Skip to main content

Anyone notice that "individualism" is an ideal highly clamored over by White thinkers, intellectuals and ordinary, everyday people? (I'm not trying to be racist, I just notice that many White Americans clamor over it much more so than many non-White Americans who don't get caught up in "individualism vs. collectivism" mindsets) But it's a totally different story in reality, the American myth that this country was built by "rugged individualism" is patently false.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-west.htm

quote:
Most Americans have accepted the myth that early Americans were rugged individualists, pioneers who blazed trails into the Western hills and overcame adversity on the strength of their own self-reliance.

'Tain't necessarily so.

Entire books could be written about how white Americans got rich off the labor of their slaves, all the while waxing rhapsodic over the virtues of self-reliance. Volumes could be written about the early American women who created extensive social networks and church groups to help each other's families, all the while their men were entertaining the conceit of rugged individualism.

From the start, the West was not conquered by rifle-toting pioneers, but by the U.S. Army. (Hardly a government "success," to be sure, but the point here is that the stereotype of the lone pioneer conquering the West is a myth.) The government made massive land purchases, without which the conquest of these territories would have been even bloodier. It spent $15 million on the Louisiana Purchase, $25 million on the Texas/California purchase, and $7 million for the Alaska Purchase.


quote:
The West has a rich tradition of dependency on government. As historian Stephanie Coontz says: "It would be hard to find a Western family today or at any time in the past whose land rights, transportation options, economic existence, and even access to water were not dependent on federal funds." Paradoxically, however, the West has also enjoyed a long tradition of anti-government sentiments. When John Wayne punched out "Mr. Government Bureaucrat" in a Hollywood Western, he was acting out the misplaced rage of many Western Americans.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
It spent $15 million on the Louisiana Purchase, ..., and $7 million for the Alaska Purchase.


Purchased from whom? The French and Russian speaking people that lived there?

European culture is designed to produce people who can't think outside the approved boxes but believe they are exercising their FREE WILLS by staying inside the box.

Here is an example of one jumping on me for talking outside the box:

quote:
(umbrarchist),

Anon is correct about depreciation and about your desperate need for formal education. Depreciation is well known to economists, especially as it is applied to transports. You may be referring to planned obsolesence but that to is Economics 101. You are extremely confused, about many things.

I have read many of your comments and you demonstrate a consistent lack of disciplined knowledge, training or experience. You try to give people the impression that you are intellectual or well read but to all of us with academic degrees you are blatantly uneducated and sadly ignorant. You may be a nice guy in real life but you are still a virtual fraud perpetrating a ego-driven hoax.

Your remarks about depreciation are completely off the mark and show you have no formal education in economics, or you have not been aboe to comprehend what you might have read or heard about it. Your remarks about Linux and Africa shows you are completely dumbfounded by the compexity of the interdisciplinary subject of technology transfer, macroeconomics, and international business. You simply do not know what you are talking about. You are painfully lame.

If you spent half as much of your time in this forum as you do daily trying to bullshit people as you would by studying and training at a formal institution you could attain a level of competence that would add crediblity to your remarks.

You expose yourself as a pathetic and weak person who uses the Internet and this forum as an escape from your reality that is no doubt a life long struggle with personal failures.

By no means am I suggesting to you to cease your compulsive inane commenting. What you do with your time and your computer is your business. I just want you to know that there are people who read you who know how bankrupt you are of ideas and how little you "really" know about anything.

Think before you write and be careful what you say. The people who massage your ego in the forum are people with lives as deferred and as failed as your own. There is nothing to take comfort in by impressing the impressionable. You certainly do not impress me or others who exist substantially above the minimum wage marker.

However, if your goal is to be a carnival barker selling snake oils over the Internet, or to be another forum sideshow freak, or if your goal is to graduate from clown school with an Associate Degree in Classic Buffoonery, then by all means carry on the way you have been.


lol - lol - lol - lol - lol - lol

He could just claim to be right but doesn't explain what happened to the depreciation. I'm supposed to be intimidated by the attack on my ego.

umbrarchist
No man is an island and almost no one has "pulled themself up by their own bootstraps". Everyone on this earth has received help at some point and has helped another person in some direct or indirect way. A person is the sum of their life experience and interactions with others, that's what makes our distinctive personalities. No one forms in a vacuum and congeals in a cave somewhere devoid of any personal contact or external influence.

If rugged individualism were true, no one would risk their life to save anyone, no one would ever get married, no one would ever fall in love, and no one would have a personality (you have to be influenced by life and other humans to develop a personality). But the reverse, extreme collectivism, is not true either. If it was, no one would ever steal, no one would ever kill, no one would ever sabotage or sell out other people and everyone would have the same personality.

Man is both a solitary and a social being at once. Anyone trying to push that man is solely one or the other is pushing a lie. "Rugged invidualism" is a convenient lie that the privileged elite tell to workers to convince them that their bosses are fair and earned all their privileges to keep the masses from revolting. It's also made to conveniently make people see themselves as lone gunslingers in the Wild West; it's made to pit people against one another and crush any attempt at solidarity from below by convincing everyone, "There is no such thing as a society" (as Margaret Thatcher once said).


But all that aside, when it comes to practical action, do you think people in the Black community tend to be more individual-minded or community-minded?
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
No man is an island and almost no one has "pulled themself up by their own bootstraps".

I agree. Although I would alter that no one at all has ever "pulled themselves up from their bootstraps". It's simply not possible for any one man to accomplish anything without the aid of his environment, and that environment includes other people.

quote:
If rugged individualism were true, no one would risk their life to save anyone, no one would ever get married, no one would ever fall in love, and no one would have a personality (you have to be influenced by life and other humans to develop a personality). But the reverse, extreme collectivism, is not true either. If it was, no one would ever steal, no one would ever kill, no one would ever sabotage or sell out other people and everyone would have the same personality.

I take it one step further...

If rugged individualism were true... why would there be any other people at all?

quote:
But all that aside, when it comes to practical action, do you think people in the Black community tend to be more individual-minded or community-minded?

My gut tells me that we are more community-minded. We are much closer to our tribal roots than White people, who have been removed from that for over two thousand years. But, you asked about practical application, and in that I'm not so sure. We don't live in a system where community mindedness is rewarded. There are natural rewards that are very difficult to prevent, but the system we live in is not supportive of, and can be down right hostile, toward it. In a great many cases, community focus may not seem "practical".

I think the desire to be a part of something greater than ourselves is a part of all people. But, the ones most in need are the ones who have the least of it... and I don't think that's us.
EP, this is not just a MYTH. It's a SCARED MYTH - a Necessary Illusion.

This stuff goes way back and is so much a part of the socialization, [WHITE] National Ethos and CULTURE that it resonates and has particular meaning because it is so much a part of their base cultural beliefs.

Like perhaps all myths, this Rugged Individualism MYTHOLOGY is about what people want to believe whether it's true or not. As such, it is an Article Of Faith. It matters not whether it's Seen or, being divorced from the predominant reality, Unseen.

This Faith-In-Myth gives people something to hope for, whether the American Dream is as attainable for them and others or not. And this MYTH is deeply rooted in the American Dream and the American Dream in it.

It could just be me, but I always find this bit of history particularly Enlightening (pun intended).

quote:
The Political and Economic Background (of The Enlightenment)

During the late Middle Ages, peasants had begun to move from rural estates to the towns in search of increased freedom and prosperity. As trade and communication improved during the Renaissance, the ordinary town-dweller began to realize that things need not always go on as they had for centuries. New charters could be written, new governments formed, new laws passed, new businesses begun. Although each changed institution quickly tried to stabilize its power by claiming the support of tradition, the pressure for change continued to mount. It was not only contact with alien cultural patterns which influenced Europeans, it was the wealth brought back from Asia and the Americas which catapulted a new class of merchants into prominence, partially displacing the old aristocracy whose power had been rooted in the ownership of land. These merchants had their own ideas about the sort of world they wanted to inhabit, and they became major agents of change, in the arts, in government, and in the economy.


They were naturally convinced that their earnings were the result of their individual merit and hard work, unlike the inherited wealth of traditional aristocrats.

...individualism ...became a core value.

The ability of individual effort to transform the world became a European dogma, lasting to this day.

https://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html


Simply, it's at the core of their beliefs and at the center of everything they have to believe to feel good about how they got what they got.
The epitome of 'rugged individualism' is often said to be personified in the person of Theodore Roosevelt.

This man was idolized so much the U.S. Congress recently awared him, post-humously of course, the Medal of Honor for his participation in the The Battle of San Juan Hill.

This was done in the face of shouts of 'Fraud'.

It is documented that 'Teddy' Roosevelt rode up San Juan Hill while, and because, The Buffalo Soldiers held back the Puerto Rican (and Spanish?) troops him to him to make his 'famous' charge.

I agree that this myth is, at least in part, the product of fright.

This characterization is simply to 'pump up' the image of European-Americans in North America.

Yhis done/said in manner of 'Manifest Destiny'. This attempted to justify wrongdoing to a society that looking for a reason, a way, to ignore the barberism that was being done.

We all know 'rugged individualism' had absolutely nothing to do with the success of either cotton, rice, or tobacco being successful cash crops.

Propaganda.

Their primary job was keeping their mint julips in the shade.

PEACE

Jim Chester

PEACE

Jim Chester
I know this is somewhat off, but I think this is an example of the relevant "Myth Belief."

This weekend I was playing golf with my golf club. After the round, I ended up having a beer while watching the Brazil/France World Cup match. I was sitting at a table with "Bob", one of the club's members [white/male]. Bob talks a lot about his travels to South Africa.

I commented that the players are so talented that they could do things to the ball with their feet that most people couldn't do with their hands. Bob responded that "Soccer is primarily played in 3rd world countries. It's evidence of the 'Cro-magnum (sp?, but too lazy to look it up) Syndrome' ... where they have yet to develop hand dexterity ... they drag their knuckles." [This comment had my antennae tingling]

I asked him to explain his comment relative to the large number of European teams in the World Cup, especially since a largely white French team was beating the primarily Black Brazilian team.

He went on to say, that he had just got back from South Africa and that Johannesburg (sp?, but still too lazy to look it up) is the most dangerous city in the world. "Since the end of aparthied, they [the Black Africans] think anything ... rape, murder, robbery ... goes. [The white] People live in armed camps complete with razor wire."

But the telling point came when, as a historical note, he commented that "No natives [Africans] lived in Johannesburg (sp?, but still too lazy to look it up) and Capetown. When it was founded by the Dutch."

At this point I told him that he was crazy as hell and asked him how he could fix his mouth to make such a statement. I asked sarcastically, if the same held for Arizona when the Spanish came or Jamestown when the Europeans arrived.

He quite seriously told me that this was a fact because he read a book on the history of South Africa [written by a Afrikkaner] that described the absence of native africans when the Dutch founded the cities.

All I could do was laugh ... I also recall saying something about if his mentality was the dominate mentality of Afrikkaners, that probably explains why they are living in armed camps.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
White people have a greater myth ... comprised of several parts:

individuality/individualism
rationality
accountability
originality
innocence/purity


What's wrong with rationality and accountability.

And individualism for that matter, Smile

Not all white people are individualists, and not all of them claim that the US is the result of individualism.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
White people have a greater myth ... comprised of several parts:

individuality/individualism
rationality
accountability
originality
innocence/purity


What's wrong with rationality and accountability.

And individualism for that matter, Smile

Not all white people are individualists, and not all of them claim that the US is the result of individualism.


In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with individualism. But individualism combined with a complete disregard for collectivism is very problematic. Pure individualism is just as unbalanced and unhealthy as pure collectivism. Pure individualism squashes any kind of community ethic or community spirit, it's a bad mindset to raise a family on, it preaches pure competition in life, and it can foster anti-social behavior.

A lot of White people look down on collectivism like it's some kind of plague. I've heard in real life and seen countless discussions on the Internet where someone mentioned "collectivism" and a lot of White people reacted, "Collectivism? Hell no! That's like slavery. It's a tyranny of the majority!" yet the same level of criticism was not extended to individualism. Only maybe a couple of White people pointed out how it can create a 'tyranny of the minority' or that sometimes cooperation works better than competition.


I thought it was telling that many people view things in a "The Collective vs. Me" mindset and seem to think that collectivism means that everyone will gang up and rob them blind.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
White people have a greater myth ... comprised of several parts:

individuality/individualism
rationality
accountability
originality
innocence/purity


What's wrong with rationality and accountability.

And individualism for that matter, Smile

Not all white people are individualists, and not all of them claim that the US is the result of individualism.


I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with any of these things ... the point of the thread is to discuss how whites tend to view themselves in these terms ... hence the term "myth" ...

Yes you are correct that that not every white person is highly rational or even individual ... and a few will even describe themselves in other ways if asked .... but if you ask most if they would describe themselves that way I think you will get a positive answer in a great many cases ...

The discussion is not about reality ... it is about self-perception to the extent that it can be inferred from cultural discourse\artifacts ...
I think a key component of this ethos of "individualism" is the notion that "anyone can succeed/make it in America", that they can simply "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" to create wealth and prosperity merely with hard work. Despite the fact that this is, for the most part, contrary to the facts - it is a critical tool to keep the masses docile. This societal "carrot" deflects responsibility from those who oppress the masses onto the victims' heads themselves (because the flip side of this argument is that the poor are where they are because they haven't worked hard enough) while providing the slimmest modicum of hope that they can do better for themselves in the future.

This individualism stuff is a part of the marketing spiel of White Supremacy Inc.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with any of these things ... the point of the thread is to discuss how whites tend to view themselves in these terms ... hence the term "myth" ...


I view myself as individualist. I know that I've gotten a lot from society, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with socialist concepts.

quote:
Yes you are correct that that not every white person is highly rational or even individual ... and a few will even describe themselves in other ways if asked .... but if you ask most if they would describe themselves that way I think you will get a positive answer in a great many cases ...


I don't know if I agree. The majority of the progressive movement is white.

quote:
The discussion is not about reality ... it is about self-perception to the extent that it can be inferred from cultural discourse\artifacts ...


I do agree that white Americans over-romanticise America's past and ignore a lot of inconviniet/ugly parts.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with individualism. But individualism combined with a complete disregard for collectivism is very problematic. Pure individualism is just as unbalanced and unhealthy as pure collectivism. Pure individualism squashes any kind of community ethic or community spirit, it's a bad mindset to raise a family on, it preaches pure competition in life, and it can foster anti-social behavior.

A lot of White people look down on collectivism like it's some kind of plague. I've heard in real life and seen countless discussions on the Internet where someone mentioned "collectivism" and a lot of White people reacted, "Collectivism? Hell no! That's like slavery. It's a tyranny of the majority!" yet the same level of criticism was not extended to individualism. Only maybe a couple of White people pointed out how it can create a 'tyranny of the minority' or that sometimes cooperation works better than competition.


One of the biggest reasons that I am opposed to socialism and collectivism is my personal experience with it and the experience of my parents. I cannot tolerate a powerful government. I know that pure individualism is dangerous, but I think the danger can be minimized if things are thought out. For example, protecting the weak from the strong should be a top priority. And I think it can be done in an individualistic society. I think that the dangers from socialism are much much worse. I think that the government will inevitably become corrupt as it acquires more power, and even if it doesn't, it won't be able to make good decisions.


Anyway, this is a much deeper topic than the topic of white predisposition to collectivism.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
view myself as individualist. I know that I've gotten a lot from society, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with socialist concepts.


Individualism and Collectivism have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism other than specific areas. The only thing "individualist" about capitalism is ownership of production. The only thing "collectivist" about socialism is ownership of production.

But anyway, there's a good reason why the "Every person for themself" mindset is not good when it comes to economics (in areas such as taxes and welfare):

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-earnedmoney.htm

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

Personally, I'm not an individualist or a collectivist, I'm a mix of both. I see human nature as a mix of both.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
view myself as individualist. I know that I've gotten a lot from society, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with socialist concepts.


Individualism and Collectivism have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism other than specific areas. The only thing "individualist" about capitalism is ownership of production. The only thing "collectivist" about socialism is ownership of production.

But anyway, there's a good reason why the "Every person for themself" mindset is not good when it comes to economics (in areas such as taxes and welfare):

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-earnedmoney.htm

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

Personally, I'm not an individualist or a collectivist, I'm a mix of both. I see human nature as a mix of both.
appl Couldn't have said it any better.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
One of the biggest reasons that I am opposed to socialism and collectivism is my personal experience with it and the experience of my parents. I cannot tolerate a powerful government.


Neither can I. Well, I cannot tolerate a powerful autocratic government. I think that governments should be controlled with more direct and participatory democracy. Personally, I'm an anarcho-communist and I see the government as an oppressive tool most of the time. I don't believe government ownership is any better than pure private ownership. I see an autocratic economy as just as tyrannical as an autocratic government.


quote:
I know that pure individualism is dangerous, but I think the danger can be minimized if things are thought out. For example, protecting the weak from the strong should be a top priority. And I think it can be done in an individualistic society.


Isn't "individualistic society" a bit of a paradox? Smile

quote:
I think that the dangers from socialism are much much worse. I think that the government will inevitably become corrupt as it acquires more power, and even if it doesn't, it won't be able to make good decisions.


Big government is not = to socialism. Big governments are a feature of welfare capitalism. Social democracy, a variation of welfare capitalism, happens to be the most implemented form of 'socialism', or at least the primary tactic of popular socialist parties, which is why the stigma of "big government" is wrecklessly tacked onto socialism by right-wingers.

The core of socialism is common ownership. The size of government is optional, but I prefer less government because I see government as a second/third-hand form of "common ownership".
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
Individualism and Collectivism have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism other than specific areas. The only thing "individualist" about capitalism is ownership of production. The only thing "collectivist" about socialism is ownership of production.


Technically, yes, but it's hard for me to treat them as separate.

There's one thing that I care about the most: what power does the government hold?
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
Technically, yes, but it's hard for me to treat them as separate.

There's one thing that I care about the most: what power does the government hold?


http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-socialism.htm#socialdemocracy

Well, theoretically in a capitalist system, the government is made to protect private ownership, private property and enforce laws against crime, exploitation and corruption. But different capitalist governments vary on how much involvement they have. Laissez-faire forms of capitalist governments had relatively little involvement compared to today. Keynesian versions of capitalism had moderate involvement in society and industry. Fascist governments had heavy involvement, not in business but protecting privileges of the wealthy (corporate welfare, subsidized industry, anti-striking/anti-union laws, etc.) and government repression of ideas and actions against the status quo.

Then there are variants of socialism. There is Social Democracy which believes the role of government should be to protect worker ownership of the means of production and centralized democratic government. Marxist-Leninism believes that government should run vital industries, provide welfare and allow worker ownership of decentralized industry. Libertarian forms of socialism believe the government should only exist to protect common ownership and common property and protect against crime and corruption. Anarchist forms believe this can all be done by self-governing communities.


It comes down to whether you believe in representative democracy, participatory democracy or direct democracy. Personally I believe in participatory-direct democracy. Some socialists believe in representative democracy just like conservative and liberal capitalists. Progressive capitalists believe in participatory-representative democracy.
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
view myself as individualist. I know that I've gotten a lot from society, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't agree with socialist concepts.


Individualism and Collectivism have nothing to do with socialism or capitalism other than specific areas. The only thing "individualist" about capitalism is ownership of production. The only thing "collectivist" about socialism is ownership of production.

But anyway, there's a good reason why the "Every person for themself" mindset is not good when it comes to economics (in areas such as taxes and welfare):

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-earnedmoney.htm

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

Personally, I'm not an individualist or a collectivist, I'm a mix of both. I see human nature as a mix of both.
appl Couldn't have said it any better.


Thanks! Big Grin As anti-government as I am, I appreciate a welfare government more than a government who leaves everything in the hands of private owners.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
I think a key component of this ethos of "individualism" is the notion that "anyone can succeed/make it in America", that they can simply "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" to create wealth and prosperity merely with hard work. Despite the fact that this is, for the most part, contrary to the facts - it is a critical tool to keep the masses docile. This societal "carrot" deflects responsibility from those who oppress the masses onto the victims' heads themselves (because the flip side of this argument is that the poor are where they are because they haven't worked hard enough) while providing the slimmest modicum of hope that they can do better for themselves in the future.

This individualism stuff is a part of the marketing spiel of White Supremacy Inc.


Now that's what I really wanted to say! rock
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with individualism. But individualism combined with a complete disregard for collectivism is very problematic. Pure individualism is just as unbalanced and unhealthy as pure collectivism. Pure individualism squashes any kind of community ethic or community spirit, it's a bad mindset to raise a family on, it preaches pure competition in life, and it can foster anti-social behavior.

A lot of White people look down on collectivism like it's some kind of plague. I've heard in real life and seen countless discussions on the Internet where someone mentioned "collectivism" and a lot of White people reacted, "Collectivism? Hell no! That's like slavery. It's a tyranny of the majority!" yet the same level of criticism was not extended to individualism. Only maybe a couple of White people pointed out how it can create a 'tyranny of the minority' or that sometimes cooperation works better than competition.


One of the biggest reasons that I am opposed to socialism and collectivism is my personal experience with it and the experience of my parents. I cannot tolerate a powerful government. I know that pure individualism is dangerous, but I think the danger can be minimized if things are thought out. For example, protecting the weak from the strong should be a top priority. And I think it can be done in an individualistic society. I think that the dangers from socialism are much much worse. I think that the government will inevitably become corrupt as it acquires more power, and even if it doesn't, it won't be able to make good decisions.


Anyway, this is a much deeper topic than the topic of white predisposition to collectivism.



where are you from? How have you experienced socialism?
quote:
One of the biggest reasons that I am opposed to socialism and collectivism is my personal experience with it and the experience of my parents. I cannot tolerate a powerful government. I know that pure individualism is dangerous, but I think the danger can be minimized if things are thought out. For example, protecting the weak from . the strong should be a top priority. And I think it can be done in an individualistic society. I think that the dangers from socialism are much much worse. I think that the government will inevitably become corrupt as it acquires more power, and even if it doesn't, it won't be able to make good decisions.


Why do we continue to limit ourselves to the definitions of Europeans. All European models have the same dam outcome. Capitalism is the worst form or Government ever created. All Capitalism is is Socialism for the Elites, who came out of the Aristocracy of Fuedalism. When you have 1% of the people controlling over 40% of the wealth you are in a terrible situation, its a virtual dictatorship. What we have to do as thinkiing humans is come up with a humane model of existance using all the technology and and advances we have made for the betterment of the masses of people. Socialism in a pure sense is a great thing. To me it means everyone in a given society has the basic necessities of life. Food, clothing, shelter , education and health care. Anything else is a luxuary . We are so dumb as to believe that many of us can become rich when in fact Capitalism end game is to divour its own. In capitalism you have to continuously expand markets , finding cheap natural resource and cheap labor to be exploited by the elites.The end goal of Capitalism is to have all of us dumb sheep to be under one global economic,social,judical system. At the end We are in a situation now where we are simple debt slaves. But you think that somehow capitalism can work.
quote:
Originally posted by ZAKAR:
quote:
One of the biggest reasons that I am opposed to socialism and collectivism is my personal experience with it and the experience of my parents. I cannot tolerate a powerful government. I know that pure individualism is dangerous, but I think the danger can be minimized if things are thought out. For example, protecting the weak from . the strong should be a top priority. And I think it can be done in an individualistic society. I think that the dangers from socialism are much much worse. I think that the government will inevitably become corrupt as it acquires more power, and even if it doesn't, it won't be able to make good decisions.


Why do we continue to limit ourselves to the definitions of Europeans. All European models have the same dam outcome. Capitalism is the worst form or Government ever created. All Capitalism is is Socialism for the Elites, who came out of the Aristocracy of Fuedalism. When you have 1% of the people controlling over 40% of the wealth you are in a terrible situation, its a virtual dictatorship. What we have to do as thinkiing humans is come up with a humane model of existance using all the technology and and advances we have made for the betterment of the masses of people. Socialism in a pure sense is a great thing. To me it means everyone in a given society has the basic necessities of life. Food, clothing, shelter , education and health care. Anything else is a luxuary . We are so dumb as to believe that many of us can become rich when in fact Capitalism end game is to divour its own. In capitalism you have to continuously expand markets , finding cheap natural resource and cheap labor to be exploited by the elites.The end goal of Capitalism is to have all of us dumb sheep to be under one global economic,social,judical system. At the end We are in a situation now where we are simple debt slaves. But you think that somehow capitalism can work.
aka "the white standard"
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:

I think a key component of this ethos of "individualism" is the notion that "anyone can succeed/make it in America", that they can simply "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" to create wealth and prosperity merely with hard work. Despite the fact that this is, for the most part, contrary to the facts - it is a critical tool to keep the masses docile. This societal "carrot" deflects responsibility from those who oppress the masses onto the victims' heads themselves (because the flip side of this argument is that the poor are where they are because they haven't worked hard enough) while providing the slimmest modicum of hope that they can do better for themselves in the future.

This individualism stuff is a part of the marketing spiel of White Supremacy Inc.



Well I'll be dayum. 19

MBM clearly understands the issue with the pull/bootstrap speeches, but chose to play games because of his bias in favor of his favorite warmonger, Colin L. Powell

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×