5 ms·

> Russians have never had any real individual rights. To take a step back and think about things (not that I'm suggesting what I think)... in most places for m

by mfer 4y ago

> Russians have never had any real individual rights. To take a step back and think about things (not that I'm suggesting what I think)... in most places for most of history it's been about the group. The collective. Being heavily individualized is a modern and western thing. So, why is one way right and another way wrong? Note, I do not agree with what's going on with Russia. I'm simply bringing up the higher level question that's often assumed but rarely looked at.

alkonaut 4y ago
> So, why is one way right and another way wrong? There are conventions. That countries agree to uphold. In this case not upholding them is the "wrong" way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...
- mfer 4y ago
  So side stepped the context of my question (group vs individual) and answered to the context of the parent.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    I was specifically responding to your comment: there are plenty of charters and conventions and when they refer to human rights they refer to individuals not groups. Russia and others have agreed to (for example) the UN CRC meaning they can have any feelings when it comes to society vs individual but the rights of the child still remain.
meijer 4y ago
I don't think respect for basic humans rights and heavy individualization are necessarily related. They should be discussed separately.
NineStarPoint 4y ago
Russia isn’t a country that’s about the group either though, it’s just a strong oligarchy. And not even an oligarchy that has roots in group based thinking like China, it’s very much an oligarchy born out of western individualism instead. More generally, I’d say that group based thinking should not be enforced by the government. A society based around “the group is most important” can enforce itself just fine based on societal norms and their consequences (who people are willing to interact with and hire for work). What a government stepping in and saying what sort of talk is acceptable does is freeze the society to what the government enforces. Instead people should be able to try and change society norms if they believe there’s a better way, rather than government forcing it to stagnate.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  In Russia, the rulers see any ideology as dangerous. You have to prove you are loyal the the rulers, not some ideology.
scottLobster 4y ago
One way produces far more wealth for more people than the other. Wealth isn't just luxuries, it's technology. It's health. It's more time to do more things more efficiently. It's evolving and generally improving the human condition, as opposed to stagnation. Obviously not everyone agrees with the direction of evolution or the various philosophies involved, but the system provides flexibility such that we aren't constantly genociding each other just to get our way, which used to be the norm. Of course at the end of the day none of us know the meaning of existence, but I think most can agree taht "reducing fruitless suffering" is a better place to start than most. Obviously there's a balance to be struck. 100% individualism is just anarchy. But history has proven that allowing people an above-historical-average level of individual freedom leads to a more productive and secure society. That said it's debatable whether strong-man dictatorships are "collectivist" at all. They're extremely individualist, but only for a select group of elite individuals. Otherwise they'd try and make decisions to benefit the group, and as Putin has shown in Ukraine, they often don't. Never mind the strategic decision to invade which might have had some initial merit, you would expect a truly collectivist nation to prioritize competence in its military. As it stands a full NATO conventional intervention could end the war in a month, the only thing keeping Russia intact is brutal suppression of internal dissent and a nuclear arsenal that, if it's been maintained as badly as its regular military, might very well explode in its silos on launch. That doesn't sound like a very effective collective to me. Maybe it would have been effective 300 years ago because that level of organization is all most nations had, but that's the point. It's an obsolete model.
sifar 4y ago
This group-individual dichotomy has been the oldest source of conflict. As social construct, both the individual and the group cannot exists without each other. One can only be an individual when one can differentiate oneself from or within a group - otherwise there is no basis for comparison. There is the tyranny of the group and the tyranny of the individual - we need to reject both. On which way is right - I would say one should be able to choose the group and retreat from it if so desired.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
You'd have a point if the Russian elites were actually on the front lines and not partying in Dubai and India. Putin's regime is not communism.

by mfer 4y ago

alkonaut 4y ago

> So, why is one way right and another way wrong? There are conventions. That countries agree to uphold. In this case not upholding them is the "wrong" way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...

mfer 4y ago
So side stepped the context of my question (group vs individual) and answered to the context of the parent.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  I was specifically responding to your comment: there are plenty of charters and conventions and when they refer to human rights they refer to individuals not groups. Russia and others have agreed to (for example) the UN CRC meaning they can have any feelings when it comes to society vs individual but the rights of the child still remain.

meijer 4y ago

I don't think respect for basic humans rights and heavy individualization are necessarily related. They should be discussed separately.

NineStarPoint 4y ago

Russia isn’t a country that’s about the group either though, it’s just a strong oligarchy. And not even an oligarchy that has roots in group based thinking like China, it’s very much an oligarchy born out of western individualism instead. More generally, I’d say that group based thinking should not be enforced by the government. A society based around “the group is most important” can enforce itself just fine based on societal norms and their consequences (who people are willing to interact with and hire for work). What a government stepping in and saying what sort of talk is acceptable does is freeze the society to what the government enforces. Instead people should be able to try and change society norms if they believe there’s a better way, rather than government forcing it to stagnate.

actionfromafar 4y ago
In Russia, the rulers see any ideology as dangerous. You have to prove you are loyal the the rulers, not some ideology.

scottLobster 4y ago

One way produces far more wealth for more people than the other. Wealth isn't just luxuries, it's technology. It's health. It's more time to do more things more efficiently. It's evolving and generally improving the human condition, as opposed to stagnation. Obviously not everyone agrees with the direction of evolution or the various philosophies involved, but the system provides flexibility such that we aren't constantly genociding each other just to get our way, which used to be the norm. Of course at the end of the day none of us know the meaning of existence, but I think most can agree taht "reducing fruitless suffering" is a better place to start than most. Obviously there's a balance to be struck. 100% individualism is just anarchy. But history has proven that allowing people an above-historical-average level of individual freedom leads to a more productive and secure society. That said it's debatable whether strong-man dictatorships are "collectivist" at all. They're extremely individualist, but only for a select group of elite individuals. Otherwise they'd try and make decisions to benefit the group, and as Putin has shown in Ukraine, they often don't. Never mind the strategic decision to invade which might have had some initial merit, you would expect a truly collectivist nation to prioritize competence in its military. As it stands a full NATO conventional intervention could end the war in a month, the only thing keeping Russia intact is brutal suppression of internal dissent and a nuclear arsenal that, if it's been maintained as badly as its regular military, might very well explode in its silos on launch. That doesn't sound like a very effective collective to me. Maybe it would have been effective 300 years ago because that level of organization is all most nations had, but that's the point. It's an obsolete model.

sifar 4y ago

This group-individual dichotomy has been the oldest source of conflict. As social construct, both the individual and the group cannot exists without each other. One can only be an individual when one can differentiate oneself from or within a group - otherwise there is no basis for comparison. There is the tyranny of the group and the tyranny of the individual - we need to reject both. On which way is right - I would say one should be able to choose the group and retreat from it if so desired.

WeylandYutani 4y ago

You'd have a point if the Russian elites were actually on the front lines and not partying in Dubai and India. Putin's regime is not communism.