About collectivism and individualism

It is hard for any persons to wake up from their brainwashing cultural dogma.

I do not hold any expectation that a person can really realise what they were doing and how they were thinking, overcoming such a heavy cultural confinement of their society. 

From the language they use, they all the time live under the influence of the cultural dogma. 

How much possible would it be for a person in South Korea to come to face up to their reality?

In such a collectivistic society, it is almost impossible for any individual person to realise their situation by themselves. 

This is easily explained by looking at the situation of North Korea.
South Koreans see their northern counterpart as abnormal and they often ridicule the north.

However, in Korean history, it is rather North Korea that inherited the spiritual and philosophical identity of the nation. 

Few South Koreans realise that Joseon dynasty and North Korea are almost the same in its political, economic, social and cultural mechanism. In short, North Korea is nothing but 'again Joseon'. 

And their striking similarities come mainly from the collectivism that dominate the subjects of both regimes (or kingdoms).  

I think socialism itself is an unscientific theorem, like phrenology or eugenics in the history of medicine. 

The empirical results say that it did not work in human society. 

I think it was because it did not match human nature. 

(but we do not fully understand human nature yet, although many scholars in economics, psychology, biology, history and many other academic fields are still studying it.)

Inefficiency was the cost when a society tried to install in it such a non-working system based on a pseudo-science. 

Inefficiency brings unhappiness to individual person's life. 

Inefficiency at the social level, however, brings tragedy to a whole society. 

I think Koreans, who had lived hundreds of years under collectivistic social confinement, had internalised the social strategy of collectivism. 

For reference, Confucianism had to suppress any individualistic economic motivations in markets because the political ideology itself was established to maintain self-sufficient economy led by the learned elite classes.
In both societies (Joseon and North Korea), peoples' minds are completely controlled not only by the central elite groups who set up the collectivistic social frames, but also by active supports from people themselves.
The public, who are always vulnerable to such collectivistic framing and threatening, are encouraged to believe that they are wise enough when they learn and follow the languages that the elites use to fish them.

In such a society in which its public are totally brainwashed, any attempts for social reformation accompanied by efforts for individual improvement cannot be expected to be institutionalised at a significant level. 

Only political revolution accompanied by angers of the mass can be expected. 

In this regard, socialism might have been like a well suited piece of clothes for Koreans. 

It is natural that North Korea is one of only very few states in the current world, which in both economic and political terms are strictly adhering to socialist ideology as their state identity. 

Also it's no wonder that South Korea, has been and will be inclined to socialism more and more. 

...

The other day, I talked with a South Korean who said that he is working in a secondary school in a city. 

He and I talked about a wide spectrum of issues of South Korean society, and many of his and my arguments were understandably based on personal experiences and personal views of society. 

In his case, it was his membership and activities in the Teachers' Union that shaped his political and social views.

However, I found that the whole conversation with him was nothing but a debate between individualism and collectivism. 

His logic was in fact very simple. 3 steps. 

1. He belonged to the Union, which was based on socialist ideology, about which he shockingly knew few things. 

2. The conservative groups who attacked the Union are bad. 

(This is very typical collectivistic attitude, but actually this hostile attitude was formed by the media, which is the most collectivistic business in collectivist society)

3. Therefore, he thinks that he should be against me, whose opinions sound sometimes similar to the groups' claim. (Indeed, I said I voted for the politicians whom the groups supported.)

Simply put it, he was emotionally identifying himself with the Union. 

(It was no surprise that he kept saying himself that he felt like he was a delegate of socialism or the Teachers' Union. But neither of us had to represent any other groups similar to our opinions.)

He was exactly one of the victims of the brainwashing by the media which almost always expands hatred against its political and social targets. 

His emotions did not stop himself from exploding the social hatred indoctrinated by the media against the conservative groups and against me. (I assume that my attitude that caused his anger was my scepticism of South Korean society, politics and its history.)

He talked about what he read in news articles regarding the 'bad conservative politicians'.

(I can't find any reason to read such trash media articles, which are almost always intentionally biased and definitely unhealthy for my soul.)

He did not even understand that classical liberalists are not the same as the other conservative rightists, many of whom are rather collectivists (inclining towards patriotism or religious dogmas). 

Of course, I vote for right wing politicians, but it is not because they are naturalists or classical liberalists like me, but because I think they are useful for defending collectivism like socialism and nationalism in South Korean society. 

He even did not understand why I do not identify myself with the politician whom I voted for. 

(Why should I have to spend my time on studying individual politicians!)

It was shocking to me that he did not know that politicians are all opportunistic not because they are inherently soulless persons but because they have to win votes from people in politically gray areas.  

I do not expect in a real political market any political candidates who are truthful to their beliefs in individualistic classical liberalism can win an election. 

In the voting system of universal suffrage, politics is the game exclusively for collectivists. 

There is no room for individualists in a real political world.

Anyway, people do not like the idea sceptical of interventionism in either economics or medicine.
They keep taking pills, not knowing hidden or unexplained influences of drugs, like they vote for politicians who insist that markets should be regulated, not knowing unexpected future costs of their policies.

Nature is 'uncontrollable'.
Human body and human mind are part of such uncontrollable Nature.
Plans to control Nature may sound nice, especially when not knowing about the consequences.
What feels good and what does good are different. 

Interesting experience ...