tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post3359952675834916671..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Jim Crow for AnyoneGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-45342683482432431802012-02-18T04:10:06.429-06:002012-02-18T04:10:06.429-06:00Good points, and they remind me of the fuzzy feeli...Good points, and they remind me of the fuzzy feeling that Americans have regarding altruism, caused by the common confusion of its demands for self-sacrifice with genuine good will.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-82034977938954614202012-02-17T23:35:38.708-06:002012-02-17T23:35:38.708-06:00The "fuzzy feeling" that Americans have ...The "fuzzy feeling" that Americans have in regard to collectivism is due to the fact that they perceive "collectivism versus individualism" as boiling down to "people working together" versus "people alone". Examine the usual misrepresentations of Objectivist/libertarian positions, and you'll find that all their arguments operate on *that* as the basic alternative (e.g. Elizabeth Warren's recent comments). "No man is an island" etc. and I'm sure you've already run across the term "atomistic" somewhere. <br /><br />So long as that is the alternative, it should be no wonder that collectivism doesn't trigger the reaction it should.<br /><br />We are operating on a very different alternative. For us, the issue isn't about whether people work together or alone -- it's about <i>upon whose terms</i> people work. If the individuals set the terms for themselves, they can work alone, or they can organize into groups according to terms they all accept. That's individualism/capitalism, based on the individualist moral premise that the individual is morally sovereign, and metaphysically primary. That is, individuals have metaphysical primacy -- they exist and possess identity on their own. The group, on the other hand, only possesses derivative "existence" so long as individuals choose to form it, and it derives its identity from that choice. To put that last point another way, the identity of a group is a function of its community -- of the common interests and values that are the reason the individuals formed that group in the first place.<br /><br />But if the group sets terms and the individual is not free to reject them, you have collectivism. Here, the *group* is morally sovereign, and the underlying metaphysical premise is that the group has metaphysical primacy -- i.e. that the group exists, and the individual is the derivative (or "product") of that group.<br /><br />So, when asking whether any particular social phenomenon is individualist or collectivist, do not look for teams versus lone wolves; find out if the individuals involved volunteered, or were drafted. That will tell you all you need to know.Jim Maynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-46698136984235391282012-02-14T02:40:42.692-06:002012-02-14T02:40:42.692-06:00I think that what explains your last phenomenon is...I think that what explains your last phenomenon is precisely the fact that some people with a fuzzy, good feelings about America are too perceptual-level to realize that collectivism is dangerous to it. Indeed, they see America (or some part of its public) AS a collective.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-82183452421447703942012-02-13T19:07:59.784-06:002012-02-13T19:07:59.784-06:00Gus,
We're reading "Explaining Postmodern...Gus,<br />We're reading "Explaining Postmodernism" by Dr. Stephen R.C. Hicks. In it, he makes the point that all collectivism eventually degenerates to the perceptual level. For instance, the idea of an international working class fighting against an international bourgeois is a fairly high level, if false concept. But the Left, over time, has lost their capacity to perpetuate that dogma so the postmodern Left now champions bits and pieces of groups that are easier to distinguish perceptually. Besides, when you've spent half a century denigrating reason, what use does one have for over-arching concepts anyway?<br /><br />Jim Crow racism is different because it never bothered to rise above the perceptual level. I find it interesting, though, that some in the self-described racialist community try to give it a new lease on life by "scientizing" the question of race. <br /><br />Whatever the approach, however, the basis that collectivists of all stripes have to endorse is that the group is the metaphysical unit of reckoning, not the individual. I expect this from the Left, given their philosophical roots. What is truly amusing is watching the self-described Right flirt with this while maintaining that they're doing it to preserve liberty in America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com