Utopianism

 Utopianism Has Become a Reality in This Time

Individualism is understood that one of the most often discussed as a caricature in much debate among our intellectuals. Every time talk about this understanding, it is typical to think of selfishness, greed, competition and such shambles. Interesting polemic initiated by Liddle (Reuters, 8/1) I hope I can clarify our view of one of the most important ideas in modern utopianism political history. In this brief article I want to elaborate on one aspect of the rejection of some philosophers to the idea of ​​individualism. Then, I tried to explain the basics of true individualism. My goal is not to blame either party, but to explain the fundamental differences between the two.
Previously, I would like to give a little note that in rejecting or accepting individualism, the use of the category "East" or "West" is very confusing. Budiawan (Reuters, 2/2) for example, have emphasized the suspicions against Liddle suggestion on the grounds that the universalistic claims of individualism that may constitute "imperialistic lust-lust." Budiawan worry that behind the spread of individualism, the hidden interests of the Western powers to conquer the East. Which is quite ironic is, in demonstrating the weakness of individualism, Budiawan not use Centini.Utopia: from Plato to MarxBasic argument Mubyarto (Reuters, 2/2) in rejecting the idea of ​​individualism, rooted in the ideals of a harmonious society. If harmony is achieved, the individual and society no longer needs to be contradicted. Who would not be happy if corruption disappeared, leaders no longer abuse of power, and any conflict can be resolved peacefully? A number of thinkers, each way, has tried to answer these questions as we now propose. 

Plato, for example, concluded that these ideals could be achieved if the people led by the philosopher-king types of people (roughly Such kind of leader Lee Kuan Yeuw in the present context; minded leaders who are clean and clear). 2000 years after Plato. In one of the many bukuya, The Philosophy of Right, Hegel divide social life into three levels. The first level is the family life. Here men from childhood to learn about authority, responsibility and love. On the second level is life in civil society. If the first level is based on the characteristic of the spirit of togetherness and responsibility (in relation to the child's father for example), then the second level is the main characteristic of the competition and the pursuit of unbridled self-interest. Civil society, for Hegel, is without form units that are too based on the pursuit of economic interests. From the first to the sublime level of life and full of love, as an adult human being was forced to plunge into the world of tough competition.To compensate and regulate civil society or the state required the presence of a strong government and corporatist. If this can be achieved then the third stage of social life is reached. At this stage pendulum move back, from the competition back to harmony. And for Hegel, who became a driving force in this third stage is the bureaucrats.  

Hegel is the so-called "universal class."In a further development, Hegel inspired the two groups of thinkers, namely the Hegelian right and left. The Right to use Hegel's idea of ​​a corporatist state to defend an argument that the individual and the state are essentially one and the unvarying: we do not need to see them in a conflictual relationship. Required by individual therefore does not guarantee individual rights, but obligations to the state executive, devotion and discipline (due to the influence of Hegel, about things like this is said by Prof. Supomo in debate preparation of our first Constitution 45).On the left, the best example is Karl Marx. Although the theory he intended to "distort Hegel," Hegelian themes very thick felt on Marx. Subscribes to the notion of civil society Hegel, Marx developed a theory of social classes. Marx took from Hegel is also the theme of the "end of history" in which there is no fundamental conflicts in society. Create Hegel, as we saw above, this is the case if the "universal class" has been able to overcome the weaknesses in civil society. Create Marx, the fundamental conflicts that would be lost if the proletariat were also considered universal class has done a social revolution and set up a communist state.Harmony is where it happens: a situation in which the presence of even a single country, as a regulator of the community, is no longer needed. For as Marx wrote in The German Ideology, what is done by humans in total harmony that is "hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, raising in the afternoon, and after dinner discussion", without having to be a hunter, angler, ranchers and critics.IndividualismWhat separates the great thinkers and their Mubyarto above with the philosophers of the tradition of individualism in many ways based on the difference of the ideals of society.

The philosophers of the tradition of individualism, since John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith to Frederick Hayek rejected the ideals of society was full of harmony and balance. This they did not because they love fighting and hating fraternity. Far from it. Make those dreams a dream of harmony that is so beautiful, that if forced to be realized would be very dangerous for humans in general. Simply put their arguments into me for two terms.The first aspect rests on the acceptance of imperfection. Create individualism society is a collection of many different interests and often contradictory. This is a fact of nature. To do so is not against nature.The second aspect, which is the basis of the first terms of the above, is the acceptance of this understanding of human limitations. For the very few people understand that can be a superhero, which is the act had never thought of self-interest. This understanding denies the possibility of the presence of the human type-species of the philosopher-king of Plato, Hegel universal or class, or a Lenin-class runner. In other words, this understanding does not believe that the bureaucrats, for example, is a group of individuals who no longer have an interest in anything other than serve their communities. Authorities everywhere are also human, the human is limited by its own interests. Thus accept the limitations of human understanding is not to encourage the spread of selfishness and competition that hard - all they do is try to accept reality for what it is about human nature.Lenin and Mao is often said that to realize the ideals of socialist society, the birth of the required new types of man, who always defended the interests of the common good and forget himself.  

Create individualism, this is a big dangerous utopianism. Always the same man from the past and present: a rational being who always react primarily to things that directly effect to it and to the immediate environment. Creating a new man can only happen by destroying the man himself. Make this understanding, the dark history of Russia that Lenin and China under Mao was a historical monument that reminds us all of the "social cost" - to use the language Budiawan - of the effort to create the new man.Departing from these two arguments in terms of the philosophers of the tradition of individualism construct arguments and concepts about the need for democracy, upholding the rule of law, and limited government. Democracy, for example, they consider the best alternative governance system that can minimize the adverse effects caused by the pursuit of the interests of the individuals who sit in the seat of power.In addition, they also believe in democracy as a system that allows a difference in the community for not being open and bloody conflict. Important concepts that is the biggest contribution to the modern political history of the philosopher in the culture and tradition of individualism, from John Locke to Frederick Hayek.