Why The 99% Could Never Fully Unite

reply to post by Panic2k11
We disagree and that is why we will never be able to fully unite. Collectivists want too much control over Individualists.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


I have the feeling that you are missing one point that I made early:

Collectivists can not compete with Individualism (if we are applying the concepts to politico-economic systems).

Individualistic systems operate in a pyramidal structure where the final beneficiary is on top and no strata has any consideration in regard to the strata below beyond their continued optimal performance in that pyramidal structure.

A collectivists structure requires at least an increased number of people on top and does not rely only on pyramidal structures, decision process are slower and individual happiness takes a more relevant role beyond the optimization of function. In fact the pyramidal structure indicates a break in the collective, with stratification the strata bellow like in the previous system is taken in less regard, and it primarily only occurs when the a collectivist system is put under stress.

reply to post by Panic2k11

You are misinformed. A culture of individualism does not necessarily form your pyramid. When you are a truly free agent, you can either build your own pyramid, work your way up the pyramid by using your abilities to their maximum capacity, or you can just eschew the pyramid altogether. Even in our current highly collectivist society, there is the ability to walk away from the corporate grind and go your own way. Collectivists hate that and work endlessly to end what few freedoms we have left.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


No I'm not. You are defending that a strictly collectivists society can exist without individualism, that is a false dichotomy. In the same way that you can not have a strictly individualistic society (it wouldn't be called a society).

Humans are individuals, with distinct minds and characteristics, history has proven that even in the most individualistic suppressive societies those characteristics continue to be important, even if those that oppose some of the underlying ideology will be sanctioned, they would manage to adapt. I guess that we could design humans away from that but we aren't there yet and ultimately those wouldn't be humans anymore.

Based on our history we could say that all suppressive societies are not viable societies. From the top of my head I can't remember one that lasted more than 2 generations without some radical changes to compromise, be it by internal or external pressure.

An individual may be megalomaniac, psychotic, anti social , etc a collective can't there may exist a moment of formation of group think or clicks but that can be seen as individual collectives (existing inside a greater collective, individualism in group form) but that is how changes occur and decisions made. If we look at nature the best efficient model is collaboration, not predation or conflict.

Now anarchism in its pure form is individualism to the ultimate degree but it can't be defined as a social order, since there is no order. Even then there will be structures that by force of nature will be collectives, like a families.

Anarchism can not work at all in an environment of scarce resources or high stress, even more lenient implementations would be hard pressed to engage complex tasks or projects.