Does individualism work?
|
My opinions on this subject are partially anecdotal but mainly founded on my 'superficial' interest in human sociobiology. As previously mentioned I'm strongly of the opinion thatpeople will listen to those with a commanding and/or persuasive personality. If the message from the ideologue to his audience is designed to sound like what the herd want to hear then MOST will swallow the preached ideology hook-line-and-sinker. Just as the overriding message by the purveyors of communism was that the plight of the peasants was exclusively a consequence of being exploited by the ruling classes, so, in the same context, the majority of people will accept that their lowly position in life is due to ''themuns''. All the various attempts to establish communism, or right wing dictatorships for that matter, have resulted in mass killings. When the subjugation and killings start the great unwashed present little or no resistance and generally react with mass hysteria as we can note in POL POT'S KHMER ROUGE KILLING FIELDS. I learned at an early age, ( around 17/18) just how easy it is to have people of all ages follow whatever political doctrine or commercial concept you're peddling. Say what the people want to hear and you will win over the sponge-like minds of 90% of your audience, that's a fact. It may sound contemptuous and arrogant but it is nevertheless the truth that most people don't want to have to face up to to the harsh reality of accepting full responsibility of their own lives so they replace their parents with politicians and then blame their political masters on their own shortcomings. These are the brain-dead people who are exploited by the major corporations for most of their lives. Slowly the exploited masses realize that they're being used by their political masters or industrial overlords and become resentful and bolshie. By the time of their realization of their exploitation it's too late as another generation of brain-dead are waiting in the wings bursting to be enslaved by the company store. Well, a good but sort of mine-field type subject. I feel that individualism can work well for many in an organized society. Those who aimlessly and thoughtlessly follow the herd are ripe and plump for exploitation by ambitious entrepreneurial individualists. Most people need direction and are willing to ''sell their souls to the company store'' in return for a salary, a certain degree of financial security and regimentation of their life. The herd-instinct is strong and can be observed in everyday situations. For instance, park your car in an inconvenient position in an empty car park and leave for a while. When you return to your car you can be quite sure that most subsequent parked vehicles will be positioned in line with yours. The so called silent majority whose individual opinions do not exist independently of their group's ideology are zombie like creatures who only act or react in unison with their peers. The beliefs of each member of the herd are meaningless as once you learn the group's tenet you know everyone's. Where were the silent majority when Germany's Nazi regime slaughtered six million Jews. Where were the silent majority when Stalin exterminated an estimated 30 million in his attempt to make the flawed ideology of communism work? Where were the silent majority when Chairman Mao slaughtered some 50 million of his countrymen and women during the killing years* of his Cultural Revolution? The mob/the herd/the great unwashed can be discounted for pretty much everything except to follow the agenda dictated by those with a strong, charismatic personality and a persuasive persona. In my opinion a lawless anarchic ideology will never form the basis of any society. Like most creatures on planet earth mankind needs a social order based on the hierarchical system as illustrated in capitalism, nationalism or communism, YES COMMUNISM. Most inventions and discoveries can be attributed to individualistic achievements. The telephone;- Alexander Graham Bell. Television;- John Logie Baird. Radio;- Marconi. The automobile;- Karl Benze. The steam locomotive;- James Watt. Penicillin;- Alexander Fleming. The list of the scientific and industrial successes of individuals is indeed endless and without which human civilization would still be back in the dark-ages. 1
point
I'd generally agree with your conclusions, provided the premises you've gathered. But I'm questioning the premise of the power of the individual. What if this mass conformity is a recent development of say, the last 100 years or so? That would cover your examples of past disasters, but also covers the advance of socialism and other related collectivist ideologies. The explosion of industrialisation, free markets, and for example the founding of the US are all hyper-individualist movements following the enlightenment that appear to be responsible as you note for lifting humanity out of the dark ages, but also needed enough popular support to overthrow their establishments of the time, so where did that support come from? Is it possible that the people during this period were independant liberal thinkers, or where they merely conforming to a new liberal ideology? Our schools likely don't help in this regard either, kids sit in rows all doing the same thing, asking permission for all interactions. Most schools foster behaviour inclined towards collectivism, and many great inventors and businessmen specifically note particular dislike of schools, often dropping out completely. Is entrepreneurial living a skill we've lost or been subverted away from? Or was humanity always doomed to be sheep? Also, I'd imagine nobody expects themselves to be a mindless unit of the herd even today (aside from the PoMos that literally believe that), so how can a herd exist nonetheless? |
