My politics are quite simple, I'm an anarch, a communist, and an anarcho-communist. The last is like Noam Chomsky claims to be but isn't. The first is what Bob Black explained he is - anarchists who don't buy into any ideology but seek to be independent powers sustaining their own freedoms. And the communist is obvious since I scored a perfect -10.0 on the communist end of the scale of the Political Compass.
I don't buy into individualism, rugged or otherwise. It's stupid, it's a notion for stupid people. It's an ANTI-CIVILIZATION notion. Fuck, it's an ANTI-HUMAN notion. What makes humanity great, what makes it advance, is collectivism and solidarity and pay-it-forward mentality. Fuck, even the socialist mutualism and pay-it-back is way too narrow-minded, reactionary and right-wing to account for human progress.
GERMANY
A few months ago, there was a great debate on the status of welfare in Germany, with many Germans claiming modern people on welfare violated the initial mutualist assumptions behind the inception of the scheme. Of course, that is utterly fucking stupid since the modern world has changed. But it is even more stupid because mutualism is fairly backwards and reactionary. Mutualism isn't good enough, isn't nearly progressive enough.
The per-individual accounting involved in mutualism is simply too onerous and bureaucratic. It might make sense for a society where everyone is capable of the same level of effort and ability. Say, farmers raising barns. And with a level of technology where everyone MUST make the effort for none to die. BUT, we are far beyond that primitive level of technology. We are in an age of invention and technological progress. An age of knowledge, where a single bright person can create something of value for billions of people, and most of the population doesn't have the cognitive capacity to contribute that way at all.
The assumptions on which mutualism is built on don't fit the modern age, and trying to force-fit them on modern society is stupid. It results only in vast inefficiency and bureaucratic overhead. This isn't the only argument I have against welfare, it's just the one I have against German socialists. It's amazing that their "progressives" are so fucking stupid and backwards and obsolete. It's amazing that their collectivists are so fucking ... individualist.
THE GREATEST INVENTION
The greatest and FIRST of all human achievements is spoken language. It is the first human achievement because homo sapien animals lacking language are simply not human. The second greatest was human consciousness which is built out of human language.
You might want to consider these achievements. Especially consider if there's any "individual" that is their inventor. And whether anyone is "paid back" for propagating this invention. Whether individualism makes any fucking sense in light of these things.
You might also want to look up Network Effect and consider its collectivist nature. And then consider that all of human knowledge, all of human technology, and all of human progress, benefits from the network effect.
Humanity created itself out of animals, and it is constantly sustaining and recreating itself. Collectively. This isn't mysticism, it's a bare and literal statement of facts.
POLITICS AND PHILOSOPHY
The ultimate reason I'm a collectivist is simple - I just am.
Collectivism doesn't mean denying individual rights. On the contrary, human rights were a communist invention. Human rights are a product of moral theory, an awe-inspiring theoretical edifice of pure logic.
And what is the foundation of moral theory? Well, its first and deepest axiom is simple: the well-being of the group matters.
It's not even an axiom really, it's the definition of morality. Morality is "the rules that promote the well-being of the group" so saying the well-being of the group matters is saying exactly "morality matters".
Well, I am a moral person. Morality is one of my core values. The well-being of the group matters to me!!
I am a collectivist because it's hardwired in me to care for the group. Saying I am a collectivist is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to saying I am a moral person.
And I am a collectivist because absolutely nothing in politics, philosophy, industry, science or technology, NOTHING contradicts this. Or even remotely conflicts with it.
There is not the slightest tension between any human endeavour and collectivism. Rather, there is a great harmony.
The only tension that has existed historically is with psychology since people chose to drag psychologically superior people down to the lowest common denominator of behavioural conformism (fascism) rather than elevating everyone to become psychologically multi-leveled and more completely conscious.
And even that tension is resolving itself as tools to psychologically multilevel are being developed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Hey there,
This is an interesting post you have here. However I think you've gone a little it overboard when attacking individualism. It seems like you read a wikipage about it and came to a quick conclusion. There are many people who associate individualism with selfishness and a disregard for others. However if you actually studied individualism and libertarianism you would find out that this isn't true. Too many people read a definition or explanation of individualism, collectivism,or socialism. Instead of doing that, I would recommend researching the works of people who ACTUALLY studied and investigated these topics. In fact, read some Ralph W. Emerson, and some Henry David Thoreau.
And what is the foundation of moral theory? Well, its first and deepest axiom is simple: the well-being of the group matters.
It's not even an axiom really, it's the definition of morality. Morality is "the rules that promote the well-being of the group" so saying the well-being of the group matters is saying exactly "morality matters".
LOL did you just make this up?
The above is the perfect example of how to make conclusions without any real evidence or arguement. "Morality is the rules that promote the well-being of the group"
That might be a part of morality, but that is not what morality is.
The well being of the GROUP is the definition of morality? Well, where does that leave the individual with any human rights? If it serves the best interests of the group (collective), is it OK to kill an individual? Perhaps that individual is deemed to be too much trouble, is old, or sick? Under your definition of morality, it is morally acceptable, even a moral IMPERATIVE--to kill that individual. God's law says:"Thou shalt not kill." In other words, each individual life is respected equally. God didn't say "Do whatever it takes to benefit the human race as a whole."
Let me save you some trouble and predict your response:
Fuck you and your non-existent God!!
Well, that's fine. One doesn't even have to believe in God to see the fallacy that collectivism is a moral system.
Post a Comment