Comment on name too hard? brain go ouch! Vote red.

• DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  This doesn’t negate the fact that I value the good of the collective over the good of an individual. Individualism is what led to civilization which is what led to the destruction of our planet and our separation from it. Individualism is the cancer that must be eradicated.

  Wasn’t it collectivism that lead to civilization, with gangs of workers dragging blocks up ramps to build pyramids, while others labored in the fields to feed themselves and these gangs, learning little on how to fend for themselves in the wild if they desired to escape their conditions?

  Our planet is not destroyed. The detonation of every nuke made by humanity couldn’t destroy our planet, or even all life on it.

  ​

  The rights of individuals is more important than any nation.

  To me this is like saying “dog poop tastes better than cat poop.” Nations should not exist and individualism should not exist.

  Maybe your analogy is better for differentiation of the varying kinds of nationalism. Some might say the same of collectivism. Try this: “Eurocommunism is better than Stalinism in much the way that a shit-sandwich is better than just plain shit.”

  Of course, some Indigenous rights groups and others might defend nationhood.

  ​

  ​

  Now just to be clear, I am a huge fan of individuality, just not individualism.

  ​

  wt:individuality

  Noun

  individuality (countable and uncountable, plural individualities)

  .1. (uncountable) The characteristics that contribute to the differentiation or distinction of someone or something from a group of otherwise comparable identity.

  .2. (countable) A person.

  ​

  wt:individualism

  (Noun)

  individualism (countable and uncountable, plural individualisms)

  .1. The tendency for a person to act without reference to others, particularly in matters of style, fashion or mode of thought.

  Antonyms: collectivism, statism

  .2. The moral stance, political philosophy, or social outlook that promotes independence and self-reliance of individual people, while opposing the interference with each person’s choices by society, the state, or any other group or institution.

  .3. (logic) The doctrine that only individual things are real.

  .4. (philosophy) The doctrine that nothing exists but the individual self.

  Synonym: solipsism

  When I think of individualism, I don’t think of it necessitating being anti-social or even wt:asocial, but rather that no one can tell you what to do, at least not without your consent.

  Let’s say 10 people each have $5 and each wants a pizza. $5 will get each 2 slices, but $25 would get a pizza with 50% more area than 10 slices combined, and $50 would get one with twice the area, plus 10 cans of soft drinks.

  The problem is toppings. 7 want cheese, 2 want extra cheese, and 1 wants no cheese (maybe due to dairy allergies and/or wt:thon is a vegan). 3 want pineapple, 3 don’t. and 6 are okay with it. Ditto mushrooms. A few would forgo their drinks for extra toppings, while one would forgo pizza for 3 cans.

  So they negotiate for a while.

  6 come to a close agreement, 3 would rather just get slices, and one would rather keeps thons $5.

  Presumably under collectivism, it’s majority rule and the 6 take the $20 of the 4, add it to their $30, and every one gets an equal amount (or maybe the 4 get less as they opposed the collective, and those who supported the collective get more: no one goes hungry, but each of the 6 eats and drinks a little more);

  while under individualism, the 6 get the pizza they agreed on and as a group they paid for; while the other the 3 get their slices; and 1 gets no pizza nor drink but keeps thons $5.

  source

  • trojanbark@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Civilization began when we stopped being hunter gatherers and started being sedentary with agriculture. Those structures you’re referring to were being built thousands of years after civilization began. One could argue it goes even deeper; when we stopped being immediate-return hunter gatherers and switched to delayed-return hunter gatherers, then the concept of elites began, which is the root of individualism, the cancer that led to the beginning of civilization.

    Your pizza story is irrelevant because in my worldview things like money and material wealth and items that are not collectively owned and shared would not exist; now there would be personal possessions to help in tasks like hunting or maybe ornamentation, but anything that is for the good of the group would be shared. In traditional hunter-gatherer societies, rather than relying on a moneyed economy or barter economy, they usually had what is called a gift economy. In this, your relationship with others is one of the most important things, and contributes to the cohesion of the group. It builds trust. One of the ways to do this is to always give each other gifts.

    source

    • DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Civilization began when we stopped being hunter gatherers and started being sedentary with agriculture. Those structures you’re referring to were being built thousands of years after civilization began.

      IIUC, civilization started with cities, or at least towns; just as history began with writing.

      ​

      One could argue it goes even deeper; when we stopped being immediate-return hunter gatherers and switched to delayed-return hunter gatherers, then the concept of elites began, which is the root of individualism, the cancer that led to the beginning of civilization.

      I tend to think there was some overlap. e.g. there were/still are indigenous in the Amazon who while still hunting and gathering, also engage in agriculture, including slash-and-burn; meanwhile, many farmers also hunted; and let’s not forget herders. Wealth wasn’t only land one held, but also how much livestock one owned.

      Elites probably resulted with larger groups, which might have been the result of technological advances, such as more farming, as well as specialization of labor. There was also gender-specific roles. Generally it was the men who hunted, while the women gathered, maybe butcher the carcasses, and made winter clothes, while rearing the children they bore.

      Perhaps sometimes a band would raid other bands, then later simplify it to extortion. Consensus gave way to either majority rule and/or elites. Merited leaders gave way to hereditary leaders.

      ​

      Your pizza story is irrelevant because in my worldview things like money and material wealth and items that are not collectively owned and shared would not exist; now there would be personal possessions to help in tasks like hunting or maybe ornamentation, but anything that is for the good of the group would be shared.

      So perhaps what you’re kind of saying is that the group of 10 would have $50, and they’d discuss over how it should be spent.

      Also, are you suggesting that humanity should return to hunting, or perhaps small agrarian groups who are short distances away from the food they grow?

      ​

      In traditional hunter-gatherer societies, rather than relying on a moneyed economy or barter economy, they usually had what is called a gift economy. In this, your relationship with others is one of the most important things, and contributes to the cohesion of the group. It builds trust. One of the ways to do this is to always give each other gifts.

      How big would these societies be?

      source