I thought that it was mostly Ayn Rand / Austrian economists who used those terms so it’s odd to hear Adam Curtis make that an explicit part of his analysis.
I thought that it was mostly Ayn Rand / Austrian economists who used those terms so it’s odd to hear Adam Curtis make that an explicit part of his analysis.
They're contradictions so we could employ the dialectical method to them, but Curtis is not doing that because he is anti-marxist and is instead offering superficially deep criticisms which when investigated reveal themselves to be on par with Petersonisms.
How does the self exist without the contrast of the collective? You went to school at the behest of society. You work at a job because of society. Society made this website, it made the developments in medicine which allowed you to be born with very little risk. Society made you. And what is society but a collection of people more or less like yourself? Separating the individual from the collective is absurd. The individual is a cog in the machine whether they like it or not. When John Galt fled did he not leave his mark on the collective and did he not immediately set about reestablishing the collective, just with different relationships? Of course because he was made by society and he in turn remade society. The greatest individualist to ever be conceived was a product of the collective and played a role in it.
And what is Curtis's idea? That we have become subordinate to one "side" of this process? Conveniently the "side" he dislikes? Nonsense. It is a process. It has no sides