On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Michael Dawson wrote:
> First, capitalism requires lots of things that any sane person would hope
> will survive past capitalism. Just because capitalism relies on something
> doesn't mean that something is bad. Capitalism relies on people eating and
> drinking. Should we all go on permanent hunger strike?
Flawed analogy: eating and drinking occur in all known human societies. "Strong individuality" doesn't. As I said, there are clear ideological reasons for the individualist bent in our society.
>
> Second, capitalism did not invent strong individuality. Mass print literacy
> did. If you want to revert to old group-heavy identity, we simply disagree.
> I like strong individualism, and consider it a big historical breakthrough.
> I consider it to be a necessary step toward maximum humanity and freedom.
In this case (as in most), single-factor theories are inadequate. I'm not arguing that capitalism "invented" individuality. I'm saying that the norm of individuality is an important component of all capitalist societies, and capitalist economic relations in turn reinforce strong individuality.
Do you see that your last two sentences are a tautology? I think this is a fair paraphrase: "I like personal autonomy because it maximizes personal autonomy." --The important question: why does everybody--not just cranky leftists like us--consider freedom to be a good thing?
Miles