Individualism vs. Collectivism

A criterion for individualism and collectivism for purposes of comparison ought to be cognizant that the natural demographic facts are implicit variables against which criticism or constructions of either might be made. Some geographical environments are naturally better suited for individualism, and the concept of collectivism would be naturally alien. In other, perhaps more populous geographic regions collectivism may be a natural fact of life although how it is structured may vary quite markedly.


In the history of the west of Europe and of the United States individualism would mean different things in different historical eras. If we define collectivism by simply examining the instant contents of mind of individuals as sharing information and acting upon it consistently as members of a social set then collectives might be found in E.S.P.N.'s 'The Herd' of radio listeners, in the St. Petersburg Soviet of 1905 and in the members of the New York Stock exchange equally well. Collectives would be considered as exclusive social organizations that reinforce the interests of members or that program members toward effective social support of particular phenomena such as the sports entertainment business and the organization of much of American youth activity toward developing the best talent for the sports entertainment business instead of for individual or intellectual creative and productive activities.


Individualism within the paradigm of populous nations requires a necessary degree of coordination within several socially collective organizations simultaneously from that of responsible citizen supporter of laws, to licensed automobile driver, participant in elected politics or union members and so forth. Without a vast number of collective organizations with the goal of advancing the collective interests and values of members even when not directly for material compensation, the progress of most advanced societies would deteriorate sharply. Yet as in many things moderation and intelligence largely determine how much and in what form collective, organizational efforts are effect. 


Collective actions may preclude individual activities and in some cases that may be harmful to the society generally. A society can only be as happy as the individuals of which it is comprised, so individual pursuit of happiness and properties of rights generally are pre-eminent over those of collective concerns except in times of war, or when proscribed activities for any individual have placed boundaries on individual freedom to own, for instance, nuclear artillery shells and launching platforms for hunting missions.


What about Africa with a population of a billion and about half of the continent largely desertified? How can individualism supported by foreign anti-disease pharmaceuticals and better farming technology be allowed to just double the population to two billion without creating various conflicts and over-use of resources? In that criterion we find that individualism naturally merges into collective action upon environmental resources, and it requires collectivism of a pre-emptory and governing kind to control the negative, disorganized, de facto collective action.


Africa today is challenged by the 'iron law of wages' phenomena of Ricardo to curtail its population increase that would have boundary margins of famine, war and government terrorism besides disease. Because education for individuals requires a good early start and a generation to accomplish, and since that is quite expensive, it will be difficult for poor African nations to accomplish education enough, and a high enough standard of living within a generation or two (maybe 30 years) to provide the criteria where women naturally reduce child birth rate as has been researched in second world transitions to prosperity.




African society, if it is to eliminate much of the kind f pervasive social horrors that probably lay ahead, will need to transition into a high tech ecologically economic foundation such that an increased quality of life for individuals collectively does not tax the environment and a proportionate increased rate. I would recommend Daly and Farley's 'Ecological Economics'  introductory textbook for those unaware of the discipline.
Individualism in the modern world of more than six billion souls does have a collective effect on the global environment obviously at the national level. Today four of the remaining eight white rhinos were released into the wild of Africa with the hope that they will reproduce after not in twenty years of captivity. Probably  they will end up as Bush meat in a stew pot. Humanity is degrading the environment and bio-diversity in a plethora of purposefully wasteful business and social economic actions. 


Individuals can make the difference with their freedom. Collective government puppets in Washington D.C. , Alaska and elsewhere may discourage ecological economic accountability and investment in perpetuation of fossil fuel economics and exclusivity of those that haven't sold their souls to the Devil of Corporatism and fossil fuel economics.  Global warming is to be considered and opportunity for profit by those within a corrupted for of capitalism that regards scarcity as a beneficial opportunity for a controlling product supplier's profit potential. Individual corporate or collective organizations pursuing their own self-interests to the detriment of disorganized individuals are the fact of corporate repression of national interests to benefit individuals as members of the class of basic citizenship.


If individualism is the number of dimensions of freedom individuals have to run their own lives free of collective actions and effects, that freedom is reduced by the rise of dominating corporations of global stature that interfere in a variety of ways with individuals economic potential as the environment if totalized and pre-determined by ossifications of corporate economic infrastructure.