This is the ultimate question -- which is superior: individualism or collectivism? Personally I think collectivism is far superior -- however the forces that be want people to believe individualism is superior, especially in America.
This results in people, individuals, denying their fellow peers access to things. As for the question the title poses, there's no answer, because it depends on who you ask.
I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else. Only then will people see the overwhelming advantage that comes with the "spread", which is the main advantage of collectivism (meaning the spread of burden and the spread of fortune).
Considering the entire premise of the founding of the US was based on individual liberty, and throwing the yoke of power off from the centralized power of a monarchy across the ocean, I don't see why we need to be convinced.
Why does the whole world need to be homogeneous? Why can't some places on the earth (with ~7B people) value individualism and some value collectivism. Maybe neither one is superior, just different?
There are genuine tradeoffs to be had, and space for cultures to take different positions on the Pareto frontier, sure. But there are also deadweight losses, unforced errors where one culture's approach is just worse by every metric, and those would seem to be cases where we could learn. E.g. US healthcare seems to somehow manage to be uniquely bad - more expensive on average, while excluding or bankrupting people, without offering patients a meaningful kind of choice in most cases. Things like a patient not being able to afford non-emergency treatment until their condition develops into something that needs more expensive emergency treatment (which hospitals aren't allowed to refuse) seem lose-lose.
You're conflating things -- collectivism and individualism are not necessarily defined by the system of government.
I'd argue, that collectivism is inherently superior for most albeit with a lower magnitude of quality for most and individualism is the inverse, with a higher magnitude of quality for some and is inherently superior for some.
However I'd also say that individualism is more resilient as it is inherently decentralized. You're right in that one cannot necessarily be better in all ways, but for the traits the article speaks to, I'd argue collectivism is superior.
Individuals don't have a choice of where they are born; neither do most people have a real choice of migrating to the other side of the ocean. If the thought even occurs to them. Cultural blindness is a thing, and especially troublesome in the case of American exceptionalism and general disinterest in other cultures.
Depends whether that collectivism is forced or not. Because the forced one has been tried - and it's horrifying.
Funny thing about individualists: they just want to be left alone and don't care if you are collectivist or individualists. Kinda like that about them.
It's pretty simple, they just go about their lives. How exactly do you imagine collectivists live? People in a collectivist culture or society aren't attached to each other by the belly; as long as their culture/society is functioning they probably would want to be left alone like any regular person, collectivist or not.
Yeah in fact, from my experience you're more likely to be harassed walking down the street in the USA where the poor are forced to take to the street as hawkers than in Germany where you can still carry some dignity.
I'm a huge fan of collectivism, but it doesn't scale. It has never scaled, and never will, unless some future technology allows for a true hive mind where humans are able to have deep, trusting relationships with orders of magnitude more people than our brains are able to with current technology.
At one point in my life, I lived in a communual eco-village that relied on collectivism. We had to kick people out ALL THE TIME for not pulling their weight. This was around 100 people.
The fact of the matter is that the technologies that are routinely developed in the individualistic USA are then adopted by the more collectivist countries, where they end up being much more available to the public than in the nation they were invented in.
Pharmaceuticals and medical technologies are an example of this.
Collectivism on a small scale is natural for humans. On a large scale, it ends up, almost always, having to be forced upon by men with guns.
Except you don't have to buy into one exclusively for everything. Which approach is superior, which is to say, which approach is more efficient is a factual, empirical question that can be answered by science.
In the 20th century, the political implementation of collectivism involved the deliberate murder-- often through starvation-- of at least 100 million people.
This is a great question -- I think the jury is still out on this one. Someone will eventually figure out the right set of incentives, in the right quantities, targeted to the right groups that'll make it work, though.
Who mentioned EU? There's a broad mixture of different political approaches right across the EU. Some of the wealthier states do appear to have a strong social-democratic leaning but maybe that's just 'cause they can afford it?
A comprehensive socioeconomic fabric costs a lot to maintain. You have to have a base of taxpayers who are willing to pay it and who feel they get the value for their money.
"I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else."
Exactly. Not sure why you replied to my original comment with "calling EU collectivist is a stretch" when I didn't mention the EU. You should reply to the top most post, not me, it sounds like. It's really not a big deal, :).
> I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else.
>What’s the most egregious thing the boomers have done in your opinion?
>I'll give you something abstract and something concrete. On an abstract level, I think the worst thing they’ve done is destroy a sense of social solidarity, a sense of commitment to fellow citizens. That ethos is gone and it’s been replaced by a cult of individualism. It’s hard to overstate how damaging this is.
It’s funny to me that that article talks about everyone loving to bash Millenials, on an article bashing boomers, which you can throw on the massive pile of other media that bashes boomers.
Collectivism doesn't necessarily imply a collective, but I agree with your sentiment. All collectivism means in my view is that in a group of people each member gives priority to the survivial of the group and its other members more than themself.
America has always been a country of self reliant individuals. What you're forgetting (and what todays "progressivists" want to erase from history) is that America was (and still is somewhat) a country with convictions, particularly because of the Christian religion which a majority of Americans in the 19th and 20th century identified with. Charities, church hospitals, philanthropic efforts by the wealthy, and a sense of taken care of your local community knitted our country together far better than government mandated collectivsm ever could have.
This results in people, individuals, denying their fellow peers access to things. As for the question the title poses, there's no answer, because it depends on who you ask.
I don't think Americans will ever be convinced collectivism is superior until there's some organization or company created within the States that ends up being far superior to everything else. Only then will people see the overwhelming advantage that comes with the "spread", which is the main advantage of collectivism (meaning the spread of burden and the spread of fortune).
The Musketeers said it best:
All for one and one for all.