Wojtek Sokolowski:
> I think more interesting stuff is not mythical roots of this ideology, but
> why the English Whig tradition became so "influential" that it obliterated
> the traditions of cooperation, guilds and trade unionism other immigrant
> groups (e.g. Germans or Scandinavians) brought to this country?
>
>
> My impression is that individualism was a relatively marginal ideology
> until the government-sponsored explosion of the suburban sprawl in 1950s.
> There is an obvoious "elective affinity" between suburban lifestyles on the
> one had and romantic individulaism (popularized by Hollywood, esp' "wild
> west" genere) on th eother.
>
> Thus the quetsion we need to ask is: "what is the role of people who call
> themselves federal government in spreading of individualistic ideology?"
Part of the genius of liberalism / capitalism is the incorporation and deployment of seemingly contradictory principles in support of bourgeois power. There is a great deal of talk about individual freedom and some embodiment of it in law and custom, yet at the same time the main work of actual corporations and bourgeois personnel is strongly collectivizing. Hence, guilds, unions, and cooperatives are attacked using individualist discourse and then are replaced by far more strongly collectivizing enterprises like corporations or bourgeois government agencies and programs. When some part of the aggregate becomes "hot" it can be moved from the private to the public sector or vice versa in a political shell game which leaves the marks boggled and most of the original players in firm control.
The system is a truly remarkable political invention.