Category Archives: Individualism Vs. Collectivism

Update II: Sliming Sarah (& On Feminism Vs. Individualism)

Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections 2008, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, John McCain, Journalism, Sarah Palin, War

CNN’s Campbell Brown has been a woman possessed even since Palin appeared on the political scene. As I write, she is “investigating” how Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal faith and the practices of her church may impact her political outlook. (The segment was evidently aired earlier today. It didn’t cause Blitzer such apoplexy.)

By logical extension, does Brown—who is not working with much, if you know what I mean—wish to imply that hanging around a Black Liberation Church for 20 years—a church that states its members “are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization”—might poison a presidential candidate’s worldview?

At the time, she and her ilk denied that being a proud, long-time member of a separatist, white-hating “Black-Value-System” community had any bearing on Barack’s worldview.

Update I (September 10): INDIVIDUALISM VS. FEMINISM. our long-time, valued reader, young Alex (see his comments below), seems quite confused lately, inundating the blog with dogmatic comments asserting Sarah Palin’s feminist bona fides.

Sarah Palin is an individualist, not a feminist. Fulfilling one’s potential doesn’t make one a feminist. Sarah Palin is not a woman’s issues liberationist; but an individualist; a doer. She sees a problem in her community and she sets about solving it. She’s an individual doing her best, as she sees it, to improve herself and the community she lives in. That seems to be her calling. She is not doing this qua woman, but as an individual. Since when is fulfilling one’s potential always a manifestation of a feminist mindset when a woman is concerned?

I suspect that the conservative prattle about sexism, which Alex has correctly derided, has confused our friend. Alex is right about the stupidity of conservatives adopting feminism rather than articulating Palin’s achievements in the language of individualism.

Does the fact that I wish to fulfill my potential as a writer make me a feminist? No; I’m an individualist through and through.

As to the gender roles in the Palin household: In the early years of their marriage, the very manly first Dude supported his wife and their children. Sarah Palin then got involved with the school—an involvement that led to a career. As her career evolved, the family organization changed. Is this feminism at work? Hardly! These are individuals interacting and completing one another at different stages of their lives.

I’d like one day to retire my brilliant husband and see him cook for me and play guitar all day. Does that make me a feminist? Au Contraire; that’s the give and take between mature, loving individuals.

Update II (Sep. 11): The Silly Sex continues to sound off over Sarah Palin. This time a Salon.com feminist evinces what in our household is known as the “V” Factor. “V” stands not for victory, but for the inability of a woman to transcend her genitals. Quite common among distaff America. Here are the histrionics of a uterus named Rebecca Traister:

“Palin’s femininity is one that is recognizable to most women: She’s the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much. The kind of woman who, as Jessica Grose at Jezebel has eloquently noted, achieves her power by doing everything modern women believed they did not have to do: presenting herself as maternal and sexual, sucking up to men, evincing an absolute lack of native ambition, instead emphasizing her luck as the recipient of strong male support and approval. It works because these stances do not upset antiquated gender norms. So when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations but who falls short of the goal, Palin is there, tapped as a supposedly perfect substitute by powerful men who appreciate her charms. …”

“The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin’s nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin’s candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.”

Update IV: The Olympians: Fabulous Phelps, China & The Rest

Africa, America, Bush, China, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Sport

Four years ago, I wrote the following in a column about Athens titled “Compete, Don’t Kill”:

“The Olympics is the kind of event that looms sufficiently large – for two weeks every two years – to shunt the kleptocracy to the sidelines, revealing it as the freak show it truly is.

The eager young faces, the lithe, lean bodies, the unabashed pursuit of victory (even the Canadians, well-indoctrinated about the evils of competitiveness, couldn’t suppress cries of “merde” and “crap” when they lost a swimming relay), the brutal regimen required to become the best, the irrepressible spirit that compels athletes to submit to the grueling grind. It is all so very exhilarating – no “shock and awe,” just awe. Some cheat to achieve an unnatural advantage over their adversaries, but for the most part, the Olympics are an expression of unadulterated merit – a concept that has been degraded beyond rehabilitation in almost all other human endeavor.

The acme of athletic achievement, expressed in the immutable truths of speed, strength and skill, is uncontested. The charmed men and women gracing the podiums of modern Olympia are there for no other reason than that they are the finest in their fields. What greater contrast can there be between the Olympian, who powers himself to the pinnacle, and the politician, who drapes himself in the noble toga of idealism, in the famous words of Aldous Huxley, so as to conceal his will to power.”

“It was as though the state and its hobgoblins – meant to keep everyone scared and subservient – had drowned in the swimming pool of Athens.”

Cut to Beijing, 2008: The fabulous Michael Phelps is once again forging ahead undisturbed–the greatest swimmer ever. He won the “400m IM in 4 minutes, 3.84 seconds, shattering his own world record in the process.” Ryan Lochte was resplendent in third place.

The rosy, sweet-smiling face of the American fencers said it all: the three, well-spoken, impressive young ladies secured gold, silver and bronze in the women’s sabre fencing event.

In 2004, we witnessed the come back of the legendary Martina Navratilova at age 47. The same spirit of sportsmanship and skill saw Dara Torres, 41, power the American team into second place in the 4x100m freestyle relay. Her time was “second-fastest in the morning final.”

No superlatives do justice to our gymnasts.

I hope the U.S. men’s basketball team doesn’t repeat its shameful Athens antics. I repeat my sentiments of four years back: “I only hope that our sprinters handle themselves with dignity during the high point of the competition: the American-dominated, testosterone-fueled, always magnificent, 100-meter men’s dash (forget it ladies: You are not in this league).”

So far, American athletes lead with 8 medals; China is second with 4: “America is in [China] to do what it does best – compete, not kill.”

Update I (August 11): So the French swimming team promised to “smash” the Americans in the men’s 4 x 100 freestyle. Who’s talking now, “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys”?
Jason Lezak swam like a demon, winning by a fraction of a second. The American team was terribly gracious—to the French. Nice young men. (Ours, not theirs) (Check out this atrocious writing, jam-packed with breathy superlatives. CNBC’s writer doesn’t even cite the French’s time.)

Swimming for Zimbabwe (WHY?), Kirsty Coventry is an interesting—and great—swimmer to watch. She has already set a record in the women’s 100m backstroke. The Zimbabwe government, and most all people in that country, put aside their animosity toward whites, dubbing her their “Golden Girl.” Zimbabweans realize that she is their only Olympic hope. With such talent, she lives and trains in the US, although her family struggles on in Zimbabwe.

For similar reasons, Jean Basson of South Africa is someone to watch—and someone I will root for silently. He swam splendidly in the 200m freestyle heats. (Except that you never know whether he’s using all he has and Phelps is just cruising.) Maybe an Olympic victory will win him a reprieve with his ANC overlords back home.

What a treat it all is

Update II: On American political posturing vis-à-vis China: I am so tired of it–of American meddling. I am sure most Chinese are too. Let them deal with their problems; stay out. Western media get it wrong on most issue. Iraqis had problems; but did they need America in their backyard? Far from it. Back off already. We have problems in the US! Severe infractions of liberty occur here daily, including death by police, and evictions and property seizures for nefarious reasons (with reference to the reader’s hereunder comment). Fight battles on American soil.

Our reader mentions the “surrounding [Chinese] authority,” which everywhere oppresses him. I see a magnificent event conducted with great decorum and pride and despite a lot of pious puling from Americans. To see “authority” in action in American cities, wait for the Demopublican conventions to roll into town. Puleez. What is it about Americans who insist that other people have nothing to be proud of, and only America has it right? You know what? The Chinese don’t pay the kind of taxes we in the US are subjected to. I’d like the Chinese government to intervene on my behalf in this matter.

In “Classical Liberalisms and State Schemes” I made the case that with our pathological need to rescue others we disable them. It’s worth a read.

Update III: Too many Americans, our reader hereunder included, seem incapable of seeing things from the perspective of the Chinese, most of whom are exceedingly proud of their country right now. The “boycott China” sentiment appears sanctimonious, voiced, it would seem, to show how fair the person expressing it is. Why doesn’t the “boycott China” claque “crumble” equally over homegrown injustice? Why not refuse to enjoy our sportsmen and women because of our government’s evils? Why not cry croc over the crimes this government, with the acquiescence of most of its people, committed in Iraq. The Chinese have not come close to that feat, not of late.

Update IV (August 12): Phelps swam a riveting 400m IM race yesterday. What power, what grace. He smashed the world record and led by a good second or two, winning another gold medal

Another cool cucumber is Aaron Peirsol who scooped the gold for an event that has been his for some years: 100-meter backstroke. Matt Grevers won silver. Both struck me as delightful (and gorgeous) young men. I have no doubt that watching a lot of news as I do on TV exposes me to the worst of humanity—the anchors and the Demopublican strategist duos. Among the Olympians one sees the best of humanity. To push the body and the mind to the limits takes a special human being.

The Chinese men’s gymnastics team took gold and was indeed superhuman. I’m a little sad that difficulty has replaced the artistic element that used to be part of the floor routine, but the Chinese and Japanese gymnasts were simply superb. Our gymnasts were good sports—they were not the best, but displayed such exuberance and energy. That netted a bronze.

I must say, I have no idea what the grumbling is about on this blog with respect to the “commercialization” of the events. Myself, I am more concerned with the introduction of dubious sports into the event in recent years—half-nude beach volleyball, for example. I fully appreciate that one can become skilled in this “game,” as Kerri Walsh has, but so what? Just so long as they don’t cancel the traditional Olympian draws: track-and-field, swimming, gymnastics.

To those of you who’re daintily about the gaudy, vulgar, capitalistic aspects of the Olympics—fine. Make a Naomi-Klein statement. But then concede that none of the taint sticks to the Olympians themselves, who embody physical purity. What an individualist one must be to achieve what these men and women drive themselves to achieve. There is no getting away from that.

Decades ago, I used to sprint competitively. Long jump was also a passion. A confluence of circumstances combined to cut my track-and-field endeavors short. I still run, if only to feel something of that feeling that comes with propelling the (aging) physical frame forward.

Update V (August 14): “Splash & Dash; that’s the men’s 50m freestyle. The South African champion Roland Schoeman, who trains in the US (but whose family no doubt is not permitted to emigrate here, because white), is a wonderful swimmer. He has qualified for the finals.

As a kid, I had watched Mark Spitz in 1972; Phelps is the most exciting athlete since.

Update IV: The Olympians: Fabulous Phelps, China & The Rest

Africa, America, Bush, China, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Sport

Four years ago, I wrote the following in a column about Athens titled “Compete, Don’t Kill”:

“The Olympics is the kind of event that looms sufficiently large – for two weeks every two years – to shunt the kleptocracy to the sidelines, revealing it as the freak show it truly is.

The eager young faces, the lithe, lean bodies, the unabashed pursuit of victory (even the Canadians, well-indoctrinated about the evils of competitiveness, couldn’t suppress cries of “merde” and “crap” when they lost a swimming relay), the brutal regimen required to become the best, the irrepressible spirit that compels athletes to submit to the grueling grind. It is all so very exhilarating – no “shock and awe,” just awe. Some cheat to achieve an unnatural advantage over their adversaries, but for the most part, the Olympics are an expression of unadulterated merit – a concept that has been degraded beyond rehabilitation in almost all other human endeavor.

The acme of athletic achievement, expressed in the immutable truths of speed, strength and skill, is uncontested. The charmed men and women gracing the podiums of modern Olympia are there for no other reason than that they are the finest in their fields. What greater contrast can there be between the Olympian, who powers himself to the pinnacle, and the politician, who drapes himself in the noble toga of idealism, in the famous words of Aldous Huxley, so as to conceal his will to power.”

“It was as though the state and its hobgoblins – meant to keep everyone scared and subservient – had drowned in the swimming pool of Athens.”

Cut to Beijing, 2008: The fabulous Michael Phelps is once again forging ahead undisturbed–the greatest swimmer ever. He won the “400m IM in 4 minutes, 3.84 seconds, shattering his own world record in the process.” Ryan Lochte was resplendent in third place.

The rosy, sweet-smiling face of the American fencers said it all: the three, well-spoken, impressive young ladies secured gold, silver and bronze in the women’s sabre fencing event.

In 2004, we witnessed the come back of the legendary Martina Navratilova at age 47. The same spirit of sportsmanship and skill saw Dara Torres, 41, power the American team into second place in the 4x100m freestyle relay. Her time was “second-fastest in the morning final.”

No superlatives do justice to our gymnasts.

I hope the U.S. men’s basketball team doesn’t repeat its shameful Athens antics. I repeat my sentiments of four years back: “I only hope that our sprinters handle themselves with dignity during the high point of the competition: the American-dominated, testosterone-fueled, always magnificent, 100-meter men’s dash (forget it ladies: You are not in this league).”

So far, American athletes lead with 8 medals; China is second with 4: “America is in [China] to do what it does best – compete, not kill.”

Update I (August 11): So the French swimming team promised to “smash” the Americans in the men’s 4 x 100 freestyle. Who’s talking now, “Cheese-eating surrender monkeys”?
Jason Lezak swam like a demon, winning by a fraction of a second. The American team was terribly gracious—to the French. Nice young men. (Ours, not theirs) (Check out this atrocious writing, jam-packed with breathy superlatives. CNBC’s writer doesn’t even cite the French’s time.)

Swimming for Zimbabwe (WHY?), Kirsty Coventry is an interesting—and great—swimmer to watch. She has already set a record in the women’s 100m backstroke. The Zimbabwe government, and most all people in that country, put aside their animosity toward whites, dubbing her their “Golden Girl.” Zimbabweans realize that she is their only Olympic hope. With such talent, she lives and trains in the US, although her family struggles on in Zimbabwe.

For similar reasons, Jean Basson of South Africa is someone to watch—and someone I will root for silently. He swam splendidly in the 200m freestyle heats. (Except that you never know whether he’s using all he has and Phelps is just cruising.) Maybe an Olympic victory will win him a reprieve with his ANC overlords back home.

What a treat it all is

Update II: On American political posturing vis-à-vis China: I am so tired of it–of American meddling. I am sure most Chinese are too. Let them deal with their problems; stay out. Western media get it wrong on most issue. Iraqis had problems; but did they need America in their backyard? Far from it. Back off already. We have problems in the US! Severe infractions of liberty occur here daily, including death by police, and evictions and property seizures for nefarious reasons (with reference to the reader’s hereunder comment). Fight battles on American soil.

Our reader mentions the “surrounding [Chinese] authority,” which everywhere oppresses him. I see a magnificent event conducted with great decorum and pride and despite a lot of pious puling from Americans. To see “authority” in action in American cities, wait for the Demopublican conventions to roll into town. Puleez. What is it about Americans who insist that other people have nothing to be proud of, and only America has it right? You know what? The Chinese don’t pay the kind of taxes we in the US are subjected to. I’d like the Chinese government to intervene on my behalf in this matter.

In “Classical Liberalisms and State Schemes” I made the case that with our pathological need to rescue others we disable them. It’s worth a read.

Update III: Too many Americans, our reader hereunder included, seem incapable of seeing things from the perspective of the Chinese, most of whom are exceedingly proud of their country right now. The “boycott China” sentiment appears sanctimonious, voiced, it would seem, to show how fair the person expressing it is. Why doesn’t the “boycott China” claque “crumble” equally over homegrown injustice? Why not refuse to enjoy our sportsmen and women because of our government’s evils? Why not cry croc over the crimes this government, with the acquiescence of most of its people, committed in Iraq. The Chinese have not come close to that feat, not of late.

Update IV (August 12): Phelps swam a riveting 400m IM race yesterday. What power, what grace. He smashed the world record and led by a good second or two, winning another gold medal

Another cool cucumber is Aaron Peirsol who scooped the gold for an event that has been his for some years: 100-meter backstroke. Matt Grevers won silver. Both struck me as delightful (and gorgeous) young men. I have no doubt that watching a lot of news as I do on TV exposes me to the worst of humanity—the anchors and the Demopublican strategist duos. Among the Olympians one sees the best of humanity. To push the body and the mind to the limits takes a special human being.

The Chinese men’s gymnastics team took gold and was indeed superhuman. I’m a little sad that difficulty has replaced the artistic element that used to be part of the floor routine, but the Chinese and Japanese gymnasts were simply superb. Our gymnasts were good sports—they were not the best, but displayed such exuberance and energy. That netted a bronze.

I must say, I have no idea what the grumbling is about on this blog with respect to the “commercialization” of the events. Myself, I am more concerned with the introduction of dubious sports into the event in recent years—half-nude beach volleyball, for example. I fully appreciate that one can become skilled in this “game,” as Kerri Walsh has, but so what? Just so long as they don’t cancel the traditional Olympian draws: track-and-field, swimming, gymnastics.

To those of you who’re daintily about the gaudy, vulgar, capitalistic aspects of the Olympics—fine. Make a Naomi-Klein statement. But then concede that none of the taint sticks to the Olympians themselves, who embody physical purity. What an individualist one must be to achieve what these men and women drive themselves to achieve. There is no getting away from that.

Decades ago, I used to sprint competitively. Long jump was also a passion. A confluence of circumstances combined to cut my track-and-field endeavors short. I still run, if only to feel something of that feeling that comes with propelling the (aging) physical frame forward.

Update V (August 14): “Splash & Dash; that’s the men’s 50m freestyle. The South African champion Roland Schoeman, who trains in the US (but whose family no doubt is not permitted to emigrate here, because white), is a wonderful swimmer. He has qualified for the finals.

As a kid, I had watched Mark Spitz in 1972; Phelps is the most exciting athlete since.

Update II: Marx Was Partly Right By Tibor Machan

BAB's A List, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Private Property, Socialism

Update I (June 29): I’m please to bring you a piece by BAB A-Lister, Tibor Machan. Tibor holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at Chapman University and is research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, CA. He is editorial advisor for Freedom Communications, Inc., which includes the errant Orange County Register. Well, at least our Tibor still features on the editorial page. Tibor has also recommended my column, for which I am grateful (www.Tibormachan.com).
Update II: Tibor is on hand to answer your questions. Make the most of the opportunity.

MARX WAS PARTLY RIGHT
By Tibor Machan

Most literate people know that first on the list in Karl Marx & Frederick Engels’ Communist Manifesto of what needed changing to achieve socialism is the abolition of the right to private property. This follows, of course, from the very idea of socialism, which sees humanity or society as an organic body, akin to a termite colony. Individuals no longer exist in such a system, so privacy and private property must go, too.

Marx also made a prediction that in modern democracies there wouldn’t be a need for violent revolutions because the citizenry will get rid of the legal protection of private property through the electoral process. Too many people will get fed up with the volatility of freedom, including the free market place, and gradually achieve socialism by voting in politicians who will eliminate the obstacle of legally protected private property rights to central planning.

Marx thought that central planning would serve society well but he based this idea on his confidence that human nature will change. Instead of people wanting to achieve various goals of their own, they will in time come to aim only for the public good. He believed that once matured, “the human essence is the true collectivity of man.” The new man, then, will not be like you and me or anyone today.

This is an important element of socialism and central planning because only if it is true will the theory of public choice, which completely undermines confidence in central planning, be avoided. Public choice theory addresses human being as they are now, not as they would turn out to be in Marx’s vision of a socialist society. If Marx is wrong and human nature will not change, then public choice theory shows that central planners will make a mess of things, not help out at all. Central planners, being ordinary humans, will aim at fulfilling their own agendas, not some vague public purpose.

A unified, one-size-fits-all public purpose makes sense within the context of the Marxian idea of the new man, one who cares nothing for himself or herself, only for the whole society. This is like people in a team or orchestra who are not focused on their own private agendas but that of the group. It works fine in small organizations which human beings join voluntarily because they do in fact promise to fulfill their own goals, only with the aid of other people. But in Karl Marx’s picture no need for voluntary joining exists. People will be born as socialists, by their very nature.

Because the Marxian idea is myth—history is not driving us toward socialism and the new man—the socialism aimed for by Marx and his followers has to be brought about coercively, by brute force–see Stalin or Hugo Chavez, as examples. This is even so when people elect politicians whom they entrust with public service because those people, of course, haven’t a clue how to achieve some mythical comprehensive public good. So even when elected by majorities, as Max thought they would be in democracies, promoters of socialism will be thoroughly stymied by their own unavoidable ignorance of what really benefits us. We are not all the same; indeed humanity as it actually is consists of a huge variety of individuals with an equally huge variety of different ways of attaining their best interests. No central planners can achieve this, ever.

But Marx did have it right that in their impatience and frustration with the free market, people will attempt the impossible. (Marx, of course, didn’t think socialism was impossible.) Consider, for example, environmental issues. Many are panicked about how well protected private property rights leave much of the environment uncared for–e. g., rain forests, the polar bear, etc., etc. So they then wish to entrust the care to politicians and planners. They envision some kind of supreme plan that will bring about a healthy ecosystem. But no one really knows what that is and planners are just as prone to mismanage it all as individuals, only the scope of their mismanagement is far greater, so the damage they do is huge. (In fact most of the current environmental mess is due to government central planners who built ridiculously huge projects using government’s power to violate private property rights, as in the case of the TVA and the many humongous dams around the globe.)

Impatience is what produces all this. It is true that with a regime of legally protected private property rights no grand scheme is in the offing. Yet that impossible dream motivates too many people, however futile it is from the start. The only real prospect is the piecemeal, strict private property approach and that is what encourages—though it does not guarantee—the responsible use of the environment.

Just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, so the myth of guaranteed environmental health is the enemy of a reasonably healthy one. Too bad, but Marx did have a point about people’s impatience. Yet certainly it isn’t going to lead to any socialist utopia.