• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is It Possible to Support the Middle Class WITHOUT Being an Individualist?

Is It Possible to Support the Middle Class WITHOUT Being an Individualist?


  • Total voters
    10

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
I was talking with coworkers last week about this issue, and we had a disagreement.

My position is individualism and the middle class go hand in hand because it's only through individualism that social mobility is possible. Without individualism, the populace remains stuck as a community, and elites remain stuck as a community. There are no opportunities for status to be achieved on one's own merit. Rather people are only judged by the benevolence of their company. If you live among malevolent people, you have no shot at improvement without individualism because your community holds you back.

One of my coworkers said individualism inhibits the middle class because it forgets that people need to be supported to get places. With individualism, people forget their roots, so there's nobody to support them. Even worse, it leads to a vicious rat race where everyone is constantly sabotaging each other for the measliest scraps of success. If you live among malevolent people, individualism screws you over because nobody behaves. It's only among benevolent people that you have a shot at being respected.

I don't really understand my coworker's position, and frankly, I feel like he's just sucking up. The only way a community props up a hero is if individuals within it are intimidated into unawareness. That way, they sacrifice their own experience in order to support someone who's intimidating. The intimidating justify this by saying they have to maintain their support, but in reality, they're being selfish and exploiting good luck.

As an aside, this is why I believe socialism is a conservative, not a liberal, ideology. Socialism relishes in the natural relations of production, saying those born with good luck are entitled to social status, discouraging people from developing potential just so those with developed potential can stay on top.

Literally, socialism conserves the status quo.
 
From the op:
One of my coworkers said individualism inhibits the middle class because it forgets that people need to be supported to get places. With individualism, people forget their roots, so there's nobody to support them. Even worse, it leads to a vicious rat race where everyone is constantly sabotaging each other for the measliest scraps of success. If you live among malevolent people, individualism screws you over because nobody behaves. It's only among benevolent people that you have a shot at being respected.

People don't "need" to be supported to get places. Individualism doesn't make people forget their roots, and has nothing to do with support. One doesn't need respect in order to be an individualist, nor does individualism depend on benevolence. It depends on a system of legal protections, made by a group, which may or may not be made up of benevolent individuals. It sounds as if your coworker confuses benevolent individuals with legal systems.
 
I think both of you are correct.

The primary issue in your discussion is that there is no one best way to do anything in life, but that best ways is dependent on whatever situation. Because of that and without going into too much detail because I got stuff to do this evening, there are times when both statements are true.
 
Yes of course

Being an individualist would mean being selfish and being selfish tends to harm society, making the growth of the economy and middle class smaller then otherwise. Higher levels of community association and support all are factors in improving the size and status of the middle class. Either from being a mentor, or providing support to some in the community to attain higher levels of education, all are non indivualistic in actions and both will increase and support the middle class

I would suggest looking at jewish American communities and how they tend to be supportive of other members in the community, and not being individualistic
 
Yes of course

Being an individualist would mean being selfish and being selfish tends to harm society, making the growth of the economy and middle class smaller then otherwise. Higher levels of community association and support all are factors in improving the size and status of the middle class. Either from being a mentor, or providing support to some in the community to attain higher levels of education, all are non indivualistic in actions and both will increase and support the middle class

I would suggest looking at jewish American communities and how they tend to be supportive of other members in the community, and not being individualistic

My coworker's a Korean adopted by a Jewish family.

It's very frustrating trying to work with him because he never does his own work. He's always trying to "collaborate" when in reality, he just flatters people into giving up trade secrets. If you don't, he tries to alienate you from the office, saying you're paranoid.

My boss has caught wind of this a few times now, and we're going to have a performance evaluation at the end of the week dealing with our own accounts.
 
My coworker's a Korean adopted by a Jewish family.

It's very frustrating trying to work with him because he never does his own work. He's always trying to "collaborate" when in reality, he just flatters people into giving up trade secrets. If you don't, he tries to alienate you from the office, saying you're paranoid.

My boss has caught wind of this a few times now, and we're going to have a performance evaluation at the end of the week dealing with our own accounts.

Wow so you know a Korean adopted by a jewish family who is lazy

And this is relevant how?
 
Last edited:
Wow so you know a Korean adopted by a jewish family who is lazy

And this is relevant how?

How are you relevant?

You said look at Jewish communities. I've been around this guy and his parents and family when at business gatherings.

That's my experience. It isn't my job to live a life to prove your argument.
 
No pride here - this whole thread is above my head...thus makes no sense...
IMO, a man , an individualist, can better support the middle class, if this "turns him on", gives him satsifaction......but this is difficult, sometimes impractical... often-times ineffective.
 
I was talking with coworkers last week about this issue, and we had a disagreement.

My position is individualism and the middle class go hand in hand because it's only through individualism that social mobility is possible. Without individualism, the populace remains stuck as a community, and elites remain stuck as a community. There are no opportunities for status to be achieved on one's own merit. Rather people are only judged by the benevolence of their company. If you live among malevolent people, you have no shot at improvement without individualism because your community holds you back.

One of my coworkers said individualism inhibits the middle class because it forgets that people need to be supported to get places. With individualism, people forget their roots, so there's nobody to support them. Even worse, it leads to a vicious rat race where everyone is constantly sabotaging each other for the measliest scraps of success. If you live among malevolent people, individualism screws you over because nobody behaves. It's only among benevolent people that you have a shot at being respected.

I don't really understand my coworker's position, and frankly, I feel like he's just sucking up. The only way a community props up a hero is if individuals within it are intimidated into unawareness. That way, they sacrifice their own experience in order to support someone who's intimidating. The intimidating justify this by saying they have to maintain their support, but in reality, they're being selfish and exploiting good luck.

As an aside, this is why I believe socialism is a conservative, not a liberal, ideology. Socialism relishes in the natural relations of production, saying those born with good luck are entitled to social status, discouraging people from developing potential just so those with developed potential can stay on top.

Literally, socialism conserves the status quo.

Uhhh, wut????
 
Yes of course

Being an individualist would mean being selfish and being selfish tends to harm society, making the growth of the economy and middle class smaller then otherwise. Higher levels of community association and support all are factors in improving the size and status of the middle class. Either from being a mentor, or providing support to some in the community to attain higher levels of education, all are non indivualistic in actions and both will increase and support the middle class

I would suggest looking at jewish American communities and how they tend to be supportive of other members in the community, and not being individualistic

People can engage in all the private social contracts they want.
 
Individualism making the middle class stronger and advancing to middle class sounds like great libertarian theory.

It does fly in the face of a few facts however. The American middle class made it's most rapid gains, built a launching platform for it's offspring into many areas of work/ social status that now has it's children vilifying it's creator.

Unions.

Back when industry made America the leader in durable goods it was the rise of the factory floor worker from disposable parts to stable worker and thus eligible for house and vehicle loans that earlier tenement workers could never hope to obtain. The average factory worker couldn't go to the boss and get better conditions, safer methods, better pay and stable hours, medical when hurt- it took the entire factory floor demanding those things and fighting, bleeding and being scabbed before a massive new group of Americans could count on more than the sun rising tomorrow.

Individuals could rise quicker do to connections, good ideas, or inventing the next must have widget but not the massive numbers needed to create a middle class.

Now with the shift to salaried white collar worker the focus for some is on individual achievement over group accomplishment which has turned a few heads away from solidarity, which beat communism in Poland, to thrice deny strength in numbers. There is no I in team therefore these guys will not be team players.

From what I've seen of corporate inner workings is the need is now more than ever for teamwork over individual stars.

I'd say the lack of funding for team sports in schools and the concentration on computer games that compartmentalize off people is what is driving this new 'it's all about me' mentality... :mrgreen:
 
How are you relevant?

You said look at Jewish communities. I've been around this guy and his parents and family when at business gatherings.

That's my experience. It isn't my job to live a life to prove your argument.

But you try to prove your point by providing an example set by one individual, which is of course a path to faluire.

Example, Chinese people are all good at basketball, Jeremy Lin proves that. Is that not an idiotic assumption, is that not what you did when saying collabortors are lazy, by providing the example of your Korean, who was adopted by jewish people.

True my example is a generalization of the American jewish community, but it is one that hold true for a large part of it. Not all jewish Americans are going to be community orientated and hard working, rather then being indiviualistic
 
Individualism is all about advancing the individual over the collective. "I'm the Alpha male and I'm better than others; I deserve to be at the top and I'll compete to get there." This is a philosophy for the elite. The middle class, by definition, is not made up of the elite.

Collectivism is the philosophy for those that aren't the best and the brightest. It's a philosophy for the Betas pooling their relatively less exceptional assets to leverage an acceptably mediocre result for everyone.

Individualism is the mechanism that impels the elites to the top; it offers the middle class no more support than Keira Knightley gets from wearing Kim Kardashian's bra.
 
There is no doubt success requires individual drive and merit. That is, of course, the modality of achievement. However, it is also true that no one is ever successful completely on their own. No one. We're a social species with a complex society and complex goals that by necessity require more resources than we completely alone are capable of. The number of ways that your life is held up by the community on a day-to-day basis is almost uncountable. This is just a true even for the richest, most successful person on the planet.

It's both. In order to support the middle class, you must support the right of individuals to be successful on their own merit. But you also must support the social stability and cohesion that makes that possible.

If you don't support the individual, then merit becomes meaningless and is sacrificed for a community ideal (ironically, disregarding individual merit also guarantees that you will never reach any such ideal). But if you don't support the community, then the framework that allows for a stable, developed society collapses, and social mobility collapses with it.
 
Individualism making the middle class stronger and advancing to middle class sounds like great libertarian theory.

It does fly in the face of a few facts however. The American middle class made it's most rapid gains, built a launching platform for it's offspring into many areas of work/ social status that now has it's children vilifying it's creator.

Unions.

Back when industry made America the leader in durable goods it was the rise of the factory floor worker from disposable parts to stable worker and thus eligible for house and vehicle loans that earlier tenement workers could never hope to obtain. The average factory worker couldn't go to the boss and get better conditions, safer methods, better pay and stable hours, medical when hurt- it took the entire factory floor demanding those things and fighting, bleeding and being scabbed before a massive new group of Americans could count on more than the sun rising tomorrow.

Individuals could rise quicker do to connections, good ideas, or inventing the next must have widget but not the massive numbers needed to create a middle class.

Now with the shift to salaried white collar worker the focus for some is on individual achievement over group accomplishment which has turned a few heads away from solidarity, which beat communism in Poland, to thrice deny strength in numbers. There is no I in team therefore these guys will not be team players.

From what I've seen of corporate inner workings is the need is now more than ever for teamwork over individual stars.

I'd say the lack of funding for team sports in schools and the concentration on computer games that compartmentalize off people is what is driving this new 'it's all about me' mentality... :mrgreen:

Absolutely a great post in my opinion and right on the mark. Americans have forgotten what started the labor movement in this country, they have forgotten how workers when they were INDIVIDUALISTS were used like dishrags by employers.
We have slid back to the days were the EMPLOYERS have convinced employees that being an individual in the workplace is the way to get ahead....when the real truth is...individualism produces far less for everyone and very few can even possibly be successful and the employers just love that. It keeps everyones pay in the toilet and theirs soaring.
 
Individualism making the middle class stronger and advancing to middle class sounds like great libertarian theory.

It does fly in the face of a few facts however. The American middle class made it's most rapid gains, built a launching platform for it's offspring into many areas of work/ social status that now has it's children vilifying it's creator.

Unions.

Back when industry made America the leader in durable goods it was the rise of the factory floor worker from disposable parts to stable worker and thus eligible for house and vehicle loans that earlier tenement workers could never hope to obtain. The average factory worker couldn't go to the boss and get better conditions, safer methods, better pay and stable hours, medical when hurt- it took the entire factory floor demanding those things and fighting, bleeding and being scabbed before a massive new group of Americans could count on more than the sun rising tomorrow.

Individuals could rise quicker do to connections, good ideas, or inventing the next must have widget but not the massive numbers needed to create a middle class.

Now with the shift to salaried white collar worker the focus for some is on individual achievement over group accomplishment which has turned a few heads away from solidarity, which beat communism in Poland, to thrice deny strength in numbers. There is no I in team therefore these guys will not be team players.

From what I've seen of corporate inner workings is the need is now more than ever for teamwork over individual stars.

I'd say the lack of funding for team sports in schools and the concentration on computer games that compartmentalize off people is what is driving this new 'it's all about me' mentality... :mrgreen:

I've read the union line over and over, and I still don't get it. Unions are about seniority and keeping people in the working class rather than granting people social mobility. Anyone who succeeds is expected to sacrifice into the group, and the group wastes the sacrifice in taking pride in struggle.

Do you have any stories to share about unions actually propping people up?
 
I've read the union line over and over, and I still don't get it. Unions are about seniority and keeping people in the working class rather than granting people social mobility. Anyone who succeeds is expected to sacrifice into the group, and the group wastes the sacrifice in taking pride in struggle.

Do you have any stories to share about unions actually propping people up?


your wrong...anyone that gets offered a promotion and accepts it leaves the union...period, the same people get promoted in the same numbers whether theres a union or not.
Police Officers are in unions...be it the PBA or FOP or any of the others...the make sgt they leave the Patrolmens Union and go into the supervisors union if there is one..same when the make Lt they go into the superior officers association if there is one...Captains and above usually have no union...
 
Individualism is all about advancing the individual over the collective. "I'm the Alpha male and I'm better than others; I deserve to be at the top and I'll compete to get there." This is a philosophy for the elite. The middle class, by definition, is not made up of the elite.

Collectivism is the philosophy for those that aren't the best and the brightest. It's a philosophy for the Betas pooling their relatively less exceptional assets to leverage an acceptably mediocre result for everyone.

Individualism is the mechanism that impels the elites to the top; it offers the middle class no more support than Keira Knightley gets from wearing Kim Kardashian's bra.

I really don't agree with this at all.

Collectives are lead by alphas who desire to be admired by a pack. Betas fall in line because if they don't, they get left out in the cold and targeted.

If anything, individualism is the key for beta social mobility because they aren't expected to sacrifice for the most popular people around.
 
your wrong...anyone that gets offered a promotion and accepts it leaves the union...period, the same people get promoted in the same numbers whether theres a union or not.

That doesn't do much good for their social life does it?

Furthermore, I'm not sure how this guarantees that people will support each other to get promoted in the first place. If anything, people would be expected to hold back in order to hang out with their friends.

Police Officers are in unions...be it the PBA or FOP or any of the others...the make sgt they leave the Patrolmens Union and go into the supervisors union if there is one..same when the make Lt they go into the superior officers association if there is one...Captains and above usually have no union...

I guess this proves the effectiveness of unions in negotiating with government, but what about business?

(I'm not sure how civil servant unions are indicative of community either since government exists on behalf of taxpayers. Why are workers organizing against taxpayers?)
 
That doesn't do much good for their social life does it?

Furthermore, I'm not sure how this guarantees that people will support each other to get promoted in the first place. If anything, people would be expected to hold back in order to hang out with their friends.



I guess this proves the effectiveness of unions in negotiating with government, but what about business?

(I'm not sure how civil servant unions are indicative of community either since government exists on behalf of taxpayers. Why are workers organizing against taxpayers?)

What the hell does it have to do with their social life ?? ...Draktoria who in the hell is going "HANG BACK" to hang out with their friends...this isnt elementary school...were talking the adult work force with Fathers Mothers people with responsibility who take promotions to make more income...they dont turn down sgt and lt to hang up with patrolmen...they STILL hang with patrolmen and if your a Lt you make 7 to 15k more .
 
There is no doubt success requires individual drive and merit. That is, of course, the modality of achievement. However, it is also true that no one is ever successful completely on their own. No one. We're a social species with a complex society and complex goals that by necessity require more resources than we completely alone are capable of. The number of ways that your life is held up by the community on a day-to-day basis is almost uncountable. This is just a true even for the richest, most successful person on the planet.

It's both. In order to support the middle class, you must support the right of individuals to be successful on their own merit. But you also must support the social stability and cohesion that makes that possible.

If you don't support the individual, then merit becomes meaningless and is sacrificed for a community ideal (ironically, disregarding individual merit also guarantees that you will never reach any such ideal). But if you don't support the community, then the framework that allows for a stable, developed society collapses, and social mobility collapses with it.

I kind of agree here, but you seem to have it backwards.

Meritocracy is evil. It leads people to believe they're no more valuable than tools, so unless you're trying to manipulate people, I don't see why you support that.

However, it is important for society to appreciate due process no matter who we are. Call it aristocratic populism if you want.
 
What the hell does it have to do with their social life ?? ...Draktoria who in the hell is going "HANG BACK" to hang out with their friends...this isnt elementary school...were talking the adult work force with Fathers Mothers people with responsibility who take promotions to make more income...they dont turn down sgt and lt to hang up with patrolmen...they STILL hang with patrolmen and if your a Lt you make 7 to 15k more .

I don't mean like that.

I mean people who try hard to achieve promotions are going to be made fun of because they're working harder and making everyone else's life a pain. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Daktoria-
I figure your sense of history begins with your birth backed up by some talk radio version of what has built the Middle Class.

You have ignored everyone's postings on what per-union factories, coal mines, mills and foundries were like prior to the advent of unions. Farmers formed granges and more urban workers formed Unions.

I suggest you look into pre-Union America, it's workforce with who and how many formed the Middle Class. Then look into the early 20th century expansion of the Middle Class through the post WWII boom.

MILLIONS of Americans rose into the Middle Class simply because now industry had to do more than hire the healthy and fire the crippled. There wouldn't be the enormous Middle Class of today without strong Union action across large sectors of our industrial complex.

Union numbers today barely make it to the double digit area, so while Talk Radio vilifies Unions, they are a minor part of the equation these days and oddly enough comes during a period where worker pay and benefits are eroding.

Rather than dwell on a very self centered workplace incident, you might take a wider world view.

And study history past 1980.
 
Daktoria-
I figure your sense of history begins with your birth backed up by some talk radio version of what has built the Middle Class.

You have ignored everyone's postings on what per-union factories, coal mines, mills and foundries were like prior to the advent of unions. Farmers formed granges and more urban workers formed Unions.

I suggest you look into pre-Union America, it's workforce with who and how many formed the Middle Class. Then look into the early 20th century expansion of the Middle Class through the post WWII boom.

MILLIONS of Americans rose into the Middle Class simply because now industry had to do more than hire the healthy and fire the crippled. There wouldn't be the enormous Middle Class of today without strong Union action across large sectors of our industrial complex.

Union numbers today barely make it to the double digit area, so while Talk Radio vilifies Unions, they are a minor part of the equation these days and oddly enough comes during a period where worker pay and benefits are eroding.

Rather than dwell on a very self centered workplace incident, you might take a wider world view.

And study history past 1980.

The war on labor is a teaparty dodge to achieve their goal of no rich and corporations pay taxs....its blame everything working class for all the problems in the US and The rich and corporations all float above the ground with halos....any working american that falls for this garbage is dumb as a doornail and deserver whatever they get...NOTHING
 
Back
Top Bottom