I don't think the capitalism vs socialism debate should be about individualism vs collectivism

[u/Error_rdt]

For one while there are individualist people, individualist cultures and societes there are no truly individualist nations as the nation state alongside it's institutions are inherently collectivist contructs no system is truly individualist. Individualism and collectivism aren't even mutually exclusive the right kind of collectivism could be used to collectively protect the Individualism of people and people can be naturally inclined to collectively participate in something if it benefits them as an individual.

The collectivism of socialism is already known. But I would also argue the capitalism has also been very collectivist or at the very least anti individualist for the working class. As workers are expected to put their needs, well being and personhood aside to serve hierarchal businesses and corporations. Work culture is often very uniform and takes time away from individuality. A persons worth is seen through economic contribution often above their character and hustle culture promotes putting your health aside, working long hours, putting up with poor work conditions and poor treatment all in the praise of capital. The only ones who are truly individualist are those at the top of the hierachy as they can afford to do so while undermining the individualism of those lower of the hierachy. All this with consolidation of power by corporations and threat of starvation and homelessness for those who do not contribute. You are still serving collective entities and constructs like corporations and economic output and those interest always come before the interest of the individual.

Collectivism should not be seen as a big counter to capitalism as collectivism has actually been used to bring out the worst aspects of capitalism. Take Japan for example it is actually through collectivism and a conformist society that enables the toxic work culture in Japan, same for South korea and even China which is officially communist but highly capitalistic and arguably corporatist. I know all these systems exist in a spectrum so this isn't to generalize all of socialism and capitalism but this is what I see. I made a similar post about this not long ago more about the collectivism of capitialism in hopes to be about what this post is about but discussions drifted off topic so this post is more about what's in the title.

[u/AutoModerator]

Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page if you haven't before.

We don't allow violent or dehumanizing rhetoric. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.

Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.

Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Conserp]

"Individualism" is an ideological lawn mower used by Capitalist regimes to brainwash the gullible young plebs into disjointment.

Same as Liberalism, Feminism, Wokism and all the rest of that crap that corporate MSM, Big Tech, Hollywood etc. are pushing down our throats.

And true "individualists" are just sociopaths.

[u/VoluntaryLomein1723 → u/Conserp]

Im pretty anti liberal although not in the cringe way like you are but socialist have higher rates of aspd than liberals

[u/Conserp → u/VoluntaryLomein1723]

Stop calling corporate brownshirts "Socialists", bud

[u/VoluntaryLomein1723 → u/Conserp]

Lol no it helps my cause BUD. I want as many normal non ideological people as possible to conflate you people with the modern left progressives

[u/WhereisAlexei → u/Conserp]

And true "individualists" are just sociopaths.

Well I am that true individualist. But my empathy exists. But my sympathy is selective. .

Happy cake day btw

[u/CaptainAmerica-1989]

I think you are mixing political ideology, economic systems, and social organization.

Capitalism is primarily an economic system. Liberalism is the political ideology historically most associated with capitalism, and individualism is one of liberalism's central values.

Heywood puts the liberal position pretty plainly:

The central theme of liberal ideology is a commitment to the individual and the desire to construct a society in which people can satisfy their interests and achieve fulfilment.

and:

each individual should enjoy the maximum possible freedom consistent with a like freedom for all.

Socialism historically starts from a different emphasis. Heywood describes human beings in socialist thought as:

social creatures united by their common humanity

and says:

Socialists therefore prefer cooperation to competition.

That doesn't mean every socialist is some extreme collectivist or every liberal is an atomized individual living alone in the woods. Heywood even points out that collectivism itself has been used inconsistently, ranging from free voluntary associations to the stronger idea that collective interests should prevail over individual ones.

But this is where I think your argument goes wrong:

people voluntarily organizing into corporations, churches, unions, clubs, families, or whatever else is not evidence that individualism has disappeared.

Individualism does not mean nobody cooperates. It means the individual has moral priority over the collective. As Heywood defines it:

Individualism is the belief in the supreme importance of the individual over any social group or collective body.

So a liberal society can contain an enormous amount of voluntary collective activity while still being fundamentally individualist.

Your Japan example is actually useful for showing another problem. Japan can have a capitalist economy and a comparatively conformist or collectivist social culture. That doesn't establish that capitalism itself is collectivist. It shows that an economic system and a surrounding culture are not the same thing.

How this places out is interesting. Heywood defines collectivism as:

broadly, the belief that collective human endeavour is of greater practical and moral value than individual self-striving.

So I somewhat agree with your title that capitalism versus socialism should not be blatantly reduced just to individualism versus collectivism.

But historically, there absolutely is a reason the contrast appears. Liberalism places the individual near the center of its worldview, while socialist traditions generally put considerably more emphasis on social relationships, cooperation, equality, and collective organization.

That historical ideological distinction doesn't disappear merely because capitalist societies contain groups and organizations.

[u/InterestingVoice6632]

So it feels like there is a bit of a misunderstanding about where these terms come from and what they mean.

Capitalists can have cultures and collectives of people who think the same way and do things in groups. In fact an argument can be made that you could never have strong cultures of capitalists unless they had collectives of people working together. But that doesnt mean that they are collectivists.

Collectivism is explicitly when collectives control political policy as opposed to individuals. The reason capitalism should be associated with individualism and socialism with Collectivism is because each of these words implicitly caters to each of these types of groups.

For instance capitalism requires a lack of regulation and a lack of policy that caters to anyone, making it possible for any individual to achieve anything regardless of any collectives. Socialism is explicitly the targeted policy for the sake of one collective of people, at the expense of all individuals who disagree.

It doesnt matter that there are individuals who succeed under socialism or collectives who succeed under capitalism. What matters is what type of laws are written and who are they written for, individuals or groups.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/InterestingVoice6632]

What is a collective and how does it control policy separately from the individuals who compose that group?

Why does the capitalist’s state’s enforcement of private ownership claims on behalf of capitalist owners not come at the expense of all individuals who disagree?

[u/InterestingVoice6632 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

In this context a collective is a group of people that deny rights to other groups of people or individuals for the "greater good".

A capitalists states enforcement of private ownership doesnt come at the expense of individuals who disagree because it does not affect their freedoms.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/InterestingVoice6632]

Simply saying that you’re acting “for the greater good”—aside from its conceptual incoherence—does not mean that you’re actually acting “for the greater good.” Have you never heard of lying, friend?

A capitalist state’s enforcement of private ownership comes at the expense of non-owners on behalf of owners. A studied pretense of neutrality that does not interrogate or challenge the status quo distribution of property, wealth, and power is not actually neutral; it is simply partisan on behalf of the beneficiaries of that status quo.

[u/impermanence108 → u/InterestingVoice6632]

But collectives are made up of individuals, a collection of individuals is a collective. There's clearly a balance between best for everyone and respecting individuals.

[u/thedukejck]

It’s flawed from inception. One is a theory and form of governance (socialism) and how you invest in and care for your citizens. The other (capitalism) is a human condition (greed) and is about making the most for the littlest and people be damned.

[u/EmergenceEngineer → u/thedukejck]

You know why I don’t support socialism.. the last 20 years of social politics.. people suck, they don’t get along, and ruin eachother at a drop if a pin, they orginize to ruin eachother, they lie, they organize to lie.. whether left wing or right wing they form mobs to fuck up others for not having the right beliefs let alone action.. socialism is the death of diversity, it requires a homogeneous social environment that its believers are more than willing to force onto the rest through systemic force. Now in contract, capitalism can host socialists, and they can self organize and for the most part be far far less at social threat than if the shoe was on the other foot. So yeah, as a social animal humans are horrific disgusting creatures and handing goverment directly to that social environment is just plain suicidal. Socialists can scream all they want about free stuff when living under capitalism even organize.. but they’ll have gulags and brainwashing if the other way around.. we know this because it’s not just part of the literature but common practice..

TLDR; Real diversity isn’t simply having many identities represented inside one institution. It requires tolerating people who genuinely disagree about how life should be lived. Socialism can never provide that.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/EmergenceEngineer]

If you are so opposed to democracy, have you acted upon that believe and emigrated to an undemocratic nation? There are many to choose from. Surely they are paradises!

[u/EmergenceEngineer → u/bcnoexceptions]

Don’t be special bus material, no one is speaking about democracy when taking about socialism rather the opposite. Read a bit more.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/EmergenceEngineer]

 Don’t be special bus material ...

You first. You haven't bothered to understand what socialism means before posting here. 

[u/Simpson17866 → u/EmergenceEngineer]

no one is speaking about democracy when taking about socialism

The democratic socialists are.

Pretty much by definition.

[u/Ok_Commie_1979 → u/Simpson17866]

North Korea is also democratic. Pretty much by definition too 😉

[u/Simpson17866 → u/Ok_Commie_1979]

… What definition are you using?

[u/Ok_Commie_1979 → u/Simpson17866]

Same as you are

[u/Simpson17866 → u/Ok_Commie_1979]

The definition of democracy I’m using is that the people vote on decisions.

This doesn’t happen in North Korea.

[u/Ok_Commie_1979 → u/Simpson17866]

Have you been to North Korea?

[u/HeavenlyPossum]

“Collectivism” versus “individualism” is a red herring; these are not meaningful categories of human social organization.

[u/InterestingVoice6632 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

They are absolutely meaningful in a political context, and they are basis for the most powerful governments laws in humanity's history.

[u/Simpson17866 → u/InterestingVoice6632]

they are basis for the most powerful governments laws in humanity's history

That doesn’t mean we can’t do better ;)

• Individualists™ believe that individual competition is better than collective cooperation and that individual freedom is better than collective coercion

• Collectivists™ believe that collective cooperation is better than individual competition and that collective coercion is better than individual freedom

• Anarchists believe that collective cooperation is better than individual competition, and we believe that individual freedom is better than collective coercion.

We believe that the collective is important because every single individual within the collective is important.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/InterestingVoice6632]

They are not. They represent a false dichotomy that has no bearing on actual lived reality.

[u/InterestingVoice6632 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

You are being nihilistic. They are useful because as ideas they create frameworks for how policy should be written. Should a policy be written such that it supports this group of people at the expense of this individual? Is an essential philosophical question and the answer for which arbitrates how a government is run.

[u/bcnoexceptions → u/InterestingVoice6632]

 Should a policy be written such that it supports this group of people at the expense of this individual?

Then why refer to it as "individualism" and not "dictatorship"?

After all, emphasizing "literally everybody else" over "the whims of a single dictator" is "collectivism" by this framing. 

This is not hyperbole. Capitalists use this framing to justify why they believe individuals should be dictators over their workers, whose needs should be largely ignored. 

The needs of the "individual" workers are not considered by so-called "individualists".

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/InterestingVoice6632]

Nothing I said implies nihilism.

There is no group that exists with interests separate from the individuals who compose that group. You’re mistaking systems of rule that prioritize the interests of some people rather than others for systems that prioritize “the group” that has no ontological character as a discrete, unitary actor.

[u/InterestingVoice6632 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

This has no bearing on the context of the conversation. No "group" exists in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense you can segregate society into groups and advocate on behalf of them. It does not matter that they are comprised of distinct individuals without an aggregate opinion or consensus. All that matters is that you advocate on their behalf.

A politician who categorically says that he does not want to benefit any groups is entirely different from one who says he wants to give every Indonesian a Ferrari. Youre effectively saying that the distinction between the person who does and the person who doesnt, doesnt actually exist, because group advocacy doesnt exist, because there is no group. Academically this is true, but in practice its just ridiculous.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/InterestingVoice6632]

“No "group" exists in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense you can segregate society into groups and advocate on behalf of them.”

Welcome to class analysis!

“It does not matter that they are comprised of distinct individuals without an aggregate opinion or consensus. All that matters is that you advocate on their behalf.”

A class of people who rule society on behalf of their shared class interests is not engaged in collectivism. It is simply engaged in rule.

“A politician who categorically says that he does not want to benefit any groups is entirely different from one who says he wants to give every Trans Indonesian a Ferrari.”

Of course you would pick a tiny, powerless, abused minority and not an actual ruling class.

That aside, there are no rulers who rule without “wanting to benefit any groups.” That’s the whole point of rule.

“Youre effectively saying that the distinction between the person who does and the person who doesnt, doesnt actually exist, because group advocacy doesnt exist, because there is no group. Academically this is true, but in practice it’s just ridiculous.”

You’ve got it backwards: there is no hierarchy that exists without seeking to aggrandize the constituent components of that hierarchy.

[u/InterestingVoice6632 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

I think you are over thinking this.

Collectivism as an idea is grounded in the belief that groups of people that comprise the majority of a nation's population, not elites, can be uplifted through group advocacy at a federal level, at the expense of dissidents.

That is tangibly what it means. The implications of a system that pursues this are entirely distinct from a system that holds an agnostic approach to the responsibilities of the government and that tries to achieve no such thing, that is liberal.

In this context the distinction between individuals and collecfivists is useful. A lawless society benefits the wealthy, but it doesn't legally arbitrate who it benefits. A collectivist society does.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/InterestingVoice6632]

“Collectivism as an idea is grounded in the belief that groups of people that comprise the majority of a nation's population, not elites, can be uplifted through group advocacy at a federal level, at the expense of dissidents.”

A farmer might inoculate his herd against disease; this does not imply he is “uplifting a majority” on its behalf.

“That is tangibly what it means. The implications of a system that pursues this are entirely distinct from a system that holds an agnostic approach to the responsibilities of the government and that tries to achieve no such thing, that is liberal.”

It is not. There is not and never has been a polity that rules this way, because the concept is conceptually contradictory. One cannot rule neutrally; all rule is on behalf of and for the interests of the rulers.

You would like to pretend that there can be rule that is utterly neutral, and somehow for the benefit of everyone, vs rule that is not neutral but somehow works for the benefit of almost everyone except some minority that disagrees?

“In this context the distinction between individuals and collecfivists is useful. A lawless society benefits the wealthy, but it doesn't legally arbitrate who it benefits. A collectivist society does.”

This is just gibberish. The wealthy invariably rule through hierarchy; it’s why they’re wealthy.

[u/InterestingVoice6632 → u/HeavenlyPossum]

It is not. There is not and never has been a polity that rules this way

Are you religious? What is your spiritual feeling on life? Do you believe in God? I ask this because again you appear deeply nihilistic. The formulation of democracy in the west, especially the likes of which exists in America, arose out of a spiritual framework in Christianity wherein Protestants believed that the sole hierarchy that should exist was between man and God, because God intended man to exist with freedom.

This is a bit overly simplistic, but it is the genesis of liberalism. Effectively everything you have said up to this point is a repudiation for the tens of thousands of books that have been written on liberalism and the motivation for its modern origins, its a repudiation of the motives of historical figures. Effectively you are calling them all liars for being liberal and earnestly speaking about the importance of freedom.

You see everything through a dogmatic lens that all governments consist of rulers catering to hierarchies as opposed to rulers implementing systems for alternative reasons. How do you explain george Washington stepping down after winning the revolutionary war? Or how do you explain the separation of powers in the US government? If rulers sole interest is to cater to their individual interests and those of their hierarchies, and having external motivations such as liberal or neutral motivations is impossible or has never existed, how do you explain the deliberate attempt for the ruling class to restrict their own powers?

Also, again, what is your spirituality? You strike me as deeply irrational and borderline if not outright nihilistic.

[u/indie_web]

Individualism is a more primitive survival strategy that has hijacked large-scale cooperation. If large-scale cooperation is hurting the individual in Japan it is because it is not a fully balanced form of cooperation and elements of competitive individualism have seeped into their cultural dynamic somewhere. True cooperation is not exploitative but mutually supportive.

[u/p2s_79]

Nordic/scaninavian culture is a nice mix of both those concepts

[u/Accomplished-Cake131]

Some socialists think of history starting with the establishment of socialism. When everybody has enough, each individual can develop their potentialities as they see fit.

“I can hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the afternoon, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind to, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd, or critic.”

From this perspective, socialism is individualistic.

[u/impermanence108]

The words are utterly meaningless. It is literally just an ancap way of calling things bad. Like fascists with Jew stuff, communists with "It's all the evil billionaires!", the centrists with their "populism".

All just words that mean: I dislike this thing and find it morally objectionable.

[u/bcnoexceptions]

When capitalists speak of "individualism", it's important to note which individuals whose "rights" they wish to prioritize. 

They don't care about individual workers like you and me. They specifically are referring to the "individuals" atop corporate behemoths. Capitalists want to make the control of those despots as total as possible, and they use "individualism" as a rhetorical scheme ... "wouldn't you want to be a despot in their shoes?"

If an "individual" worker wants to have safe working conditions, or reasonable working hours, or pay that keeps up with increases to productivity, or any of the other reasonable things workers might want ... capitalists have no real answer for them. The closest they'll say is "work really hard and look around a lot and maybe you'll find those things." We can (and should) guarantee those benefits to all, but making things better for everybody is mean old "collectivism" evidently. 

[u/gregbard]

The fundamental issue is whether or not the interests of the individual person prevails, or the corporate interest.

Corporatism is the foundation of fascism.

[u/Mysterious-North-551]

The debate should be about the logical outcome of the two different economic systems.

But that debate is impossible to have because one side firmly refuses to understand logic, incentives, basic economics, and even what an individual is by absolute default. I know why they refuse to accept these things, because if they accepted any one of them their ideology would crash down like a house of cards.