Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
You distributed more than 185000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 190000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the wordSTOP
At least, in governmental or education-based office jobs (but I also know this in other places), you could say that there is already a three day working week and that usually a worker does not work straight eight hours a day. If one goes to the office instead of working from home, you can count on this as a matter of fact that people who gather in the office, have chats with each other, do stuff which is not related to work but do other things. Although it's true that the time spent in your official position of a "worker" during a day may be eight hours and you won't get back home until late afternoon, people socialize within their working environments and have this group thing going on which shortens these very "working" hours to something different.
The individualism pushed by the capitalist paradigm is in fact contrary to our human nature. We're social creatures who only know how to survive as a collective, and the fact that we're being spoon-fed the exact opposite causes much of the feeling of tumbling down the rabbit hole as expressed so beautifully in The Matrix. For hundreds of thousands of years we lived in tribes and all that time we knew that the tribe was more important than any one individual of the tribe.
I would beg to differ that "we" knew that the tribe "was more important than any one individual in the tribe". This is a present concept of what you or I may think about tribalism.
The individualism pushed by the capitalist paradigm
I don't think this is individualism. Any form of "self-realisation" that circulates in modern civilisations as a lifestyle or model is no different from the idea of the collective, as the self-realisation idea can also be seen as a great collective fallacy. To "realise" oneself with what one "loves" is a word fallacy if only because it is not "things" that one loves, but beings, such as people or animals. It is merely to be understood metaphorically that "one loves one's work" (car, house, clothes, devices etc.).
"Work" is already an abstract concept. Anthropologists may confirm, where they have had the opportunity to study primitive peoples, that they did not use general terms but action-related expressions. Such a tribal person, according to my assumption thrown into the waggon here, does not think "about himself", but does what the daily routine tells him to do. This person does not define himself mentally either as a group member or as an individualist, he acts always as both, but does not talk about it, because the need to define himself as either this or that does not exist.
The very idea about self worth - deeply embedded in modern peoples - may have been nothing a tribal human being would think about, for his self worth was evident to him in the same way the worth of being amongst others as his "own". In other words, it was an implicitly perceived matter of fact (truth) but not an explicitly spoken about. This is the way I like to think about it.
I would say that the importance of the individual does not count in capitalism any more than in socialism, because in both models the individual serves the whole. In both, he is a consumer and a producer alike. The distinction between these models is intellectual, not factual. Socialism holds out the prospect of the system's care for the individual, just as capitalism does. It is just that they use different advertising. Capitalism is as much a planned economy as the other -isms. No one can say which model determines their reality, because the ideas are all interwoven. The fact is that we, as people living in cities and urban conglomerations, are completely provided for by others. As you also mentioned.
Realisation of the self only takes place outside normal models of life, for example, when one dedicates oneself to spiritual teachings as a monk, lives as a hermit in a cave or as a beggar outside society. But without the many that exist within, the contrast would not be visible. Modern self-realisation is based on the idea that one can turn one's hobby into a profession, capitalise on one's preferences or socialise them (one thinks in terms of money and income, the other in terms of value to the community - but you actually cannot separate these).
If my longing in life is "being cared for", that's what the isms advertise. The hunger for confirmation and identification shows me that no matter how much products and ideas are being provided for, the single human being still can have a feeling of being neglected and so he concentrates on thoughts how "the world ought to be" not how it is.
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 190000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
At least, in governmental or education-based office jobs (but I also know this in other places), you could say that there is already a three day working week and that usually a worker does not work straight eight hours a day. If one goes to the office instead of working from home, you can count on this as a matter of fact that people who gather in the office, have chats with each other, do stuff which is not related to work but do other things. Although it's true that the time spent in your official position of a "worker" during a day may be eight hours and you won't get back home until late afternoon, people socialize within their working environments and have this group thing going on which shortens these very "working" hours to something different.
I would beg to differ that "we" knew that the tribe "was more important than any one individual in the tribe". This is a present concept of what you or I may think about tribalism.
I don't think this is individualism. Any form of "self-realisation" that circulates in modern civilisations as a lifestyle or model is no different from the idea of the collective, as the self-realisation idea can also be seen as a great collective fallacy. To "realise" oneself with what one "loves" is a word fallacy if only because it is not "things" that one loves, but beings, such as people or animals. It is merely to be understood metaphorically that "one loves one's work" (car, house, clothes, devices etc.).
"Work" is already an abstract concept. Anthropologists may confirm, where they have had the opportunity to study primitive peoples, that they did not use general terms but action-related expressions. Such a tribal person, according to my assumption thrown into the waggon here, does not think "about himself", but does what the daily routine tells him to do. This person does not define himself mentally either as a group member or as an individualist, he acts always as both, but does not talk about it, because the need to define himself as either this or that does not exist.
The very idea about self worth - deeply embedded in modern peoples - may have been nothing a tribal human being would think about, for his self worth was evident to him in the same way the worth of being amongst others as his "own". In other words, it was an implicitly perceived matter of fact (truth) but not an explicitly spoken about. This is the way I like to think about it.
I would say that the importance of the individual does not count in capitalism any more than in socialism, because in both models the individual serves the whole. In both, he is a consumer and a producer alike. The distinction between these models is intellectual, not factual. Socialism holds out the prospect of the system's care for the individual, just as capitalism does. It is just that they use different advertising. Capitalism is as much a planned economy as the other -isms. No one can say which model determines their reality, because the ideas are all interwoven. The fact is that we, as people living in cities and urban conglomerations, are completely provided for by others. As you also mentioned.
Realisation of the self only takes place outside normal models of life, for example, when one dedicates oneself to spiritual teachings as a monk, lives as a hermit in a cave or as a beggar outside society. But without the many that exist within, the contrast would not be visible. Modern self-realisation is based on the idea that one can turn one's hobby into a profession, capitalise on one's preferences or socialise them (one thinks in terms of money and income, the other in terms of value to the community - but you actually cannot separate these).
If my longing in life is "being cared for", that's what the isms advertise. The hunger for confirmation and identification shows me that no matter how much products and ideas are being provided for, the single human being still can have a feeling of being neglected and so he concentrates on thoughts how "the world ought to be" not how it is.
Greetings to you.