[angrybits]

From the fine article:

> individualism replaced collectivism and solidarity

I find myself wondering if I am part of a remaining few who treasure that. I value self-sufficiency over dependency, moreso as I get older. I have come to realize that there can rarely be an imposed collective benefit that didn't come at the expense of at least one individual. The answer to "is it worth it?" will be dependent on which one you ask. Likely the same for "is it moral?" if I had my guess.

That said, I don't think individualism can last forever. The fast exchange of ideas gives incredible power to well coordinated groups. Will it descend into mob rule? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. We see regular examples of internet mobs taking down powerful people and companies. The recent Pao take-down comes to mind here. People have their opinions on whether or not it was justified, and mine is irrelevant here, but to me what is most striking was the sheer effectiveness of it. Eventually "we" will figure out how much power we wield and put it to use on targets of more consequence than the CEO of a cat picture website. Occupy could have really shaken things up with the right leadership in place. They were tactically effective, but lacked a leader to put them to effective use to achieve an end.

I think the time of the collective is fast approaching. As long as it's a volunteer collective, I have no issue. If it's forced at the threat of violence, I think my opinion would differ. I am not convinced that history inspires confidence on this one.

edit: small clarification

[TheOtherHobbes]

Internet mobs only take down powerful people and companies when those companies are built to facilitate those mobs.

Internet mobs have completely failed to take down any number of other bad CEOs, or influence the policy of any nation state in a significantly positive way.

The disconnect is leverage. You can rant all you like online, but corporations only care about sales and the bottom line. Unless Team Rant has a measurable effect there you have no real influence at all.

Internet mobs have been good at shaming middle- and low-status individuals who attract envy and/or who say the wrong thing in public. Careers and reputations have certainly been damaged or destroyed.

But don't confuse that kind of schoolyard game for political or economic influence - they're completely different things.

[angrybits]

This is why I mentioned Occupy, they had the people in place to make a meaningful impact. They were able to come out in force so quickly because of the free flow of ideas and information. It may have been that quickness that kept them from forming a cohesive strategy for achieving their ends, but that could be a whole 'nother article in itself.

[api]

It can't be imposed. The term 'collectivism' is a poor choice due to its historical baggage of totalitarianism. 'Community' is slightly better.

I don't think this article is really talking about 20th century centralized socialism as we've understood it. I think we do have the potential to shed that cold war narrative and explore other more self-organizing possibilities.

[Retra]

Self sufficiency and dependency are not a 1-dimensional parameter. You can be self sufficient in some aspects, and dependent in others, and each of us can be like this in different ways.

Both aspects have their merits, and it is very easy to see that those merits are fundamental necessities. Governance is hard.

[johndevor]

Dependency does not mean government. A homeless man can be dependent on a church for food and shelter, but that does not mean governance.

[Retra]

What I meant is that governance implies some dependencies. Ones that people may not want, which makes it hard to know what dependencies to apply through governance.

[angrybits]

Agreed, I just meant I choose self-sufficiency over dependence when possible/practical. As I get older, it seems to impact my choices more and more--and I'm not (just) talking about basic necessities, it's also guiding my investment decisions and property purchases.