# Individualism



## Silvia

(I'm not sure if I'm able to explain what's on my mind clearly, but at least I'll try )

In our present Western society, individualism comes first. The needs of someone as a person come first. It was not like that in the past, since there was no room left for such a concept. Most people could not have a clear idea about their own ego, especially because, in most cases, they were not recognised as persons.

I think that, nowadays, we are witnessing an excess in this respect and that also reflects in the language, somehow, as well as in other fields (justice, family, in any social context in general). This cultural trend is destined to grow more and more, even because mass media like to appeal to individualism for their own purposes (to push products etc.) and they surely play on it.

In short, if something is good for someone but can harm someone else, where do someone's rights begin and where do they end?

I would like to have everyone's opinion about individualism in one's native country.


----------



## Benjy

i think the french summed it up pretty well....

ma liberté s'arrete où commence celle des autres

my freedom ends where everyone elses begins. clumsy translation i know :s society functions because we dont let people do things that harms others. lets say tomorrow i want to kill someone. i cant? why not? i want to... drug abuse/violence all sorts of things come into this but essentially a coherent society requires sacrifice on the part of those who wish to be a part of it. i sometimes wonder if we really realise how inter-dependant we are. im sitting on a chair that someone else built in a room that someone else buit in front of a pc that someone else made (well i did put it together) i have electricity because of a plant and human bbeings working in it miles away.. etc etc. we really ought to look out for each other a little more.

ben


----------



## Silvia

Thank you, Benjy. Actually I'm not interested in knowing your wishes  as I assume we have more or less the same ones. I would like to know the actual situation in other kinds of societies different from the one I live in or I know of.


----------



## Benjy

silviap said:
			
		

> Thank you, Benjy. Actually I'm not interested in knowing your wishes  as I assume we have more or less the same ones. I would like to know the actual situation in other kinds of societies different from the one I live in or I know of.


so hurt! retracts opinion  i guess i didn't read the question carefully enough


----------



## Cath.S.

> if something is good for someone but can harm someone else


I think this whole concept is absurd, because it comes from a flawed (not just "individualistic", but plain selfish) conception of what "good" is. Something really *good* (the notion I refer to here is a platonician one) cannot harm anybody else, it is impossible in essence. 
As Benjy said we are all interdependant and this is _not_ a societal rule but a natural rule, as we are part of the ecosystem and not mere users or witnesses of it. 
The notion of _intérêt général _ (general interest/common good) is central to survival. Frank Brunner writes about it far better than myself:
http://www.interet-general.info/article.php3?id_article=7
(this is a non-commercial website)


----------



## cuchuflete

Egueule makes a key point:
The notion of something being "good" for me while being harmful to others is properly defined as selfishness.  Yes, Silvia, it is growing more common in my geographic and commercial and social environments.   

Here is an interesting 'aside' to show that it is a worldwide phenomena.  Decades ago, people held religion in high esteem, even if they were not believers.  A church was a respected social institution.  Historically it was an important element in a society...which is, in large measure, the sublimation of self-interest for a broader common good.  Today, people rob churches, and clergymen are often laughed at as hypocrites.  The will of the individual has eroded a social institution, with a little help from the institutions themselves.

Once, when people went to war, they respected women and children, or civilians in general.  Today terrorists kill civilians every day, and think it is fine, because it serves their individual ideological passions. This is true in Europe, the Americas, Africa....It's an international celebration of the greed and selfishness of millions of 
me's, without regard to the we's.

Cuchu


----------



## Silvia

Cuchu, I do appreciate your interesting explanation and I agree with what you said.

Do you think it's a temporary phenomenon or is it likely to stay?

To me, the self as the most important value is quite noxious. I wonder if it's the most important value everywhere nowadays.


----------



## Silvia

egueule, I've read the interesting article you suggested. It just considers general interest in a cosmic idea and at biological level, making us think that cause and effect work perfectly in a perfect world and perfect nature, not considering the massive consequences of human agency.

The excessive value of the self can lead not only to decadence of mankind, but also to self-destruction, though I don't want to sound too catastrophic


----------



## cuchuflete

silviap said:
			
		

> Cuchu, I do appreciate your interesting explanation and I agree with what you said.
> 
> Do you think it's a temporary phenomenon or is it likely to stay?
> 
> To me, the self as the most important value is quite noxious. I wonder if it's the most important value everywhere nowadays.



Silvia,
I don't know.  People like to be with other people  (except for misanthropes)
and there will always be social pressure from groups to individuals to act in non-destructive ways.  These forums are sometimes a good example of that, and at others they exemplify the idea of the individual acting without regard for the common good.

Cuchu


----------



## Silvia

It's true, I thought such thread could have led to such a comparison, being this a microcommunity.

I was thinking in other terms though, such as someone's happiness is someone else's sadness. Why is your happiness more important than this other person's happiness? I'm not sure this makes sense... Just an example: If you're going to separate from your wife because you think that you'll be happier without her and she's still in love with you, you put your own self first, uncaring of other people's needs. As I said, present society taught us that your happiness comes first anything else, thus the self is on top.


----------



## cuchuflete

silviap said:
			
		

> It's true, I thought such thread could have led to such a comparison, being this a microcommunity.
> 
> I was thinking in other terms though, such as someone's happiness is someone else's sadness. Why is your happiness more important than this other person's happiness? I'm not sure this makes sense... Just an example: If you're going to separate from your wife because you think that you'll be happier without her and she's still in love with you, you put your own self first, uncaring of other people's needs. As I said, present society taught us that your happiness comes first anything else, thus the self is on top.



The example you pose is a difficult one to address.  In theory, should the wife's affection and desires to remain together outweigh the husband's real or perceived need for 'happiness'?  

I think we need a different example, less open to supposition and interpretation.


----------



## Silvia

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The example you pose is a difficult one to address.


 I know, I never claimed it was easy


----------



## vic_us

Thank you Silvia for this thread! I'm at odds with those pundits who believe that economic individualism and political individualism in the form of democracy have ceased to advance together. Anthropologically, I subscribe to the Homo Economicus theory. I think this conception of the human being fits well into a Marxist or capitalist framework (or anything in between or beyond them). Capitalism, that is more than an economic theory, has grabbed our imagination (with the only exception of Fidel, the only politician I trust, and I'm not kidding) in the design and construction of a more just and humane society. It emphasizes competition over cooperation, among other things. Its rugged individualism promises us, paradoxically, a better collective existence. The jury is still out on this one and a friend told me that they don't plan to come back with a veredict. In the meantime, this shared ideological framework across the West and the East is guiding our daily activities.


----------



## cuchuflete

silviap said:
			
		

> I know, I never claimed it was easy



Well, if you choose to pursue this particular example, we need to establish a more complete theoretical framework, prior to making judgements.

Example:

Spouse # 1:
Unhappy, loves Spouse #2, but is unwilling to make accommodations or engage in compromise.  Wants immediate gratification.

Spouse #2
Unhappy, because Spouse #1 is unhappy and wants to end relationship.
Loves Spouse #1.  Has yet to find ways to satisfy Spouse #1's need/desire for immediate gratification...perhaps because this is impossible for more than a few hours!

Conjugal unit= dysfunctional

Solutions:  ????

"selfish" (?) happiness for #1 is defined by departure, in search of some
theoretical improvement in gratification, without regard to #2's interests

"selfish" (?) happiness for #2 is to maintain the _status quo,_ despite the unhappiness this causes #1

In this scenario, both parties are selfish, or at best, unrealistic.


----------



## Silvia

vic_us, let me point out that the original idea of socialism/communism didn't put the self first. And no matter how hard someone might try, they would never convince me that individualism can ever lead us to a better collective existence.


----------



## Benjy

silviap said:
			
		

> vic_us, let me point out that the original idea of socialism/communism didn't put the self first. And no matter how hard someone might try, they would never convince me that individualism can ever lead us to a better collective existence.



hmm.. i wouldn't be so hasty. almost every technological advancent in recent times was probably done by someone whose (at least partial) motivation was making ends meet. communism/socailism seems to kill that by saying it doesn't matter how hard you work you will never improve your social condition. it  levels everyone off, usually down to the poverty line. its a great idea in theory.. but the truth is at the base, human beings are just too selfish for such a system to ever work, and so i'd have to agree capitalism, or self agrandissement is at the moment ensuring our "quality of life". I guess i had never looked at it from tht point of view...


----------



## Douglas

silviap said:
			
		

> (I'm not sure if I'm able to explain what's on my mind clearly, but at least I'll try )
> 
> In our present Western society, individualism comes first. The needs of someone as a person come first. It was not like that in the past, since there was no room left for such a concept. Most people could not have a clear idea about their own ego, especially because, in most cases, they were not recognised as persons.
> 
> I think that, nowadays, we are witnessing an excess in this respect and that also reflects in the language, somehow, as well as in other fields (justice, family, in any social context in general). This cultural trend is destined to grow more and more, even because mass media like to appeal to individualism for their own purposes (to push products etc.) and they surely play on it.
> 
> In short, if something is good for someone but can harm someone else, where do someone's rights begin and where do they end?
> 
> I would like to have everyone's opinion about individualism in one's native country.


 
"Les chiens aboient et les caravanes passent."  This is what I think whether individualism exists or not.

Regards,

Doug


----------



## Benjy

and for the none french speakers? what do you mean?


----------



## cuchuflete

Now that the political theories are on the table...let's see where 'controlled' capitalism~socialism works best, at least in purely economic terms.  In the countries with lots of natural resources, and some well developed industry.  These are the same countries in which uncontrolled capitalism flourishes! Most poor countries remain poor, regardless of the ideology in force.


----------



## vic_us

silviap said:
			
		

> vic_us, let me point out that the original idea of socialism/communism didn't put the self first. And no matter how hard someone might try, they would never convince me that individualism can ever lead us to a better collective existence.



I have no problem with the individual or the collective. I have problems with individualistic and collectivist theories. They are reductionistic in nature. But how do you keep them in balance? I believe in a continuum between those two extremes and currently we are moving toward individualism. Globalization is the new theoretical construct that makes this trend sort of universal. People are buying into it across cultures. Humanity is always switching back and forth on ideas of society and social control that we believe will make things better for everyone or for a particular group (the latter is generally the case). Soon will be fighting another war to prove that our position is right and that the other folks are so wrong. We'll then start our march toward the other extreme. 

By the way, time will prove that Marxism isn't dead. It's just taking a well-deserved nap!


----------



## Cath.S.

> People are buying into it across cultures.


Yeah what amazes me is how so-called individualism can be so uniform. 
I don't believe the self is the problem, rather competitiveness, indifference and what Guy Debord called the Spectacle.
Phoneyness, pretense and emptiness.
I believe in the self. I (as in my _self_ addressing your _selves_) like original, individualistic people. Stop equating individualistic to selfish, they are not synonyms.


----------



## Silvia

egueule, here's the MW definition of individualism, WR definition (especially #2) 

Now, the MW definition of selfishness, as you can see the difference is subtle and inbetween the lines... selfishness implies a stronger bad connotation, but it's just in the choice of words to me.

They both define the same thing, but the latter has a point of view with it.

Forgive me for the following example, but I can't think of a better one right now: it's like saying American Indian and Redskin, they are synonyms, but the latter has a bad connotation to it.


----------



## Cath.S.

silviap said:
			
		

> egueule, here's the MW definition of individualism, WR definition (especially #2)
> 
> Now, the MW definition of selfishness, as you can see the difference is subtle and inbetween the lines... selfishness implies a stronger bad connotation, but it's just in the choice of words to me.
> 
> They both define the same thing, but the latter has a point of view with it.
> 
> Forgive me for the following example, but I can't think of a better one right now: it's like saying American Indian and Redskin, they are synonyms, but the latter has a bad connotation to it.


I don't find the difference subtle at all. The "without regard for others" makes a world of difference. Our world.


----------



## vic_us

Going back to the macrosociological approach. I believe that the capitalist countries of the First World have no moral authority to explain economic failures or successes of countries in the Third World. 

From a historical perspective, this is what happened. They first amassed as much wealth as they could by all means available, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, who cared! Once they were sure they had gained such economic power and therefore political clout, they came up with this great concept of _free market_, and they set up the rules of the game. "All countries have to follow the sacred principles of the free market. There's only one exception to this rule. If we, the capitalist countries of the First World, feel that we are losing ground, we can manipulate the so-called laws of the free market until we regain power. But if you, the developing world, mess up with this perfect system, we'll make sure that you pay a high price." The United States, for instance, has used the CIA to induce political changes in countries that were veering to the left. The capitalist countries also have the World Bank and other financial institutions that work more in the open but have the same agenda: maintain the status quo or make sure that the rich countries they faithfully represent get richer at the expense of poorer countries. 

I like the illustration of the developed countries and the cake. "Now we are all in the business of baking cakes. By the way, 9 of 10 slices of each cake we bake in this world will be ours. You should be grateful that you got one slice, ok? Make sure you enjoy it because you're not getting any more cake. And if you break our balls we'll take everything away. So don't piss us off! Are we clear?"


----------



## cuchuflete

Interesting. What country does have the 'moral authority to explain economic failures or success..."?  Who might grant that authority?  According to which set of moral principals?

We certainly agree that the capitalist countries of the so-called First World do not have it.  The logic, however, begins and ends with itself.  Tautologically speaking, the poorest of the so-called third world countries has no more, and no less authority.

I totally disagree with the opening statements of your second paragraph.
From a historical perspective, and not through the filter of the values of this year, countries acted more or less in accord with the legal and ethical values prevalent in the times in which they took certain actions.  From today's perspective, many of those actions *are* reprehensible, but at the time they *were not.  

*Most ancient cultures were violent and rapacious towards their neighbors. From a revisionist perspective that makes them bad.  Their actions were very much in keeping with the prevalent moral values of their respective times.

The superimposition of a current set of moral values on a past culture may be useful in making us feel morally superior to our ancestors, or the ancestors of our current enemies,  but it does nothing to help us gain insight to history, as it actually occurred, in its own time.

Let's take the very blatant example of slavery.  In the year, let us say,
1750, it was widely practiced in the wealthier and in the poorer nations of the world. Both rich and poor accepted it as ethical, moral, and legal.
We see it as a vile and immoral practice today.  Does that make all nations that practiced it 250 years ago vile and immoral in their historical context?  

Morality evolves.  Some aspects of it...the incest taboo for example, are more enduring than others.  You may judge this moral evolution to be good or bad, fortunate or unfortunate, but no amount of revisionism will make it cease.  







			
				vic_us said:
			
		

> Going back to the macrosociological approach. I believe that the capitalist countries of the First World have no moral authority to explain economic failures or successes of countries in the Third World.
> 
> From a historical perspective, this is what happened. They first amassed as much wealth as they could by all means available, legal or illegal, ethical or unethical, who cared! Once they were sure they had gained such economic power and therefore political clout, they came up with this great concept of _free market_, and they set up the rules of the game. "All countries have to follow the sacred principles of the free market. There's only one exception to this rule. If we, the capitalist countries of the First World, feel that we are losing ground, we can manipulate the so-called laws of the free market until we regain power. But if you, the developing world, mess up with this perfect system, we'll make sure that you pay a high price." The United States, for instance, has used the CIA to induce political changes in countries that were veering to the left. The capitalist countries also have the World Bank and other financial institutions that work more in the open but have the same agenda: maintain the status quo or make sure that the rich countries they faithfully represent get richer at the expense of poorer countries.
> 
> I like the illustration of the developed countries and the cake. "Now we are all in the business of baking cakes. By the way, 9 of 10 slices of each cake we bake in this world will be ours. You should be grateful that you got one slice, ok? Make sure you enjoy it because you're not getting any more cake. And if you break our balls we'll take everything away. So don't piss us off! Are we clear?"


----------



## vic_us

So how far back in time can or should we go in order to have a relevant discussion about ethics and morality related to the actions of a country or a group of countries? 1 year, 10 years, 100 years? 

Let's talk about something very fresh as is the case of the invasion of Iraq by the US. Bush decides to invade Iraq arguing that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that it was imminent they would use them against the US. He argued that this preemptive attack had to happen in order to ensure the safety of the US. Then he came up with the need to sow the seed of democracy and all the other bullshit. The US invaded Iraq, a sovereign country, and killed thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process. Up to now, no WMD were found. We now know that the US needed an excuse not even a reason to proceed. The ultimate goal is now apparent: To establish a center of military and intelligence operations in the heart of Asia. That is the reason the US won't leave Iraq ever. The concerns about triggering a civil war if they leave are simply laughable. 

The interesting thing is that the discussion in the US has shifted from "why we got in" to "how we get out." We accept the invasion of Iraq as a historical fact that can't be reversed. Therefore, the discussion about the legality or illegality of this invasion in terms of international law is now considered irrelevant, pointless, and a waste of time. 

Bottom line? The US used its formidable militar power to gain militar and intelligence clout in a key region of the world. In order to reach its goal the US government lied to the entire world and to all US citizens and broke all international laws by striking preemptively against a sovereign country that didn't pose a imminent risk to its security. But because we can't change history, some argue that we should stop revisiting this issue and move on. 

Revisionism isn't about rewriting history or changing history. It's looking at the same historical facts from another perspective and giving it another meaning. It has to do with understanding that things are not the way they are by chance or destiny. It has to do with understanding that countries use their power to advance their agenda. Using an architectural metaphor, 49 floors need to be built in order to build your penthouse on the 50th floor. You might not want to remember how you accomplished the project (exploiting workers, bribing inspectors, etc. etc.) but that's another story.

History can be looked at from the North or the South, the West or the East. The powerful countries of this world would like to convince us that there's only way of reading and interpreting history: theirs. Luckily, they can't use their miitary might to shovel this idea down our throat. 

(¡Qué manera de perder el tiempo escribiendo esto para que en el mejor de los casos 1 sola persona lo lea! ¡Con todas las cosas que tengo que hacer!)


----------



## Cath.S.

> (¡Qué manera de perder el tiempo escribiendo esto para que en el mejor de los casos 1 sola persona lo lea! ¡Con todas las cosas que tengo que hacer!)


Well Vic I read what you wrote, found it interesting and relevant - and I am sure I won't be the only one. Even though we all have millions of other things to do also!


----------



## vic_us

egueule said:
			
		

> Well Vic I read what you wrote, found it interesting and relevant - and I am sure I won't be the only one. Even though we all have millions of other things to do also!



Ay egueule, ¡sos un ángel! (no se si sos una nena o un nene así que uso la palabra ángel porque dicen que los ángeles no tienen sexo)


----------



## beatrizg

vic_us said:
			
		

> (?Qué manera de perder el tiempo escribiendo esto para que en el mejor de los casos 1 sola persona lo lea! ?Con todas las cosas que tengo que hacer!)



Si sirve de algo, aqui en Grecia tambien estamos leyendo. 
Yo y otros de mi barrio.


----------



## vic_us

beatrizg said:
			
		

> Si sirve de algo, aqui en Grecia tambien estamos leyendo.
> Yo y otros de mi barrio.



Another angel to my rescue! But in this case I know that the angel is a girl and she's very pretty!


----------



## beatrizg

Y esperamos con impaciencia la continuacion del dialogo entre los pesos pesados del foro.


----------



## Cath.S.

This is offtopic (but cultural, so...)
Did you know that original "angels" were not represented as winged human beings, but as winged cattle? The word _kerub_ means "ox" in Hebrew, the Jews having probably borrowed Egyptian deities.


----------



## Neru

vic_us said:
			
		

> Ay egueule, ¡sos un ángel! (no se si sos una nena o un nene así que uso la palabra ángel porque dicen que los ángeles no tienen sexo)


Pues yo no soy ningún ángel, simplemente otra persona que ha leído tu mensaje y que está de acuerdo con mucho de lo que has escrito.
Saludos desde Inglaterra.


----------



## cuchuflete

How far back in time should we go?  Well, for a start, why not go back a few hours, to when you posted this:




> Going back to the macrosociological approach. I believe that the capitalist countries of the First World have no moral authority to explain economic failures or successes of countries in the Third World.



It was answered, and you have chosen to ignore the comments, which rebutted your initial premise.  Thus you jump from the macrosociological approach [que altisonante la frase!] replete with asseverations about moral authority, the rights of nations to pass judgement, ethics, and the slicing of cakes, to mere current events.  Why bother with the past when the present offers such a rich mine of tainted ore?

Yes, let's have a relevant discussion about ethics and morality.  Whose ethics?  Whose morality?  Who defines good and bad?  What's the yardstick?  International law sounds like a likely starting point...It was, after all, invented, and selectively (oh, so very selectively) enforced by the same powers you have so roundly condemned for their own absolute lack of moral standing.

So let's see if I have understood... The bad guys created a self-serving set of rules and institutions..which we should disparage and mistrust and see right through, because they are just mechanisms to preserve or increase power and wealth.  That sounds pretty plausible to me.  I can even offer lots of examples to help support this line of thinking.

But now, the bad guys are not acting in accord with the rules set by their own institutions!  So, having been declared immoral for creating the institutions, and the institutions having been deemed fradulent and phoney...nothing but instuments of oppression and capitalist greed,  we now take these self-same immoral institutions and use them and their edicts of right and wrong, legal and illegal, to batter the negligble morals of their own creators.  Hah!  circular reasoning at its most powerful. 

Leaving that puzzle in our wake, lets embark on the quest for truth again.
But before we totally leave this preamble to gather dust, pray tell, who are the good guys?  The ones with wealth and power are bad, so we have been instructed.  Does it logically follow that poor nations such as the Sudan, or those with low _per capita _incomes such as Indonesia, are paragons of virtue? Or are they just poor, and in more than one instance barbaric?
Wrong seems easy to define; we have our conscience and intuition to guide us...but what constitutes "right"?

An average student of history, even one bereft of the requisite skills to spell macrosociopunditry, could probably cite dozens upon dozens of examples of poor nations, whose best known attributes are corruption both in government and economic affairs, often times with a brutal military in the mix.   Have we got any "good" countries left, since the Dalai Lama fled Tibet before the onslaught of a poor, yet powerful force?

The description of GWB and the Iraqi events stands well as stated.
It would be interesting apply someone's moral and ethical yardsticks to the regime--note I didn't say sovereign nation, for that's a legalistic concept created by the bad guys for their own nefarious purposes--that ran that geography before it was commandeered by the Republican National Committe, or whoever is really in charge.
 Let's move along:


> We accept the invasion of Iraq as a historical fact that can't be reversed.


 True. It happened. The invasion happened. It is a historical fact...and no...not even the best revisionist historian can reverse it.  All they can do is apply spin.  Some spin in favor, and some spin against.  Nonetheless, it happened, and 'can't be reversed'.  We are in total accord on this point.



> Therefore, the discussion about the legality or illegality of this invasion in terms of international law is now considered irrelevant, pointless, and a waste of time.


  Oh really?  I beg to differ. I think a discussion about the legality or lack of same is more than a little useful.
I can't imagine why anyone would choose to declare it irrelevant, or pointless. But please, let's not try to apply the self-serving body of statutory articles created by the bad guys, of the bad guys, and for the bad guys.  An ethical condemnation will do quite nicely, thank you.
Governments of some very large, very rich, very powerful nations [they must be bad guys, right?] have condemned the invasion and occupation. So if even other bad guys don't care for the stench, it must be a pretty stinky matter.  

Lastly, for you, desocupado lector, must have far more important things to do, between piropazos, let us end on yet another point of solid agreement:


> understanding that countries use their power to advance their agenda.


  Given that countries [here one assumes that countries=regimes, governments, political and economic structures] are composed of individuals, and these do seem to have agendas, then it's rather natural to expect that they would use their respective powers in pursuit of such agendas.

Yes, it's been a pleasure for me as well.  Thanks.
C-




			
				vic_us said:
			
		

> So how far back in time can or should we go in order to have a relevant discussion about ethics and morality related to the actions of a country or a group of countries? 1 year, 10 years, 100 years?
> 
> Let's talk about something very fresh as is the case of the invasion of Iraq by the US. Bush decides to invade Iraq arguing that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction and that it was imminent they would use them against the US. He argued that this preemptive attack had to happen in order to ensure the safety of the US. Then he came up with the need to sow the seed of democracy and all the other bullshit. The US invaded Iraq, a sovereign country, and killed thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process. Up to now, no WMD were found. We now know that the US needed an excuse not even a reason to proceed. The ultimate goal is now apparent: To establish a center of military and intelligence operations in the heart of Asia. That is the reason the US won't leave Iraq ever. The concerns about triggering a civil war if they leave are simply laughable.
> 
> The interesting thing is that the discussion in the US has shifted from "why we got in" to "how we get out." We accept the invasion of Iraq as a historical fact that can't be reversed. Therefore, the discussion about the legality or illegality of this invasion in terms of international law is now considered irrelevant, pointless, and a waste of time.
> 
> Bottom line? The US used its formidable militar power to gain militar and intelligence clout in a key region of the world. In order to reach its goal the US government lied to the entire world and to all US citizens and broke all international laws by striking preemptively against a sovereign country that didn't pose a imminent risk to its security. But because we can't change history, some argue that we should stop revisiting this issue and move on.
> 
> Revisionism isn't about rewriting history or changing history. It's looking at the same historical facts from another perspective and giving it another meaning. It has to do with understanding that things are not the way they are by chance or destiny. It has to do with understanding that countries use their power to advance their agenda. Using an architectural metaphor, 49 floors need to be built in order to build your penthouse on the 50th floor. You might not want to remember how you accomplished the project (exploiting workers, bribing inspectors, etc. etc.) but that's another story.
> 
> History can be looked at from the North or the South, the West or the East. The powerful countries of this world would like to convince us that there's only way of reading and interpreting history: theirs. Luckily, they can't use their miitary might to shovel this idea down our throat.
> 
> (¡Qué manera de perder el tiempo escribiendo esto para que en el mejor de los casos 1 sola persona lo lea! ¡Con todas las cosas que tengo que hacer!)


----------



## vic_us

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Interesting. What country does have the 'moral authority to explain economic failures or success..."? Who might grant that authority? According to which set of moral principals?
> 
> We certainly agree that the capitalist countries of the so-called First World do not have it. The logic, however, begins and ends with itself. Tautologically speaking, the poorest of the so-called third world countries has no more, and no less authority.



Actually I was responding to a previous statement you had made but I didn't want to make it personal because I've heard the same argument many times. 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Now that the political theories are on the table...let's see where 'controlled' capitalism~socialism works best, at least in purely economic terms. In the countries with lots of natural resources, and some well developed industry. These are the same countries in which uncontrolled capitalism flourishes! Most poor countries remain poor, regardless of the ideology in force.



Actually I agree with your last statement. However, we might disagree in explaining why this happens. I don't think countries consciously choose to remain poor. I don't think either that their predicament can be explained by the fact that they might be lead by corrupt politicians. Countries don't exist in a vaccuum. There are part of a worldwide political and economic network. As I stated above, I believe that this network doesn't operate randomly. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't see many drastic changes in the standings of countries in terms of wealth. The ones at the top remain at the top and the ones at the bottom remain at the bottom. What I actually see is that the gap between poor and rich countries is getting bigger and bigger. 

It's like the myth of the "self-made man." Many people believe that anyone in the US (the model of success for most countries) can rise from rags to riches. But if you happen to live in a society where racism, sexism, ageism, etc. are well and alive and, most importantly, that their ongoing and unchecked operation over a long period of time has yielded an accumulative structural effect, your chances to succeed are severely compromised. (You might have noticed that most of the pictures that appear on the cover of books that deal with successful people are of white males) 

This is why I believe in the notion of Affirmative Action. Although this policy was poorly designed and implemented, it has one great value: It has allowed us to understand that 300 years of slavery in the US have created an uneven field in terms of opportunities. White America has built its wealth drawing upon institutionalized slavery. Too many generations of black people were enslaved and provided White-owned industries with free labor for hundreds of years. The US eventually implemented Affirmative Action policies in different environments (education, business,etc.). But now white people are calling foul play and want this _reverse discrimination_ to end! By the way, do people need to be reminded that Affirmative Action was enacted as recent as 1965! So apparently some folks believe that 40 years of attempts to level the field are more than enough, and that it's time to go back to business as usual. 

Well, I think that this example could be applied to the international arena. I'm not saying that Argentina, for instance, shouldn't be held accountable for bad management or political corruption. What I'm saying is that we need to zoom out and get the bigger picture. In the late seventies, many countries in Latin America became faithful followers of the neo-liberal movement. Through the eighties and nineties, countries like Argentina went to the extreme of adhering to the letter and not just to the spirit of the free market ideology. The consequences are apparent. Of course, the same economists who applauded what Cavallo and company were doing while things were going north (especially the money!) were the first ones to say that the problem wasn't the model in itself but its application when things started going south. How convenient, uh?

Just for the record, I think that nothing will change. I don't expect any voluntary redistribution of wealth by the richest countries in the world or even a slight change in the power structure that will level the field. Apparently some of us are so religious that we don't want to contradict the Lord when he said, "You will always have the poor among you."


----------



## cuchuflete

vic_us said:
			
		

> I don't think countries consciously choose to remain poor. I don't think either that their predicament can be explained by the fact that they might be lead by corrupt politicians.



We agree fully on that point, and on the rest of your paragraph. Where we may not fully agree, however, is on the importance of local politicians and economic powers in screwing up an economy.  Please note that I am not talking about corruption, but ineptitude.

A salient example is Argentina.  In the early part of the last century it had one of the highest GDPs _per capita  _in the world.  It was, in that time period, a First World country. That was true not only in economic terms, but in regard to literacy, and culture in general.  What followed has been tragic.

Two years ago, an Argentine friend wrote me a lengthy diatribe, blaming the collapse of the local economy on a plot by the CIA.  Now that the economy is rebounding somewhat, she chooses not to attribute the growth to the same sinister force.  Today, her attention is directed to the 'Brazilian threat'.   

Speaking of Brazil, it's one of the very few poor nations which has become a major international economic force.  Despite the horrible income distribution disparities it suffers, as a totality, it is headed towards First World status.  This may be one of the very few exceptions that helps prove your proposed 'rule' of the _status quo_ persisting. 



> Well, I think that this example could be applied to the international arena. I'm not saying that Argentina, for instance, shouldn't be held accountable for bad management or political corruption. What I'm saying is that we need to zoom out and get the bigger picture. In the late seventies, many countries in Latin America became faithful followers of the neo-liberal movement. Through the eighties and nineties, countries like Argentina went to the extreme of adhering to the letter and not just to the spirit of the free market ideology. The consequences are apparent. Of course, the same economists who applauded what Cavallo and company were doing while things were going north (especially the money!) were the first ones to say that the problem wasn't the model in itself but its application when things started going south. How convenient, uh?



I agree with the general thrust of your remarks, but you paint with a very broad brush.  The so-called 'neo' policies worked well for a long time in Chile.  They did so because they reduced inept governmental medling in the economy---most generals are not very good at economic management!
Domingo Cavallo and his monetary and fiscal policies rescued Argentina from a seemingly endless inflationary spiral.  That was good, but insufficient to correct all the rest of what was going on, both at the federal and provincial level.

I think you may want to check your data for capital flight during Cavallo's term...In fact, there were major capital inflows once inflation came under control.  As to how much of that capital belonged to local citizens, and which way their money went, we can only speculate.  But if international investors were putting money into Argentina, and local citizens were shipping theirs abroad, please don't blame any international conspiracy for the latter!

A final thought...at least some economic thinkers in the First World see tremendous benefit in helping third world countries to become, first, self-sufficient, and second, wealthy.  Why? Because, in typical intelligent humanly self-interested fashion, they see the growth of potential markets!
If the poor countries remain poor, or grow more so, how will they buy goods and services from the well-to-do nations?  Might there be just a touch of mutual self-interest available?

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## vic_us

Wasn't this thread about individualism? I think we completely lost our focus! I wanted to answer other things you said but this cut and paste is driving nuts so I'll only deal with your last message.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> We agree fully on that point, and on the rest of your paragraph. Where we may not fully agree, however, is on the importance of local politicians and economic powers in screwing up an economy. Please note that I am not talking about corruption, but ineptitude.



Yes, you need two to tango: the international financial corporations and the local finance officials, who curiously had, have or will eventually have intimate ties with the same international financial corporations. Public officials who develop and implement economic policy in our developing countries are either technocrats trained in Chicago or Harvard or belong to an aristocratic family. One of the most notorious and nefarious finance ministers Argentina had during the 70's was Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, a member of Buenos Aires' high society.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> A salient example is Argentina.  In the early part of the last century it had one of the highest GDPs _per capita  _in the world. It was, in that time period, a First World country. That was true not only in economic terms, but in regard to literacy, and culture in general. What followed has been tragic.
> 
> Two years ago, an Argentine friend wrote me a lengthy diatribe, blaming the collapse of the local economy on a plot by the CIA. Now that the economy is rebounding somewhat, she chooses not to attribute the growth to the same sinister force. Today, her attention is directed to the 'Brazilian threat'.



Do you know why Argentina's economy is rebounding? Because we defaulted on our loan!Three years ago Argentina defaulted to private lenders and underwent a drastic currency devaluation. Now we are on the verge of making a deal to swap $81.8 billion in outstanding debt for $41.8 billion in new debt. So next time you are about to complain about your credit card debt, think of us, ok?



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Speaking of Brazil, it's one of the very few poor nations which has become a major international economic force. Despite the horrible income distribution disparities it suffers, as a totality, it is headed towards First World status. This may be one of the very few exceptions that helps prove your proposed 'rule' of the _status quo_ persisting.



We also had a president whose name was Carlitos Menem who stated that Argentina already belonged to the First World. Next thing, we went bankrupt! The First World is like an exclusive country club. On the one hand, they tell you that if you do this and that you'll be become a full member. So people in our countries watch American TV series and movies, and dream about reaching that lifestyle. What the board of directors of the country club fail to tell you is that they are not accepting new membership applications! The dangling carrot trick stopped working, my dear! People in the developing world are just asking for one simple thing: "We are dying from hunger! Just let us eat out of your garbage cans!" 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I agree with the general thrust of your remarks, but you paint with a very broad brush. The so-called 'neo' policies worked well for a long time in Chile. They did so because they reduced inept governmental medling in the economy---most generals are not very good at economic management!
> Domingo Cavallo and his monetary and fiscal policies rescued Argentina from a seemingly endless inflationary spiral. That was good, but insufficient to correct all the rest of what was going on, both at the federal and provincial level.



Ah, voodoo economics! While things were going fine, the IMF and the World Bank had PowerPoint presentations on the so-called Argentine miracle. They would show them everywhere, and especially to other developing countries. "If Argentina could pull this miracle, you can too! Just follow our directions!" The exact same things you just said appear on the brand new PowerPoint presentations developed by the IMF and the World Bank. It seems that the old presentations have been lost. They allege that a virus destroyed the documents. ¡Pero qué lástima! ¿no?



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I think you may want to check your data for capital flight during Cavallo's term...In fact, there were major capital inflows once inflation came under control. As to how much of that capital belonged to local citizens, and which way their money went, we can only speculate. But if international investors were putting money into Argentina, and local citizens were shipping theirs abroad, please don't blame any international conspiracy for the latter!
> 
> A final thought...at least some economic thinkers in the First World see tremendous benefit in helping third world countries to become, first, self-sufficient, and second, wealthy. Why? Because, in typical intelligent humanly self-interested fashion, they see the growth of potential markets!
> If the poor countries remain poor, or grow more so, how will they buy goods and services from the well-to-do nations? Might there be just a touch of mutual self-interest available?



Capitals have no conscience or heart! They just want the largest return on their investment. Some countries are paying their debts at the expense of the well-being of their citizens. They are paying usurious interest rates. The future of several generations has been mortgaged. ¡Suerte puta que le dicen!


----------



## cuchuflete

vic_us said:
			
		

> Wasn't this thread about individualism? I think we completely lost our focus!


  It still is about individualism, in an indirect way.  We have detoured through morality, ethics, international conspiracies, and a few other canyons and caverns, but the underlying thread is that of human motivation and behaviour, at both the individual and collective level.



> Do you know why Argentina's economy is rebounding? Because we defaulted on our loan!Three years ago Argentina defaulted to private lenders and underwent a drastic currency devaluation. Now we are on the verge of making a deal to swap $81.8 billion in outstanding debt for $41.8 billion in new debt. So next time you are about to complain about your credit card debt, think of us, ok?


Yes, I read the economic press.  And I think a little bit about, among other things, a nation that borrows to such an extent that it cannot afford both debt service and food.  That tells me that there is a thirst for political power in the nation, more or less equal to the egotistism and lust for power among bankers who make the loans.  It's not a pretty picture of humanity in either the borrowing or lending nations.  And, most important, it doesn't work! Eventually there is a crash or default, and the people of the borrowing nation suffer, as do the taxpayers of the lender natioins, whose governments always seem to bail out the banks.

Ah, voodoo economics! While things were going fine, the IMF and the World Bank had PowerPoint presentations on the so-called Argentine miracle. They would show them everywhere, and especially to other developing countries. "If Argentina could pull this miracle, you can too! Just follow our directions!" The exact same things you just said appear on the brand new PowerPoint presentations developed by the IMF and the World Bank. It seems that the old presentations have been lost. They allege that a virus destroyed the documents. ¡Pero qué lástima! ¿no?

Your diatribe against the world bank and IMF and lost presentations make for good diversions.  Here's a fact.  Chile enjoyed substantial and sustained prosperity by going to free market economics.  The entire structure of the economy was changed, for the better, and the Chilean people continue to benefit from those changes.  The military stopped trying to control the economy...which they had screwed up totally.
Videla and his crew of thugs, in addition to their atrocities against the people, ruined the economy.  I worked in Argentina in 1976, and people were buying bricks and boards with every spare coin they had, because inflation was so high that they had no hope keeping money in any financial instrument.  Cavallo did stop that inflation.  You cannot re-write that part
of history, no matter how convenient it is to your arguments to ignore it, forget it, or distort it by shifting the focus to things that happened years later, under a different regime.

Sometimes it's useful to look really hard at the facts before formulating an ideological posture, rather than first adopting the ideology, and then selecting the facts that best support the rhetoric, and leaving the others aside, as if they did not exist.  There is more than one way to 'lose a presentation'.  



> Capitals have no conscience or heart! They just want the largest return on their investment.


Absolutely correct!  If you don't care for that rather obvious fact, please offer an alternative that does not require a totalitarian regime to implement it.  Would you care to move to Cuba?  



> Some countries are paying their debts at the expense of the well-being of their citizens.


 Again, you are absolutely correct.

This statement is neither instructive nor useful without the history of the borrowing.  It's a bellowed lament that tries to imply that the lenders are at fault.  

Who did the borrowing that causes the onerous debt service costs? Why did they do it?  Why not ask a few Argentine provincial governors?  Or, while you're at it, ask the past and present governors of California.  The patterns have much in common.




> They are paying usurious interest rates. The future of several generations has been mortgaged.



"usurious" is sure to raise the emotional level of the listener.  Were the contracted rates usurious at the time of the loan?  Who agreed to the terms? When you lend to someone with a lousy credit history, do you charge the same rate you require of your most reliable borrower?  If you do, you will be a bankrupt lender very quickly.  This isn't ideology or philosophy or ethics or morality or law.  It's arithmetic!

To rebut or dispute facts and logic with contrasting facts and logic is one thing.  To debate against emotional accusations and unsubstantiated claims is quite another.  

When things go badly in a nation, it's common for those in power to try to divert attention by starting a war they think they can win.  But then the facts come inconveniently into play, and the Almirante Belgrano goes down into the cold waters of the Atlantic.  So it is with arguments about economics.  One may appear to 'win' at first, by demonizing the enemy with shouts of 'usurious interest rates', 'mortgaging the future of a nation', 
and on and on and on.  Such yelling about injustice is always made from the moral high ground on which the aggrieved habitually make camp.

Reality doesn't take sides in political arguments.
It cares not what labels partisan speech applies.  And it doesn't go away.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## vic_us

I'm going to be away for a couple of days but I'm looking forward to respondind to several things you said. But I want to at least shortly reflect on one thing you said, a very important thing that would explain why you and I are going to continue arguing and counterarguing ad finitum...



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Reality doesn't take sides in political arguments.
> It cares not what labels partisan speech applies.  And it doesn't go away.saludos,
> Cuchu



Reality isn't discovered; it's constructed. This is one of the tenets of social constructivism. Reality doesn't take sides in political arguments. Why? Because it can't. It's our political arguments, that is our political "stories" or constructions of reality, the ones that take sides. However, it would be nice if an objective reality existed so I could end this conversation (please note that I'm not chatting, ¡Dios nos libre y guarde!) by shoveling it down your throat!  I know, I know... You'll keep trying!


----------



## cuchuflete

vic_us said:
			
		

> I'm going to be away for a couple of days but I'm looking forward to respondind to several things you said.  I know, I know... You'll keep trying!



Have a fine trip to wherever.  I too, am leaving for a few days.  I look forward to resuming the discussion when we both return.  It's fun.

I'll keep trying...for sure...I'll pester you until you finally address--directly for a change--any of the points I make.  I ask you to define your moral yardstick, and you reply by raising seventeen other issues.  I may need a team of basset hounds to find the original point of debate!!

Your skills as a debater are very good.  I say this seriously.  Here I am, armed with nothing but a few little facts, and you are rallying the crowds with rhetorical flourishes!

The amusing thing in this, Vic, is that we agree fundamentally on most of the points you make.

saludos,
Cuchu
Department of anti-neorevisionisthighfallutinbalderdash, S.A.R.L.


----------



## beatrizg

Para los fieles seguidores de este thread la discusion ha sido hasta el momento  fascinante. Estaremos esperando su regreso. 
Lamento que no haya una voz colombiana que pueda debatir sobre politica internacional/politica antidrogas. 
Buen viaje queridos Vic y Cuchu. 
Buen descanso.


----------



## cuchuflete

beatrizg said:
			
		

> Para los fieles seguidores de este thread la discusion ha sido hasta el momento fascinante. Estaremos esperando su regreso.
> Lamento que no haya una voz colombiana que pueda debatir sobre politica internacional/politica antidrogas.
> Buen viaje queridos Vic y Cuchu.
> Buen descanso.



Estimada Beatriz,
Eres Colombiana y tienes voz.
y sesos
abrazos,
Qxu


----------



## vic_us

Allow me to digress for a moment. I just came across this wonderful cartoon that perfectly illustrates the notion of _retrospective interpretation_. It has been defined as a form of reconstitution of individual character or identity. You sort of redefine a person's image within a particular social stereotype, category or group. I think that the layman explanation would be that in our daily conversations we assume that the other person doesn't have access to our unspoken thoughts. According to this theory, we convey those innermost thoughts through body language and nonverbal gestures. Why do I bring this up? (Do we always have to explain our motives?) There's no _retrospective interpretation _in this medium but somehow we can reach the same conclusions! I think we are a bunch of gifted peopel!

PS: If the attachment doesn't work, I won't give it another try.

GRACIAS BENJY! You don't need to unzip the document. Just scroll down a couple of posts and you'll find it.


----------



## vic_us

Hi, if anyone was able to open the attachment and knows how to cut and paste the cartoon without unzipping it, I would appreciate the help. I can't even open it to see if it worked!


----------



## Benjy

yeah i opened it.. if you just host the original file at www.fileshack.us, you can link it back to here. if you want i could just post with it for you.. up to you really


----------



## vic_us

I tried, I failed, I got frustrated, and I ended up feeling like one of the guys in the cartoon (yes, that one!)... Please do it for me!


----------



## Benjy

in all its glory


----------



## Lancel0t

vic_us said:
			
		

> (¡Qué manera de perder el tiempo escribiendo esto para que en el mejor de los casos 1 sola persona lo lea! ¡Con todas las cosas que tengo que hacer!)



- I read your post and I completely agree with it. Sad to say that those things don't only happen in a certain part of the globe rather than it is happening everywhere.


----------



## vic_us

Cuchu: I also enjoy debating with you. Actually, if you were a woman and a bit prettier (in that order), I would consider asking you out on a date.  But let's get serious and talk about one of your favorite Latin American countries: Chile. 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your diatribe against the world bank and IMF and lost presentations make for good diversions. Here's a fact. Chile enjoyed substantial and sustained prosperity by going to free market economics. The entire structure of the economy was changed, for the better, and the Chilean people continue to benefit from those changes. The military stopped trying to control the economy...which they had screwed up totally.



First, let's set the record right. It was a military government and not a democratically-elected one that in 1973 instituted free markets in Chile. There's an interesting article written in 1982 by someone who also adheres to free market economics and makes that point. 

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=1141

The introductory paragraphs of this article are telling because they describe the conundrum of achieving economic freedom at the expense of political freedom. You can find some cases of benign despots in the books of history. But this is not the case of _Pinocho_. During his 17-year military reign, he oversaw the killing of at least 3,000 Chileans. More than 30,000 Chileans have testified that they were tortured or detained by the military government. Ah, let's not forget either that the bloody military coup that brought him to power was backed and financed by the CIA. (It's interesting to note that 30 years later the US continues to use the same undemocratic methods to sow the seed of democracy with a slight difference: they ditched the secrecy) 

But who cares about this minutiae! As you and many other say, "Chile enjoyed substantial and sustained prosperity by going to free market economics. Aren't they better off now than with Allende? Don't they currently have a democratic government? Yes, we all know that people died, people were tortured, many disappeared. Well, what can I say? Shit happens in Chile and elsewhere! You can't change the past. So stop whinning you Marxist bastard and move on before something similar happens to you!" So, I'll move on to my second point. 

Second, we are all equal but some of us are more equal than others. How many Latin American countries besides Chile have a free trade agreement with the US? As The Beatles would say, much can be accomplished with a little help from your friends!

Third, Chile wasn't the only country that embraced free market economics. Does that mean that they were the only ones that had apt and incorrupt politicians? Does that explain Chile's apparent success? When it comes to capitalist recipes, First World countries love success stories but hate failure stories. I think we need to patiently compare the stories of all the countries that embraced this economic ideology during the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's and understand what went right and what went wrong, and why. To select one success story at the expense of the other disastrous stories, and to place squarely the blame on inept leadership is not enough. Let's look at all the variables. Just for the record, I would rather have the First World identify corruption as the cause of our predicament than ineptitude. There's no dignity in being a moron!

Fourth, and what I'm going to say might sound or actually be irrational. I'm also aware that I'll be stepping on people's toes. You, and many pundits, want us to look up to Chile as a model of success in implementing free market economics. In many discussions this request has come up. Well, some Argentines might have problems with this. During the Malvinas War, the Chilean government (and I didn't see our brothers and sisters who live on the other side of the Andes take to the streets to protest), betrayed us big time by siding with the Brits. Many young people died in this stupid war. Don't get me wrong: I blame our enlightened military leadership for this fiasco. ¡Son una manga de hijos de puta! But when something like this happens, you appreciate any support you get from others. We all remember when Lady Thatcher thanked her old friend _Pinocho _for being an ally during the  Malvinas War and for "bringing democracy to Chile." (sic) "I know how much we owed to you for your help," she said. "The information you gave us, communications, and also the refuge you gave to any of our armed forces who were able, if they were shipwrecked, to make their way to Chile." The wounds have started to heal but some are still open and infected. Sometimes I think I moved on but there's a low-key deep-seated feeling that won't go away. As I said before, this might be irrational. I also know that we shouldn't allow feelings to interfere with fine and objective reasoning, especially in this forum! But as you might have already noticed, I do it all the time! Second nature they call it...


----------



## Cath.S.

> . I also know that we shouldn't allow feelings to interfere with fine and objective reasoning, especially in this forum! But as you might have already noticed, I do it all the time! Second nature they call it...


    

P.s. Cuchuflete and Vic, you are having the most interesting conversation. What a shame none of this is really about individualism any more... or is it?


----------



## vic_us

egueule said:
			
		

> P.s. Cuchuflete and Vic, you are having the most interesting conversation. What a shame none of this is really about individualism any more... or is it?



This was Cuchu's answer to my very similar concerns: 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It still is about individualism, in an indirect way. We have detoured through morality, ethics, international conspiracies, and a few other canyons and caverns, but the underlying thread is that of human motivation and behaviour, at both the individual and collective level.



It sounds kinda of bogus but he's the boss (and my favourite moderator)! (I contributed to the closing of someone else's thread by posting a joke so if I were you I wouldn't take on the gods)


----------



## gaer

silviapI would like to have everyone's opinion about individualism in one's native country.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Interesting thoughts. To me (this is personal) what you're talking about boils down to being selfish. And I think this is at least partially related to wealth.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, I'm a teacher. The kids I teach (meaning roughly 7-17) are much lazier, more irresponsible and less respectful when their parents are wealthy. Those who come from families who are working very hard to achieve a higher "level" work harder and appreciate what I do much more. In my area, this means that my Hispanic kids (children of Hispanic parents) and my black students work harder, take things more seriously. It has nothing to do with race, everything to do with class. Where I live, these groups I mentioned are "hungry" to "move up". I think of them as belonging to the true "middle class", although that is my personal view and has nothing to do with how the middle class is defined.
> 
> Regardless, when you are young, you have your own computer, your own car, your own cell phone, your own everything, and you don't have to work for anything, it's not exactly something that will lead to worrying about other people. And young people like this are just little copies of their parents, who have the same values.
> 
> I find it very sad.
> 
> Gaer


----------



## Silvia

Gaer, I'm so grateful you brought this thread I started back on topic and on the right track 

I see your point of view and I agree with you, the degree of appreciation of life and small things is higher in families where you are still able to enjoy the small stuff, where the race for success, profit and alike is not on top and the value of small things is kept in great account. My point is: that's just a slice of the cake out of how many slices? What's the percentage of people who grow up with the success race on top?

Please correct my English, 'cause I feel I'm speaking Stranglish


----------



## leenico

> vic_us, let me point out that the original idea of socialism/communism didn't put the self first. And no matter how hard someone might try, they would never convince me that individualism can ever lead us to a better collective existence.


By this statement are you implying there are no winners & losers in a communist state? That everyone is equal? I don't think so. The winners are running the system. The losers are the vast majority that cannot capitalize on their talents. Just my opinion.


----------



## Silvia

Lee, if you think that making and piling up money is the best you can have from life, then you're probably right. You don't have many chances in a communist country. Communism as a theory of course, not what they tried to pass off to us as communism.

History taught us that people can spoil ideas and ideals, from Jesus to Marx or Einstein, before them and after them. No matter how good an idea is, someone will be able to spoil its original aim turning it to their own advantage/interest/profit. That's the reverse of the medal, speaking of individualism.



> By this statement are you implying there are no winners & losers in a communist state?


 What I mean is stated above. What I was implying is that the capitalistic society is way more decadent...


----------



## Nsonia

Hello, Silviap
Your question is badly relevant. Let me give you an economist’s opinion.
Individualism, in economics, means that individual will, needs and wishes do matter and the community (society?) does not have precedence (priority) over individuals (society has no right to dictate my consumption, the way I spend my money…). In my opinion, this has to be linked to the development of capitalism for which the lack of altruism in the economic behaviour needed to be ridded of guilt (déculpabilisé).
Individualism is a fairly safe assumption whenever simple economic decisions (consumption, production, trade) are to be studied and whenever individuals’ decisions are independent.
But when an individual’s decision has negative consequences on the others (air/water pollution) individualism has to be restricted. This is the state’s role: regulation. 

The problems you raised are actually common to all countries in the global world we live in. People tend to think if something seems good for them and technically feasible, it is a right for them to seek it. As if a Divinity is secretly allowing technical progress and is implicitly giving assent on its moral legitimacy. Technical feasibility is turning to morale. If it’s feasible, it’s moral. Think of genetics, of cloning, plastic surgery… People think of them as of natural endowments. Nature endowed us with oil, sun, fish; it must be good to benefit from them.
My opinion is that all this is the consequence of unregulated capitalist development. You may disagree with this aspect (or with capitalism altogether) but you cannot stop it. The point is to find the appropriate way to regulate it. In a global world, things develop (fortunately) faster and the need for regulation turns urgent. 

I apologize if my expression in english is not always accurateot too academic. please tell me if so. Corrections are always welcome. 
Nsonia


----------



## leenico

> Lee, if you think that making and piling up money is the best you can have from life, then you're probably right. You don't have many chances in a communist country.


 The money is not the criteria. The quality of life in a communist existance has far greater implications.




> What I mean is stated above. What I was implying is that the capitalistic society is way more decadent...


More decadent than Stalin's communistic state. A state where countless numbers of people where pulled from their homes & were jailed. tortured, & murdered. Yes I know, this is not your idea of what idealistic communism is supposed to be. A democratic society is supposed to be ideal also, yet it has it's own issues. The point is that It's not the type of government that is the real issue. It boils down to groups of indiduals taking advantage of situations. Corruption exists in every society. If I were to choose, communism would not be my choice.


----------



## Silvia

Utopically, I see communism ideals not as flattening out everything/everyone, rather respecting everything and everyone, as in everyone has a place and a role in society, unlike in a capitalistic society where nobody is essential and ethics are not kept in great esteem, just the profit is worth.


----------



## leenico

> Utopically, I see communism ideals not as flattening out everything/everyone, rather respecting everything and everyone, as in everyone has a place and a role in society


How would this work. Say for instance you had a job title which was equivalant to some others, but they were not as knowledgeable as you. They were lazy, did not function as well. Yet, because they were in the same category, they commanded the same pay. Would it provoke a jealousy on your part? Maybe change your attitude? Perhaps cause you to slack off in your duties?




> unlike in a capitalistic society where nobody is essential and ethics are not kept in great esteem, just the profit is worth.


In a capitalistic society each individual is forced to make himself essential. He could not survive otherwise. Ethics is an individual thing. That is what this whole thread is about. Lack of ethics will exist in every society. It has always been that way. It is a human condition. I don't know if it can ever change.


----------



## Silvia

leenico said:
			
		

> Say for instance you had a job title which was equivalant to some others, but they were not as knowledgeable as you. They were lazy, did not function as well. Yet, because they were in the same category, they commanded the same pay. Would it provoke a jealousy on your part? Maybe change your attitude? Perhaps cause you to slack off in your duties?


 I care so much about money that almost everyone does better than me 

Therefore, I would say: "No, no jealousy, I smile and am content as I am. My position is not childish. 

Anyway, they can't be lazy if they have to work with me


----------



## Alfry

silviap said:
			
		

> In short, if something is good for someone but can harm someone else, where do someone's rights begin and where do they end?


 
I think that it is a matter of points of view

When people live together, forming a community, they must create rules.
The reason for those rules is "different point of view". 

Rules (laws) should say where someone's right ends.

Problems are:
- Rules are created by men, and men can fail
- Rules cannot regulate all human possibilities
- Rules must make the best of circumstances and 
must adapt themselves to men
- Human beings have instincts (we are animals like all other animals) and history has taught us that man always wanted to overwhelm people like himself and there is no reason to think that that habit will come to an end.
- money makes things worse since money means power and people are a attracted by it.


----------



## Cath.S.

> Yet, because they were in the same category, they commanded the same pay


So what? Why should you care if someone who's lazy gets as much as yourself? In a goo society, you don't do your job well in order to get richer than your neighbour, but because you actually enjoy what you are doing... Note that I didn't say in an_ ideal _ society, just in a _good_ one.
In my opinion, people have the right to be lazy if it is what suits them, it doesn't matter because the case will never happen where everybody gets lazy at the same time and we all starve. (It's like when someone tells you: "oh, you picked a flower but you shouldn't do that, imagine what would happen if everybody did the same?" It's false logic, because the time when everybody want to do the exact same thing never happens.)


----------



## Douglas

leenico said:
			
		

> How would this work. Say for instance you had a job title which was equivalant to some others, but they were not as knowledgeable as you. They were lazy, did not function as well. Yet, because they were in the same category, they commanded the same pay. Would it provoke a jealousy on your part? Maybe change your attitude? Perhaps cause you to slack off in your duties?
> 
> 
> In a capitalistic society each individual is forced to make himself essential. He could not survive otherwise. Ethics is an individual thing. That is what this whole thread is about. Lack of ethics will exist in every society. It has always been that way. It is a human condition. I don't know if it can ever change.


 
I guess I might as well get my two cents worth in. I think the whole matter is whether the state is a welfare one or not. I think individualism is more about production, and socialism or whatever one wishes to call it, is more about distribution. Probably, as long as either is applied correctly, both would work. Yet, I am of the belief that in order to distribute first one must produce. Whatever system is chosen, the bottom line is: Do what the preacher says and not what he does. And, as long as the preacher doesn't practice what he teaches then all this talk is for nothing. Conversely, its not the breed, its the dog.


----------



## gaer

silviap said:
			
		

> I care so much about money that almost everyone does better than me
> 
> Therefore, I would say: "No, no jealousy, I smile and am content as I am. My position is not childish.
> 
> Anyway, they can't be lazy if they have to work with me


Hmm. Somehow this thread went in a direction I did not foresee. I was unable to connect to the Internet last night.

It seems to me that it is possible to be incredibly selfish in any society, any system. The problems with systems, governments, etc. come from things I personally see as universal human weaknesses. That's not really addressing any points I just read here, just something off the top of my head. If this is still going on when I get some sleep, I'll be back. 

Gaer


----------



## leenico

> So what? Why should you care if someone who's lazy gets as much as yourself? In a goo society, you don't do your job well in order to get richer than your neighbour, but because you actually enjoy what you are doing... Note that I didn't say in an ideal society, just in a good one.


I don't know about you, but I certainly would be upset if I were doing most of the work & someone else was living off of my efforts.


----------



## Benjy

leenico said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I certainly would be upset if I were doing most of the work & someone else was living off of my efforts.



i guess you must be pretty upset then. unless you're at the head of your own company you've been making money for someone else your whole life.


----------



## leenico

> i guess you must be pretty upset then. unless you're at the head of you're own company you've been making money for someone else your whole life.


You're right Benjy. That is why I prefer to live in a capitalistic type of country. I can profit from my efforts. The lazy ones eventually lose their jobs, unless of course they are kissing up to someone.


----------



## gaer

leenico said:
			
		

> You're right Benjy. That is why I prefer to live in a capitalistic type of country. I can profit from my efforts. The lazy ones eventually lose their jobs, unless of course they are kissing up to someone.


Which doesn't mean you will be paid what you are worth though. I understood Benji's point to be that unless you own a company, you MAY be paid according to your worth, but there is no guarantee of that. And often those who are not _too_ lazy keep their jobs because they have never been paid a great deal, so they are "cost effective" to keep employing, while people who are oustanding and have earned higher pay are often cut, sacked. Choose your word. 

Gaer


----------



## leenico

> Which doesn't mean you will be paid what you are worth though. I understood Benji's point to be that unless you own a company, you MAY be paid according to your worth, but there is no guarantee of that.


Perhaps not, but if you know your worth you can @ least negotiate for it. In a communistic society you do not have that option.



> And often those who are not too lazy keep their jobs because they have never been paid a great deal, so they are "cost effective" to keep employing, while people who are oustanding and have earned higher pay are often cut, sacked. Choose your word.


There are no guarantees in life. If you are willing to work for less you should have no problem staying employed. If you are an outstanding worker & your employer refuses to recognize this fact, I would say that it is time to move on. In a good economy this should not be a problem. My point is that you can do this only in a capitalistic society.


----------



## Silvia

I have several points to discuss about now.

First of all, I don't think that the pay you get is proportional to your "value" or skill/capacities. In fact, in my own experience, the people on top are mainly "losers". Why? Most of them reached their positions because their are the son or daughter of someone else, because they know this or that important person, because they were able to walk on someone else in order to get that position, and I could go on with this list. And don't say these things don't happen in America, 'cause they surely do happen, everywhere. So, more often than you think, you're not the boss because you deserve it, you are because of other mean reasons. When you're ready for everything, even to put your ethics aside, then you're ready for a real capitalistic society. 

Nsonia, I don't know how, but I skipped your post, so I've just read it. I agree with what you said. I believe that as long as people don't have a social awareness/conscience, nothing will change. I have the feeling that just a small minority of people have this kind of conscience and consciousness and who don't go with the flow, like the others do. The lack of ethics, morals and respect in a broad sense (respect of the nature etc.) make individualistic people stronger, while the minority gets weaker and weaker. You brought up the subject of genetics. We'll have a referendum this spring about fecondation, which is still a big issue where I live. Some are pro, because a woman has a right to become a mother, no matter what; others are cons because who are you to have a right on anything and everything? Is there a reason after all if nature didn't give you a chance to procreate?
As you can see it all comes back to individualism. If I am the most important thing, I can decide and do whatever I want. It surely is a pretty omnipotent point of view. This could also be connected to some increasing agnostic or atheist point of view. With this I'm not saying that agnostic or atheist people do not have any ethics. 

It's quite complicated, isn't it? Anyhow, as long as people put their own self first, things will get worse and worse. That's how I see it.


----------



## Rob625

I am a committed individualist. I believe that I am the person best placed to look after my own interests. In fact, if anyone else claims to act in my interest, my suspicion is immediately aroused.

But I believe in something called enlightened self-interest. I live in a society, as we all do, and society is not just an afterthought or something that I have to consider after I have looked after myself. It is an essential part of my being. So it is part of my self-interest to seek and work for a society in which everyone has the best life possible. I need food and a roof over my head. I know that others need these things too. But they may well choose to eat different things from me. And although sometimes I like to share my home with other people, there are other times when I want to shut my door and be on my own, and, yes, do whatever I want. I want other people to have these freedoms too, among others. If they want to be individualists, that's fine. If they want to act collectively, that's fine too; just as long as they do not oppress me. The limits to the liberty of the individual should be defined by the point at which they harm the interests of others.


----------



## vic_us

Rob625 said:
			
		

> I am a committed individualist. I believe that I am the person best placed to look after my own interests. In fact, if anyone else claims to act in my interest, my suspicion is immediately aroused.
> 
> But I believe in something called enlightened self-interest. I live in a society, as we all do, and society is not just an afterthought or something that I have to consider after I have looked after myself. It is an essential part of my being. So it is part of my self-interest to seek and work for a society in which everyone has the best life possible. I need food and a roof over my head. I know that others need these things too. But they may well choose to eat different things from me. And although sometimes I like to share my home with other people, there are other times when I want to shut my door and be on my own, and, yes, do whatever I want. I want other people to have these freedoms too, among others. If they want to be individualists, that's fine. If they want to act collectively, that's fine too; just as long as they do not oppress me. The limits to the liberty of the individual should be defined by the point at which they harm the interests of others.



Have you ever analyzed your stand in the light of Dewey's work, looking for similarities and differences? I think you'll find the exercise useful and productive. Just a thought!


----------



## vic_us

I was also thinking about what Toynbee called the _Promethean elan_, that is the human drive to assert ourselves. We, human beings, have been involved for a million or more years in a perennial struggle to achieve autonomy: to rise above primitive dependence on the herd. Bet when we get too far from it, we become anxious and quickly return to find collective security, shelter, and identity. 

Nietzsche was so on the money when he said: "Man (sic) is a rope connecting animal and superman."


----------



## Silvia

Rob, thanks for being honest. I will try and figure out what happens when individualistic people are left alone, 'cause everyone else next to them are individualistic as well, and these individualistic people don't have any money anymore.


----------



## Cath.S.

I must say my point of view is pretty much the same as Rob's, especially when he says:


> So it is part of my self-interest to seek and work for a society in which everyone has the best life possible


That's what I meant when I was saying that individualism and selfishness were very different, or at least, that they did not have to be the same. 
I don't think groups are healthy, generally speaking, groups tend to be about power and very little else. I don't like the idea of people (especially people I've never met) telling me that they know what is good for me better than myself: only little children need to be told what to do, because they have no life experience.


----------



## Rob625

silviap said:
			
		

> Rob, thanks for being honest. I will try and figure out what happens when individualistic people are left alone, 'cause everyone else next to them are individualistic as well, and these individualistic people don't have any money anymore.


But I am not left alone all the time, nor would I want to be.

Why don't individualists have any money?

Stylistic point: "'cause" is only for representing speech, and rather uncouth speech at that. In good informal writing, it is best to avoid the use of most contractions except for ones like "don't", "it's", "she'll". You can even write "it is", rather than "it's", as I did in the last sentence, without seeming stiff.


----------



## Silvia

I know, Rob, thanks for pointing that out. I thought I was having an informal conversation 

I meant when they have no money left, you know, sometimes it happens, it's what should be called turning tables...


----------



## Rob625

> I meant when they have no money left, you know, sometimes it happens, it's what should be called turning tables...



I still don't understand. Individualists like me also need help and give help to others. It isn't all dependent on money.


----------



## Словеса

Hello,


Silvia said:


> In our present Western society, individualism comes first. The needs of someone as a person come first.


Is it really so individualistic? That's the question. I mean, individualism is not only about the needs. It is also about persons, personalities, one's own lines of thought. Jesus Christ taught us such individualism; he taught us to think for ourselves and find bases for decisions in such thinking, not in what other people suggest us. When advertisements that work basically in the line "everybody likes it so you must like it as well" have an effect on people, is it really individualism?

I would also question the equation "communism = collectivism". The way I see it:
0. Communism, capitalism, and socialism are economic ideologies. The meaning is that they define who is regulating economy, and it's all only about economy, not about politics that are beyond economy.
1. In communism, the worker is the one makes economic decisions. He decides, talking on the issues with other people at his option, what to do, when to do, and how to do, using and building on the common goods that are available. However, with productivity that modern technology permits such system would not work, because most people are too lazy for it. Plus, in an effective society, production facilities are neither numerous (so that many groups of people can be granted access to them), nor easy to manage (so that they may arranged as a service plants for many groups of people). So, regulating bodies emerge who restrict the worker's economic freedom:
2. In socialism, the body that does the restricting is (ideally) the society, that uses governing institutions (the state) to fulfill the task. The institutions, in the ideal case, are controlled by the watchful society. The social institutions oblige people to work, denying them from resources otherwise, so that is supposed as a cure from laziness.
3. In capitalism, the body that does the restricting are capitalists, i.e. property owners. They make decisions what workers should do with facilities that they control; so they govern not only facilities, but workers as well. In that they are not very different from state officials, just they are appointed in differing ways and experience crashes in differing ways too.
Of course, it's very fused: one cannot have pure communism (because there are always conflicts of interests over production facilities, so there should be strict ways to resolve those conflicts), one cannot have pure capitalism (the state always owns some share of resources). Both systems lean to socialism more or less; socialism itself can be pure perhaps (when appointment people to controlling production facilities is done only through social institutions led by social criteria and not through some kind of mindless economic mechanism that is run without interference of people appointed by the society), but it tends to be rotten because the society is uncaring and the officials cannot be ideal people. Of them all, communism is the most individualistic and the least possible system, I think; most individualistic, because workers decide their life and work on their own.

Also a random thought: I think that money should not be attached magical significance in the context of the topic "individualism vs. collectivism". The society has a number of resources. A sum of money is just a symbol of your right for a share in these resources. "Right" is an abstract concept without an immediate meaning; so the concept of "money" is also rather abstract, thus complicating the thinking on its topic. Yet, since there is no abundance of resources and resources are made against people's wish, there is a need for making such abstract institutes of right... The question, then, is which shape should we give to these insitutes, but they are needed, it's a fact that does not have anything to do with individualism.

All of the above may be thought to be a play of words, but I think that it reflects something about some ways of speaking and feeling on those matters...


----------



## lettore

Hello all,



leenico said:


> I don't know about you, but I certainly would be upset if I were doing most of the work & someone else was living off of my efforts.


And then you say you are an individualist? 
Sorry. You're wrong. A real individualist is someone who, in his purpose-setting, does not care for purposes of others.
Why should you care what others do, if you yourself have a job and receive salary (= formal access to the job made by others)? If you think you overwork for your salary, find another job.
(I am hypothesing, of course).

Someone mentioned "enlightened individualism". As I extend this idea, for example I should take a guard if I see than someone exploits the system, because such action, even if it does not harm me directly, harms me if many people act that way. But hey, collectivism _is_ essentially enlightened individualism. The basic idea of collectivism is that people _must_ consider not only direct harms of their soul and of their wealth, but also make rational judgement about indirect harms to them, and interpret them as harms to the society, and thus protect the society. That is not an idea that I, personally, subscribe to, as I do not propose any other moral ground for taking decisions than a quest for personal happiness. Yet that is what "individualists" usually advertise: what they advertise _in reality_ is collectivism. Collectivism knows many forms.

Greetings!


----------



## lettore

Hello again!


Benjy said:


> i think the french summed it up pretty well....
> 
> ma liberté s'arrete où commence celle des autres


Sorry, this is not a summation. This is a slogan, not a policy.
What does 'freedom' mean? That is a fundamental question.
One that does not have one answer and only.


Silvia said:


> I would like to have everyone's opinion about individualism in one's native country.


I don't know opinions of everyone, but e. g. Leo Tolstoi in his "War and Peace" appears to agree with the view of "personal happiness first". In this romance, Prince Andrew defines happiness as "good health and clear conscience"; I think that this is a brief and not very correct exposition, but I think it has an important grain of truth to it, and I have the impression that in the same work Leo Tolstoi (through his portrayal of Pierre Besouhoff's fate) essentially agrees with with this treatment of that position. All that is a matter that requires thought, so most people, I think, simply don't have opinions.


----------

