Why The 99% Could Never Fully Unite

After reading Hefficide's rant, I posted this:

I honestly consider it impossible for we 99% to unite. Consider just two categories.
The Statist and the Individualist. We are mutually antithetical to each other. The best we might do is work together against TPTB and then try to agree to a mutual split of the nation or world into two separate spheres. We would end up even further divided as there are other groups antithetical to each other, but this should make my point. An individualist would consider living in a statist society pure hell, while a statist could not even survive in an individualist culture.

What I want to know is how do others feel about this? Do other members here feel that even groups with antithetical viewpoints could successfully live together? Could statists, nanny staters, and socialists live happily in a culture of individualism? How about vice versa? My opinion is no. I think it would be impossible. However, I do wonder....could we actually coexist happily?

Don't we live together already?

Originally posted by glen200376
Don't we live together already?

Not happily. Consider how divided we are. I hate wasting my money supporting wasteful government programs. I want an end to statism and the whole nanny state mentality. I know that I am not alone based on discussions on multiple platforms and in person conversations. Revolution is brewing and not just vs TPTB.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Not real sure about the whole "status versus individualist" label, but let's just break it down to simple things such as religious beliefs, political beliefs, and class beliefs....................

I think you in your OP brought out one BIG reason the 99% can ever untite and that is LABELS!!

We in the United States will never unite until one of two things happen......

1) Things get sooooo bad that our differences no longer matter and dictate how others should live or think!

2) We all realize that we are all the same and have allowed our governments to separate us and use us against one another so that they could further their agenda of ruling the world!

Bottom line is, Cognitive Disonance will prevent the majority of humans from ever getting along! We all have our beliefs and will oppose anyone who doesn't believe as we do!

Selfishness, will always have a majority rules attitude and outcome as long as we are lead to believe that (Democracy) mob rules is the best way to run things and we forget that the United States is a Republic!

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Yeah, people are very different. Which is probably why the elite classes of the world are probably little more united than the common classes. That's the main hangup I have with common ATS logic. Yeah, there are families in the world that hold disproportionate power. Not all of these families have the same agenda.


We don't necessarily have to fully unite and be homogeneous ideologically, but a common respect for fellow humanity is a good place to start.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Being a Tea Party member, I actually had hopes for the Occupy crowd, but a further look and a deeper investigation into their motives caused concern.

I wanted a round table with some leaders of Occupy. We even went as far as setting up a Skype meet, but I could not agree to some of the basic premises.

Currently, I am in total disagreement with them.

For every Occupation there must be a Resistance!

Consider me a member of the Resistance.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Not real sure about the whole "status versus individualist" label, but let's just break it down to simple things such as religious beliefs, political beliefs, and class beliefs....................

I think you in your OP brought out one BIG reason the 99% can ever untite and that is LABELS!!

We in the United States will never unite until one of two things happen......

It isn't just labels. It is what those labels mean. Statists or collectivists are completely different from individualists. Collectivism and Individualism are just too different from each other.

The antipode of individualism is collectivism, which subordinates the individual to the group -- be it the 'community,' the tribe, the race, the proletariat, etc... Collectivism “stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong cohesive ingroups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty.

Christopher Earley, an American management researcher, gave 48 management trainees from southern China and a matched group of 48 management trainees from the USA an ‘in-basket-task’ consisting of 40 separate items requiring between two and five minutes each (Earley, 1989). The task involved such activities as writing memos evaluating plans and rating job candidates’ application forms. Half of the participants from each country were given an individual goal of 20 items; the other half were given a group goal of 200 items to be completed in one hour by 10 people. In addition, half of the participants from either country, both from the group and from the individual goal subsets, were asked to mark each item with their name; the other half turned them in anonymously. The Chinese, collectivist, participants performed best when operating with a group goal and anonymously. They performed worst when operating with individually and with their name marked on their work. The individualist American participants performed best when operating individually and with their work attributed to them personally, and performed very poorly when operating as a group and anonymously.”

It is an ongoing conflict. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? Are we free agents? or are we just appendages to the group? Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because it's own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations."

How can such disparate belief systems coexist without conflict arising? Collectivists do not, will not, respect the rights and freedoms Individualists believe are their inalienable rights. Individualists will not willingly submit to the will of the collectivists, at least not for long. Conflict between the two seems unavoidable. Like matter and anti-matter, coexistence seems impossible unless they are separated.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

We don't necessarily have to fully unite and be homogeneous ideologically, but a common respect for fellow humanity is a good place to start.

That is the problem though. Collectivists cannot abide the presence of Individualists. They must use force to get us to comply with their paradigm. This alone breeds discontent and will eventually lead to conflict.

The reason the 99% did not unite is because it was a false concept in the first place. It reminds me of the old "Moral Majority." There were buttons made that said "The Moral Majority is neither!" It's a good point. For the Occupy Movement to assume that everyone but the 1%ers were on their side is a complete fantasy. What did we see? Kids defecating on cop cars or in the street, urinating in the alleys, property damage, sexual assault, and everywhere they went: Trash by the dump truck full. And they expect 99% of the people to unite behind that kind of behavior? I don't think so. And then they turn around and call the Tea Party racist. Here's a picture of the racist tea party you'll never see on CNN or NBC:



I am nowhere near a 1%er, but I want absolutely nothing to do with the Occupy Movement or what it thinks it stands for. So much for the 99%

No ones saying we all have to get along..

We simply want fair and equality for all.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
No ones saying we all have to get along..

We simply want fair and equality for all.

The hard part is in who defines "fair" and "equality".

Interpretations of definitions are what separates us.

reply to post by schuyler


This picture gives me hope. The black community has been victimized for soooooo long. It disgusts me. I know some do not allow themselves to be victimized but this picture shows me that they are waking up. It was no fault of their own either. They have been lied to for over a century and generally their culture reflects that. Great for them that they get it!!!

reply to post by beezzer


If one would consider the US Constitution, and if it were followed as it was meant to be followed, with individual state's rights being the most important part of the program, the country could be individual nanny states (California) and more capitalist and individualist states (Wyoming?)

This becomes unattainable when there is huge federal gov't dictating what each state must do - along with the huge federal agencies EPA, DOE, Dept of education, Obamacare, ect.

I would never choose to live in a liberal place like California - let them have their silly, liberal education system -
But when the federal gov't is attempting to force every state into (at present the Obama liberal system) a one-size-fits-all mandate, and forces all states to pay for it, it's going to create much division among the differing idealogies of americans.

Let's go back to state's rights and make the federal gov't do the few things it's supposed to do - like protect our borders.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Let's start with some questions.
Why are you under the impression that Occupy is Statist?

ETA to rephrase...
Are you nder the impression that Occupy is Statist? If so, why?

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
We simply want fair and equality for all.

Please define those terms. What you consider "fair" and "equal" may not fit my definition. Please give me your definitions. Thanks.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Let's start with some questions.
Why are you under the impression that Occupy is Statist?

ETA to rephrase...
Are you nder the impression that Occupy is Statist? If so, why?

edit on 26-9-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Yes, they do seem to be statist, or more accurately collectivist. For example many of them made huge mistakes taking on student loans and then took majors that did not allow them to achieve gainful employment. Now they want the rest of us to compensate them for mistakes they made. That is collectivism. They refuse and refute individual responsibility.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Many took out student loans with the idea they would have work in order to pay back those loans and have a sustainable life after graduation, jobs got exported, not to mention the interest on those loans increased and continue to increase.

I can't argue that there is a lot of collectivism among Occupiers, myself included... what is intentionally left out of the conversation is that we are bright enough to know that collectivism can only come with true freedom and that in order to have that true freedom there must also be the freedom to NOT be collective. In other words we are fiercely for individual freedom but we choose as individuals to part of a group.

reply to post by Kali74

That freedom to not be collectivist is sorely missing. Collectivism cannot exist on a national level without force.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


You missed the entire content of my statement.
:/

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

You missed the entire content of my statement.
:/

No, I didn't. It is not my problem that they took out loans they cannot repay. It is not my problem that they took "women's studies" or other such degrees and now cannot find work. They made their choices and need to live with the consequences of those decisions. Just like I have to live with the results of my decisions. It is not your responsibility to fix my problems.