really thinking like a citizen. What the heck is the point of even belonging to a society if all you want to do is get yours and not give a crap what happens to anyone or anything else?

Side: Individualist
Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

An individual cannot simply "get theirs" if they do not live in a society that is conducive to the that pursuit. Thus, an individualist would rationally have an interest in a functional society. The individualist would also have an interest in not paying for other people to free ride on necessarily collective endeavors, such as national security, police, or sewers. Which means the individualist may promote taxation. The point is that the same issue can often be viewed in terms of collective good or individual good, and one need not necessarily be sacrificed for the other. But the perspective you tend to hold will shape the policies you tend to promote.

Side: Collectivist
Quantumhead(749) Disputed Banned
1 point

The point is that the same issue can often be viewed in terms of collective good or individual good, and one need not necessarily be sacrificed for the other.

This is nicely worded bullshit. In a collectivist society individuals work together for a common purpose. In an individualist society individuals work against each other for individual ends. These two ideologies contradict one another quite fundamentally, and one need not be a genius to figure out which of the two will give the human species a future.

Capitalism has warped the minds of Americans to the point that they either can't or won't acknowledge simple common sense. It simply will not work out in the long term to create a common goal by brainwashing all the individuals to think the same way.

Side: Collectivist
1 point

All of life is a balance, including government. The rights and needs of individuals have always had to balance with the overall needs of society.

Good post, Grenache. I would put it slightly differently and say capitalism has always been a war between individuals and society, played out upon a battleground of culture. Your wording makes the process sound a bit too peaceful. The benefactors of capitalism have fought hard to keep their power, riches and influence their own, and the role of public servants (i.e. politicians) should have been to ensure some of it was recycled back into society. However, over time the inevitable has happened, public servants have been bought, blackmailed and broken, and -- in America at least -- the system has continued to be pushed further and further to the right, and become more and more biased to the rights of individuals and corporations over the rights of collective society.

Side: Individualist
1 point

Insofar as is feasible individualism is the goal to strive for. One can see that countries which focus on the individual as the smallest constituent part of the group are the most successful. Western nations prioritized individualism first and were therefore more prosperous.

Part of this prosperity and dominance also came from innovations and inventions. Individualist societies are better at generating such technological and social advancements because achievements are better incentivized. Hard work is also better incentivized under individualism. Self-interest is perhaps the most powerful motivator, and as we know motivated individuals create and attain more.

Aside from the pragmatic, there is also the philosophical or moral side. It is obviously morally preferable to grant as much freedom as is practical to the individual. On the other hand we do need to co-operate with those in our nation to achieve certain goals and so pure individualism is unlikely to work just yet.

Side: Individualist