Individualism vs. Collectivism - Learn Liberty 

There is no human collective without the human individuals

What I'd argue is that by giving people the ability to be Individuals, we eventually become social, create communities and help one another. We don't need to force one another to be social, it comes to us naturally.

Well said, thank you. I completely agree! Also within a free society, individuals are permitted to form voluntary collectives, no one is stopping them.

This video almost perfectly defines Liberalism in its classical and real sense

You're right that you should think less about yourself, but collectivism NEVER works.

individualism is the key to sucess even in a ruthless communist regim

Thank you for this insightful explanation about collectivism and individualism. I believe they both have their advantages. It's about having a balance. It's good to acknowledge each other's talents, but not to the point of idol worship. 😀

Is there any reason for the caps?

Beautifully articulated, thank you.

You can't have it both ways. Claiming its reductionistic to say that people's social conditions determine their mental conceptions, but then turning around and saying that our individualism determines our social conditions. Our individualists are going to have to establish individual choice as a final cause before making this claim.

America was founded on individualism

This is great. There's such a turn against individualism at the moment but I believe that the term is often misused or collapsed with neo-liberalism and this explains it beautifully. Society can and must be formed around the it's constituent, autonomous, individuals. How can we talk about the emancipation of the collective without talking first about the freedom of the individuals that comprise it?

one small big point: if we are so individual, it has to be respected that some will be more influenceable and that some will be able to influence more by all the tribes he sees/identifies himself in/at. mostly, i agree with everything else.

People are too individualistic when they must gather together for greater goals but behave like herds of sheep when they must be individualistic.

wow, exceptionally, immensely and extremely helpful.

Well explained!

Very well said

Humility is a virtue.

"Humility" is self humiliation. It's self immolation, the opposite of a rational sense of pride for having achieved ones accomplishments. Humility is never a virtue, as the alternative to humility is NOT arrogance.

Humility is only a virtue if it is paired with a realistic view of ones self. If you are a great person and a leader among people, but you spend you time being humble and never working for yourself, the community will miss out on a brilliant leader and great wealth. As you would only be nuisance if you think to much of yourself and will only stand in the way of others if you gain power. It is here competition will divide the wheat from the chaff and let the talented and trustworthy rise.

Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it is thinking of yourself less!!!!

@Laughingblades What you are talking about is voluntary association, which is within the realm of individualism, not collectivism. Here is a question: can the workers leave the cooperative if they want? Can they seek work somewhere else or can one of them decide to go and start another cooperative? If you answer to the affirmative, then you are talking about individualism. If not, then you are talking collectivism.

Professor Aeon is Cool!

Enlightenment values

What should be however be made clear in my opinion, is that Collectivism has many types and layers of Collectivism: family, organization, village, urban, regional, country, global etc. unlike Individualism which is just one type, the Individual. Some cultures emphasize certain group types more than other groups. Japan has a stronger company orientation and less on family compared to its neighbours. The Nazis focused everything on the Nation of course. And modern day globalism may be actually the start concept of global collectivism. All these types actually go all more or less together in life. none of these are focused on the Individual, but they affect the degree of Individual limitation based on how strong it is, what type it is and how it's combined to society. When Groups types are larger, it becomes more vague to focus or judge to an Individual. Powers and Responsibilities become more and more inequal to the members as group types become larger, so is emotional distance.

The difference between influence and determination is entirely in our heads. It's convenient for humans to look at each other and see "people" with "choices". However, humans are not exempt from the laws of nature. The rest is just playing with language. Of course, people will automatically take this to assume I'm an extreme collectivist.

YES

It was more nation for Mussolini. Nation and ethnicity were seen as one in the same for Hitler but Mussolini didn't have as much emphasis on ethnicity as Hitler.

I second that

What you're basically saying is that since people are by human nature "not good", "bad", or "evil", we need Government to keep control over their negative actions right?

Groups are just an abstraction of individuals and each individual has there own unique set of desires and goals in life.

Who owns your own life, you or someone else? If you own your own life, then that very fact necessitates rights. To own your own life today, tomorrow & next week, means that you also have the right to the furtherance of that life, to maintain your life, which means that you have the right to earn and keep as a means of survival, prosperity & happiness. Life is a process of self-sustaining & self generating action. The right to life means the right to engage in that action.

I know it's an old comment and I hate it when people respond to stuff so old but I feel like I have comment. Your statement exactly sums up why you cannot take someone's freedom. Money is a symbol. It ends there. And even as a symbol, I wouldn't call it a symbol of freedom. It's a symbol of labor and value. The man should be required to pay the debt, but not at the direct cost of his freedom. Lines can be drawn, and besides, I don't know of anyone that advocates ONLY taxes for a society.

So is collectivism like a huge stereotype ? Individualism is when your communities/ groups overlap.

Well said, as an individual you have the best of both worlds, if you want to be a communist or socialist, you cant get together and do it with other willing individuals, without forcing everyone else to go along..

People don’t really understand individualism these days. The individualist at its true form is the transcendentalist...that’s the true justification of being an individual. That being said (in a nutshell), you’re not a true individual unless you’re on your way of becoming a transcendentalist...because your mind is indeed highly influenced by external forces. Ralph Emerson was saying just that...there needs to be a sense of understanding what an individual is...not just autonomy rubberish...The individual is about embracing one self, as well as learning, and understanding he/she fits into nature (not just society) The ‘individual’ is not the ‘opposite’ of ‘collectivism’. One of Emerson’s quote: “The Man who renounces himself, comes to himself”

Don't confuse "state capitalism" with free enterprise. These two paradigms are mutually exclusive in that state capitalism promotes collectivism, but free enterprise promotes individualism. 🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷 "The strongest argument for free enterprise is that it prevents anybody from having too much power." [Milton Friedman] 🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷🔷 🇺🇸 Marc J. Metivier 🇺🇸

@Laughingblades You are correct in saying people are forced to earn a wage. However, they are not forced by other people or society, but by the laws of nature. Nature dictates that humans will die if they don't eat, and they must work to harvest food and other resources. No amount of force or coercion will rewrite the laws of nature, all it can do is change who does the work.

Could you give an example of a free market society that featured parents selling their children into slavery? I will bet that such a society is not free-market/libertarian. Liberty does not promote child slavery any more than it promotes child abuse or criminal neglect of one's children. Libertarians do consider such issues, and the parent-child relationship is not economic in nature.

I am sorry this will have to be two comments. Now I can understand the flaws in this idea especially if there is a well established government which adequately represents the people, in this way government should become an extension of society and not something completely separate. This to me is the ideology of the Social Libertarian. Society controls the Government and for this reason Society can create laws to rule itself but these laws must not infringe upon individual liberties.

Excellent

I acknowledge and respect your opinion, however I disagree based on my responses previously. I don't feel the need to respond directly to your post except to say I agree with the sentiment, and to a large extent, but feel my objections and points have not been adequately addressed. It seems we are at an impasse, so I will bid you good day, sir.

No but Humility is.

I think we’ve become too individualist, we should care about the welfare of our community far more than we do. I think groups (or communities) also constitute a type of meaning which sustains us, which is why I think depression has become so prevalent in the West, through lack of it.

If everyone does what they want, the environment will be destroyed. Out of 1 million of people, how many are virtuous?

I think the speaker is misunderstanding individuality as identity or a background. Of course everyone has a unique identity. Society would not flourish if everyone were the same race, wore the same clothes, had the same thoughts, etc. I think the bigger point needs to be on individuality as a philosophy and way of living. We act out of self-interest when we work, when we feed our families, when we travel, when we entertain. Seldom do we think about our neighbors down the street and whether they have enough food. Seldom do we walk to work anymore with hundreds of people on the streets. With the advent of suburbs, now we all travel autonomously to work in the cities in our own vehicles with little interaction with the outside world. It is this philosophy of individualism that needs to be contrasted with collectivism in order to properly critique the society we are becoming. A prevailing conservative view is that people in need must be left on their own to act out of self interest to become well-off again. We need to decide if that philosophy of individualism is applicable to society anymore. What about religious teachings of charity and community? What about the good ol' rustic rural america where everyone in the town knew each other? How many people today can honestly claim to know their neighbors like family?

That's completely stupid. Libertarians know right well that there is no such thing as the right to violate rights because that contradiction would undermine the entire concept of rights. Since there is no such thing as the right to violate rights, then there can be no right to enslave.

Profit is not theft. Profit is why anyone does anything for others period. People only work for other people because they will profit from it. A society without profit would be life like the Amish. You work for you and your family and noone else. You work all day growing your food, raising your barns and homes from scratch, and not trading your production for the production of others. There is no community mind.

Mr. Spock would say that your argument is illogical, especially your conclusion that a libertarian structure promotes child slavery. How would parents cause a corporation to be the legal guardian of their child? What regulation are parents free of?

Then noone would provide those services for others, individuals would only provide those services for themselves and would have to since noone else would. People due things because it will benefit themselves and in the process of individual wealth will help others. The anti-ism argument is a stance that closed minded individuals make so that they don't have to seriously study the various philosophies. Ism is a word to describe a broader meaning.

what the hell is he arguing?

Prohibition isn't coercion. Why am I still teaching you definitions?

Conformity is not humility. Work not for monetary reward, work for betterment of humanity as a reward. Contribute to better the human species, not feed off it.

Look nice

I thank you for a thoughtful and logical opinion that is hard to find. With that said what you are talking about with this person is Anarchy. I do understand that Libertarian Theory was born out of Anarchy but what is ignored by a lot of modern Libertarians and most Anarchist is the role society plays. This is to say that in a classic Libertarian mind government and society are not connected they are separate. In this way society will police itself through rules separate from the government.

Well, throwing people in debtors prison won't recoup your finances. So there are other means of getting back what belongs to you. The best strategy is don't make loans to people with bad credit character. My prior comment was in reference to your silly notion about libertarians selling their children as slaves to corporations.

They say America is an individualist nation - I see otherwise

This guy could have saved 3 minutes if he just said that individuals cooperating isn't the same thing as a collective or collectivism, and that voluntary trade and the division of labor are examples of individuals cooperating for self benefit as well as mutual benefit.

In short: all people are both individualists and collectivists. You can't be purely one or the other. Deal with it.

MONEY-printed matter of a value of PRINTED paper - IS A PROOF HOW JUST PIECE OF PAPER - WHEN ONLY - USED AS A PAYMENT FOR A REAL WORK BECOMES A REAL VALUE AND TO ME OF A LESSER VALUE THAN WRITTING "I OWE YOUS" ISSUED BY PERSON WITH INTEGRITY

Collectivists erroneously confuse individualism with egoTism (as opposed to egoism), and that individualism is anti-cooperation. That's just ignorance.

I am most definitely not a Libertarian but your argument is flawed. A parent selling their child into slavery would violate laws, not economic regulations.

right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...what is there to protect the people? what prevents me from taking from others to make my life more happy...nothing.... welcome to capitalist America...being poor in America is worse than being in prison....seriously...thats why so many people intentionally get locked up...remember the guy that robbed a bank for 1 dollar so he could get prison healthcare? or the homeless man that stole and got caught cuz it was cold outside?

How can you tell what libertarians fail at if you don't understand libertarianism? I'm going to stop feeding the troll now.

Individualism and collectivism are two sides of a coin. Individualism can’t exist without collectivism, and collectivism can’t exist without individualism.

Individualism and Collectivism are incorrectly put at odds. One cannot exist without the other, like freedom and equality. The most free society is one where one's liberty is only restricted by another's liberty, thus, everyone is equally free. At the same time, such a society would be based on voluntary associations, thus, everyone is freely equal. The most individualist social systems, namely, individualist anarchism, are socialistic in their nature. Mutualism, for example, is collectivist in the sense that all private property (the means of production) are commonly owned, but, at the same time, it is individualist in the sense that property still exists because individuals are entitled to all the products of their own labor and can trade those products on a free market. Radical individualism is necessarily collectivist, otherwise, it is just egoism, which creates hierarchy based on might, and that is not individualism, but further control of individuals. Individualism and collectivism are only at odds when people try to control them via the force of the state.

Sure what the symbol represents is real, but that doesn't make in any way the symbol real aside from it being a real symbol. It's like confusing the map for the place. Not sure if you're trying to put words in my mouth, but I did not advocate no penalty. People with debt should be required to pay their debt, something like garnishing of wages of simple enough. Your choice of words concerns me. I think criminals need to be corrected. Punishment MAY be a part of it, but not the whole, nor the goal

Invidualism can't escape from collectivism, and collectivism can't escape from individualism.

Indeed - liberal still is right-wing over here though. We only have interventionists now...

Individualism is important, but the idea of choice is just a fantasy. The argument in favor of a liberal concept of individualism is dependent upon free will, the idea that there is a conscious, non-deterministic source of human behavior. This is utterly incompatible with modern neurobiology or even honest subjective experience. In fact it's precisely because we can't choose who we are that individualism is important- we have a responsibility to express our individuality for the benefit of our community, and in return our community has a responsibility to provide us with the means to express our individuality to as great an extent as it can accommodate. Liberalism fails to provide either. Libertarian socialism affirms the importance of both.

That's not initiation of force actually, and it's the same moral basis accepted worldwide and in most religions. And it's obvious that you don't know what coercion means. Go learn what libertarianism is actually about, then come back and talk to me, because now you're only qualified to be a troll.

Individualism is where the individual and individual rights are your primary value. Collectivism is where the collective is your primary value. Ergo in any collectivist system, there will be times when the collective or it's sundry leaders will want to sacrifice the individual and his rights for "the greater good" of the collective. Collectivism and individual rights are incompatible & irreconcilable. Time in the video would have been much better spent pointing this out.

69th comment

Your example is flawed on the simple basis that you ignore the child's freedoms which are also guaranteed under Libertarian ideals. Try again.

This should be the political spectrum No right left shit Simply collectivism and Individualism

Troll.

Individualism and collectivism intertwine. However, individualism is not collectivism, yet individualism is always collectivistic. So your perception of individualism is deeply flawed.

Bias

I'm a staunch individualist, but this guy just doesn't make a good argument.

Individualism is driven by monetary reward, Collectivism is driven by self reward. Collectivism promotes collective and individual greatness for the betterment of man kind not ones self.

Marx was not against individuals - the entire point was to allow free development of all individuals. Without being forced to sell your labour, you can choose whichever form of labour, whichever activity you want - engage in any community, or disassociate with any. The only "collectivist" aspect of it is that it would have the means of production be owned by all members of society, but that is the cost of individual freedom.

Husband: "Honey, I'm home! What's new today?" Wife: "I have good news, and I have better news!" Husband: "Awesome! Let's start with the good news." Wife: "Ok, I'm pregnant again." Husband: "Hurray! In 9 months, we will be able buy a new car. What relief these babies bring to our finances! Honey, I love your reproductive organs." Wife: "And don't forget the better news." Husband: "Oh my, that's right! Well, what is it?" Wife: "I'm having twins!" Husband: "The free market is the best!"

LISTEN TO YOURSELF...YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE!!!

In response to 'artbag'. Let's clarify a few things shall we. Individualism cannot be a myth because only the individual exists. I cannot breathe for you nor you for me. I cannot think for you nor you for me. I cannot walk upon you're legs nor you upon mine. I cannot live for you nor you for me. You stated: 'Why does an individual need a community'? Firstly, there is no such thing as a 'community'? The 'community' is a word concept; an image in the mind. The 'community' is not metaphysically real. The 'group' is not 'metaphysically real'. The 'Government' is not metaphysically real. The 'society' is not metaphysically real. ONLY THE INDIVIDUAL IS METAPHYSICALLY REAL. You cannot 'see' a 'community'. You cannot 'touch' a 'community'. The 'community' is an artificial construct. Put simply, it does not exist because the 'community' just renders itself down to the individual. In short, individuals voluntarily co-operate with one another in order to achieve common goals and purposes. For example, no single individual can build a skyscraper by themselves. It requires the voluntary co-operation of many individuals in order to achieve this common goal. But the point is this: the individual is not chained to collective action because he is free to walk away at any moment of his own choosing. The difference between individualism and collectivism is the difference between freedom and coercion. You cannot 'force' or 'threaten' an individual to make his contribution to the building of a skyscraper because you think that is what he should be doing. His own mind will do the working for him in this respect. This is why you are mistaken in you're belief that individualism is a myth. You are either free or you are not.

Your post is devoid of facts and rife with well-poisoning. Can't you do better?

Those are nonsense polarities. Every society is a mix of individual autonomy and collective action. Even the Right calls for collective action when it is in their interests to do so.

why do i care about your individuality. if seizing the means of production is in my best interest, i will do it

Individualism puts us against each other in society

Why does an individual need a community? Well look around you, did you build your house, if you did, did you make the bricks and mortar, did you build your car or do you drive the bus to work, did you grow your food and did you bring it to market? Being an individual is impossible. People need each other, you can't even start your own family as an individual. This notion of individualism is a myth

Poor sociology if you ask me.

Capitalists arguing for individualism. Lol.

Individualism is an ideology of collectivism. So safe to say that when their became more than one individual individualism ceased to exist. It's collaboration of the masses /collectivism that creates government. It is up to the ideology of that collectivism that determines individualism. Because individualism no longer existed and needed to be redefined. Because to be truly individual one would have to live in a world where there were no other individuals. So comparing collectivism to individualism is like comparing apples to oranges.

This garbage is wrong in so many ways