belijojo wrote:
Individualism blames the individual for all dilemmas and ignores structural unfairness.
Agreed.
Although hyper-collectivism can also fall prey to ignoring structural unfairness, because admitting there's a collective issue causes a loss of face, but blaming individuals allows the system to pretend the problem is bad actors, not a baked in problem that will require the collective to blame itself and make changes.
Conservative collectivism is probably the hardest sort of system to achieve change within, individualism at least allows people to retreat away from flawed systems.
Hyper-individualism might be great for those with the means to separate themselves from flawed systems, but how many can actually afford to do so? Worse, it allows people to point to those who've managed to succeed despite the flawed system as proof that the system isn't actually as flawed as it is. The people who escape also might be following paths that aren't actually viable for most.
I feel like a balance between collectivism and individualism is needed, as well as the humility to accept that criticisms of systemic flaws aren't personal attacks against those who aren't impacted by or benefit from those flaws.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.