posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by DarthMuerte
No I'm not. You are defending that a strictly collectivists society can exist without individualism, that is a false dichotomy. In the same way that
you can not have a strictly individualistic society (it wouldn't be called a society).
Humans are individuals, with distinct minds and characteristics, history has proven that even in the most individualistic suppressive societies those
characteristics continue to be important, even if those that oppose some of the underlying ideology will be sanctioned, they would manage to adapt. I
guess that we could design humans away from that but we aren't there yet and ultimately those wouldn't be humans anymore.
Based on our history we could say that all suppressive societies are not viable societies. From the top of my head I can't remember one that lasted
more than 2 generations without some radical changes to compromise, be it by internal or external pressure.
An individual may be megalomaniac, psychotic, anti social , etc a collective can't there may exist a moment of formation of group think or clicks but
that can be seen as individual collectives (existing inside a greater collective, individualism in group form) but that is how changes occur and
decisions made. If we look at nature the best efficient model is collaboration, not predation or conflict.
Now anarchism in its pure form is individualism to the ultimate degree but it can't be defined as a social order, since there is no order. Even then
there will be structures that by force of nature will be collectives, like a families.
Anarchism can not work at all in an environment of scarce resources or high stress, even more lenient implementations would be hard pressed to engage
complex tasks or projects.