American culture isn’t purely individualistic. Collective struggle for justice is an often neglected part of our history. The times when we’re most united are times of crisis and war, but not as much in everyday life. Saying that it’s good to think about the common good is tautological. It’s easy to find people on the internet criticizing neoliberalism and individualism but many of their solutions are surface-level and don’t get to the root causes of our problems. The global left and right are collectivist in some ways and individualistic in others. There’s too much focus on hot-button issues that divide people instead of things that reasonable people could agree on, such as building civil society. Capitalism requires cooperation, but problems arise when corporations do what’s best for themselves rather than the community. Another aspect is how some people say that the solution to rampant globalization is to think small and local, which is true to a large extent, but we could also be global citizens. Small is beautiful for most institutions but when it comes to communities both big and small can be beautiful. Many people are rightly concerned about family values, but like the title of Hilary Clinton’s book says, it takes a village to raise a child, not just a family.
"Collective struggle for justice is an often neglected part of our history. "
I strongly agree, but I would say we have become more individualistic as time has gone by. We are less religious and less committed to a local community, more fluid in social spheres, more likely to move multiple times during adulthood.
"The global left and right are community-oriented in some ways and individualistic in others."
That's fair.
"things that reasonable people could agree on, such as building civil society"
Building civil society would be easier if reasonable people did agree on this, yes?
Politicians might not talk enough about community but there are publications on both the left and right that do a better job of talking about these issues. Some people say that if civil society was strong enough we wouldn’t need as much government. This is sort of the logic behind Steve Hilton’s “Big Society” in England. It tries to reconcile capitalism and the common good through a vibrant community sector. That makes sense, but the whole reason I became interested in alternative economics is because I believe that we should have an economic system that reflects our democratic values rather than is separated from them or abolished. I have more of a both/and mentality. Communists and anarchists are even more anti-institutional than individualists because institutions sometimes work against the public interest, but I believe business and government should be separated rather than abolished. I think it’s an idea worth considering to be a political progressive, an economic socialist, and a social conservative.
"Some community-oriented people say that if civil society was strong enough we wouldn’t need as much government."
I agree with this, but also I see the cause-and-effect as being wholly reciprocating, endlessly, every day of every year of every century. The more you have institutions, the more likely the government will be bounded and restrained. Where there are no institutions, then you will have autocracy. I do not think the form of the economy matters at all, save for the fact that a broad middle class is typically needed to energize smaller institutions.
American culture isn’t purely individualistic. Collective struggle for justice is an often neglected part of our history. The times when we’re most united are times of crisis and war, but not as much in everyday life. Saying that it’s good to think about the common good is tautological. It’s easy to find people on the internet criticizing neoliberalism and individualism but many of their solutions are surface-level and don’t get to the root causes of our problems. The global left and right are collectivist in some ways and individualistic in others. There’s too much focus on hot-button issues that divide people instead of things that reasonable people could agree on, such as building civil society. Capitalism requires cooperation, but problems arise when corporations do what’s best for themselves rather than the community. Another aspect is how some people say that the solution to rampant globalization is to think small and local, which is true to a large extent, but we could also be global citizens. Small is beautiful for most institutions but when it comes to communities both big and small can be beautiful. Many people are rightly concerned about family values, but like the title of Hilary Clinton’s book says, it takes a village to raise a child, not just a family.
"Collective struggle for justice is an often neglected part of our history. "
I strongly agree, but I would say we have become more individualistic as time has gone by. We are less religious and less committed to a local community, more fluid in social spheres, more likely to move multiple times during adulthood.
"The global left and right are community-oriented in some ways and individualistic in others."
That's fair.
"things that reasonable people could agree on, such as building civil society"
Building civil society would be easier if reasonable people did agree on this, yes?
Politicians might not talk enough about community but there are publications on both the left and right that do a better job of talking about these issues. Some people say that if civil society was strong enough we wouldn’t need as much government. This is sort of the logic behind Steve Hilton’s “Big Society” in England. It tries to reconcile capitalism and the common good through a vibrant community sector. That makes sense, but the whole reason I became interested in alternative economics is because I believe that we should have an economic system that reflects our democratic values rather than is separated from them or abolished. I have more of a both/and mentality. Communists and anarchists are even more anti-institutional than individualists because institutions sometimes work against the public interest, but I believe business and government should be separated rather than abolished. I think it’s an idea worth considering to be a political progressive, an economic socialist, and a social conservative.
"Some community-oriented people say that if civil society was strong enough we wouldn’t need as much government."
I agree with this, but also I see the cause-and-effect as being wholly reciprocating, endlessly, every day of every year of every century. The more you have institutions, the more likely the government will be bounded and restrained. Where there are no institutions, then you will have autocracy. I do not think the form of the economy matters at all, save for the fact that a broad middle class is typically needed to energize smaller institutions.