Is collectivism selfless and individualism selfish?
Using this definition of selfish: "Holding one’s self-interest as the standard for decision making."
and this definition of individualism: "Someone who does as they wish, unconstrained to external influences"
while
Selfless: "Having, exhibiting or motivated by no concern for oneself but for others"
Collectivism "term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group "
No – a movement cannot have attributes in this way anymore than we can say a church is full of love – there is a lot of difference between what is written on the tin and what is actually in there.
You would have to look at individual anarchists and communists to see how selfless they were.
Carl Rogers and Maslow thought that at base humans had something good inside and that what is most personal is universal that at base we connect as humans – When there is a natural tragedy we act to get people to safety it is instinctive to try to save lives.
So each of your definitions is reducible to the same thing if what is good for one is good for all what is good for all is good for one.
I was told a story by a communist friend when I gave money to a homeless person – that a communist would give that money to the party for the good of all.
I think it was just an exchange of money from a temporary have to a temporary have not
So the only distinction I would make is how you carry out your own pattern of selflessness and selfishness – Your question made me think of the betrayed kronstadt sailors.
I find you use a very bias and narrow interpretation of each. Both collectivism and individualism may act in either a selfish or selfless manner. It all depends on circumstance. Individualism is essentially respecting ones uniqueness and personal sovereignty over ones self and Independence whereas collectivism focuses more on grouping people and their connection and place in the world as a group rather than simply themselves.
With this you may have it either way, selfish collectivism that strips away any and all uniqueness and staunch furtherance of group thinking and group rights over individual and what is best for that particular group and its beating of another or you may have individual selfishness in that what one wants, he/she may acquire it and only care about themselves.
You may also have selflessness from each collectivism (I.e: group and community rallies) and individualism (I.e: Tank man of Tienanmen square or charity work countless individuals give each year)
So No to your question. Your definitions of each are faaaar too narrow to be of real substance in this question and leave out the true definitions of both individualism and collectivism.
References :
Common sense, and your definition of individualism more looks like a definition given for a sociopath than that of individualism.
i am a princess :3
References :
No – a movement cannot have attributes in this way anymore than we can say a church is full of love – there is a lot of difference between what is written on the tin and what is actually in there.
You would have to look at individual anarchists and communists to see how selfless they were.
Carl Rogers and Maslow thought that at base humans had something good inside and that what is most personal is universal that at base we connect as humans – When there is a natural tragedy we act to get people to safety it is instinctive to try to save lives.
So each of your definitions is reducible to the same thing if what is good for one is good for all what is good for all is good for one.
I was told a story by a communist friend when I gave money to a homeless person – that a communist would give that money to the party for the good of all.
I think it was just an exchange of money from a temporary have to a temporary have not
So the only distinction I would make is how you carry out your own pattern of selflessness and selfishness – Your question made me think of the betrayed kronstadt sailors.
References :