User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: Collectivism

  1. #11
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    When I look at your post I see "RARVRAR RAEHE SFFFUGUTRY RAPAA BRRR GRAAA!!!" So let me attempt to look beyond your psychologically defensive reaction to a viewpoint in opposition to yours.


    Quote Originally Posted by Forgetful Functor View Post
    Wow, what a bullshit dichotomy.

    The individualism which you have described is ignorant of the ways in which individuals are affected by the societies in which they live, and the collectivism which you have described is ignorant of the way in which societies are affected by the individuals of which they are composed.
    IOW, you are of a collectivist mentality, believing that the needs of the whole must be supported above any individual needs. Individual behavior effects the whole, in both good and bad ways. Collectivism, by its nature, restrain the individual with a system geared towards the collective needs and order. Collectivist mentalities as represented in communist China, Islam, Christianity to a lesser extent, Fascism, and many other religions and political/economic systems all share the quality of constraining the power and ingenuity of the individual in favor of the group (be it a country, a religious population, or a village).

    Could you please direct me, Risen, to the Maoists and Stalinists in the Obama administration? By pointing out Mao's death toll, do you mean to suggest that we are moving in this direction?
    Either watch Fox news, or wait for me to post it on the forum, soon. But, you will tell me that you hate Fox and, "RARVRAR RAEHE SFFFUGUTRY RAPAA BRRR GRAAA!!!", and then I will tell you that you are the true arbiter of ignorance because all you want is to listen to one point of view, and don't care that you miss out on genuine information that you just don't like because it offends your pov.

    I'd like to ask also if and where you disagree with that 1995 Obama quote. Is the thought that people should help each other out and work together to face problems really so offensive to you?
    No, it's good, on the very surface. The point of the thread is to discuss collectivism, with some reference to how the collectivist emphasis is present in the current political climate, and part of the direction of "change".

    I disagree with the idea that we must operate as a collective, for the collective good, because that is not what has gotten us where we are. Most people barely know where they've been or where the country has been, much less where they are going. Most people wouldn't even realize the differences.


    And it was the tactic of Franco's fascists in Spain to use millions of dollars of goods supplied by Texaco, General Motors, and other US corporations. It's easy to forget the parts of history that don't support your views, isn't it?
    Ok, some companies make dum decisions. There were many businesses who supported Hitler. That is both off topic, and not indicative that all business is bad. If that's what you think, I should take your chair, your computer, your phone, and your house in the name of wealth redistribution and relieve you of the horrid products of "big bad business". But like i said, off topic. But I know you will meander off on your own tangent anyway.


    The way this whole debate you've set up is framed is ridiculous, too.
    Who said this was a debate? Oh yea, you are trying to debate me. Or are you debating the article? I didn't write the article, so perhaps you should make a choice on what it is you oppose: me, the article, or the article's message. I know you'll choose option number 1 .

    Have you ever heard of a Straw Man?
    An original topic or argument isn't a straw man. YOU are a straw man. In fact, you've got some straw in your ears and hair. I can pick it out for you if you want.


    It's generally what happens when you let one side define both positions in an argument. You also get -10 internets for quoting Ayn Rand, and -50 for quoting someone else quoting 'Ms. Rand.' And hey, just what definition of socialism are you using anyway? Socialists were NEVER in support of the bailouts (let me repeat for shock factor: no true socialist ever supported the bailouts) because socialists recognize the way corporate influence has infiltrated the state for obvious corporate benefits.
    "Socialists"- Straw man

    "Bailouts"- Straw man

    "Ayn Rand"- Straw man

    Self respecting INTPs don't play around in the haystack all day . Shame on you . I just know you're gonna attack me now.

  2. #12
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    That's called the rule of law. Individuals are punished based on a collective standard...

    You missed the point entirely. Taxpayers as a group paid for individual greed and regulatory incompetence. That is not right.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #13
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    "In America, Obama says, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations. - Barack Obama, Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995
    I don't think Obama is advocating collectivism here per se. At best I find this to be a badly worded statement, considering the popular imagination presents "individualism" and "collectivism" as the only choices we have. It's highly probable that Obama is actually trying to invoke Communitarianism, which was popular with the Clinton administration. Collectivism and Communitarianism are not the same thing.

  4. #14
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    You missed the point entirely. Taxpayers as a group paid for individual greed and regulatory incompetence. That is not right.
    You didn't make the point until now! So what do you expect?

    Anyway the bailouts have nothing to do with this topic, especially in the manner you've posed your statement.

  5. #15
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    I don't think Obama is advocating collectivism here per se. At best I find this to be a badly worded statement, considering the popular imagination presents "individualism" and "collectivism" as the only choices we have. It's highly probable that Obama is actually trying to invoke Communitarianism, which was popular with the Clinton administration. Collectivism and Communitarianism are not the same thing.
    Could you describe the particular differences between the two? I imagine communitarinism is more focused/local in scope? But then would you describe the direction of White House policies as being more communitarian or collectivist?

  6. #16
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Could you describe the particular differences between the two?
    Collectivism dictates that the group is more important then the individual. Individualism asserts the opposite. Communitarianism asserts that both the individual and the group operate on a basis of mutual benefit. Man is a social animal, and thus interaction and cooperation with others is part of human nature and does not necessarily subtract from one's individuality - but rather forms an important component of such.

    I imagine communitarinism is more focused/local in scope?
    Depends. With some Communitarians, yes. With others like Amitai Etzioni(who was invoked by Clinton) - it's another story. I know Etzioni advocates for world government and many elements of the welfare state as well.

    But then would you describe the direction of White House policies as being more communitarian or collectivist?
    I really wouldn't know at this point. I don't find it hard to believe that Obama is sympathetic to Etzioni's interpretation of communitarianism.

  7. #17
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    You didn't make the point until now! So what do you expect?

    Anyway the bailouts have nothing to do with this topic, especially in the manner you've posed your statement.

    Sure they do. A collective mindset to solving the problem made everything worse for everyone, when those who caused the problems should have faced the consequences.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #18
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Sure they do. A collective mindset to solving the problem made everything worse for everyone, when those who caused the problems should have faced the consequences.
    Your confused. The bailouts were for the good of the world economy. And I don't know who would have done it other than the government. And the situation got out of hand through the COLLECTIVE efforts of a lot of greedy indivuals in RE, banking, as well as Wall street.
    I understand that you want to vent really badly, but please, make yourself clear first...

  9. #19
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    Your confused. The bailouts were for the good of the world economy. And I don't know who would have done it other than the government. And the situation got out of hand through the COLLECTIVE efforts of a lot of greedy indivuals in RE, banking, as well as Wall street.
    I understand that you want to vent really badly, but please, make yourself clear first...

    I wholeheartedly disagree. The bailouts were very bad for the economy, because financial companies now are going to operate with the information that, if they screw things up colossally, taxpayer money will be there to rescue them. That could have catastrophic results down the line. This is not even taking into account that the bailout money is money that the government did not even have in the first place, as evidenced by our record budget deficit for 2009 ($1.4 TRILLION!). Either taxes will have to go up (bad for the economy), spending will have to go down significantly (politically near-impossible), or our currency will continue to lose its value (bad for the economy, and especially bad for those living paycheck-to-paycheck). You could not be more wrong.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #20

    Default

    IOW, you are of a collectivist mentality, believing that the needs of the whole must be supported above any individual needs.
    I do not hold this belief. I do believe that the needs of the individuals that make up any collective are more important than the wants of the minority of individuals who hold power.

    Collectivist mentalities as represented in communist China
    The chinese regime is not communist.

    Either watch Fox news, or wait for me to post it on the forum, soon. But, you will tell me that you hate Fox and, "RARVRAR RAEHE SFFFUGUTRY RAPAA BRRR GRAAA!!!", and then I will tell you that you are the true arbiter of ignorance because all you want is to listen to one point of view, and don't care that you miss out on genuine information that you just don't like because it offends your pov.
    What? Fox news is ridiculous for sure, but so are other all other major news providers in this country. I try to avoid the intellectual poison of the spectacle as much as possible. There's a reason that I don't own a television.

    You are the arbiter of ignorance though, because you only listen to one point of view (the point of view offered by the mainstream news media, which is that modern american 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' represent the only options -- how foolish this view seems in greater global and temporal context!).

    I disagree with the idea that we must operate as a collective, for the collective good, because that is not what has gotten us where we are.
    And are you happy with where we are? Imperialistic wars, global exploitation of peoples and resources, and sickening consumer culture?

    Who said this was a debate? Oh yea, you are trying to debate me. Or are you debating the article? I didn't write the article, so perhaps you should make a choice on what it is you oppose: me, the article, or the article's message. I know you'll choose option number 1 .
    If you don't agree with the views expressed in the article, I'd be happy to hear your input. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that their consistency with the other lunacy you have expressed in this forum indicates that you support the article's ideas.

    Okay, I need to close up and walk home from work now, I'll contribute more later.
    Ti = Ne > Fi = Ni > Te = Si > Fe = Se

    "I've never seen a child who didn't want to build something out of blocks, or learn something new, or try the next task. And the only reason why adults aren't like that is, I suppose, that they have been sent to school and other oppressive institutions which have driven that out of them."
    -- Noam Chomsky

Similar Threads

  1. Individualism-Collectivism Scale
    By EJCC in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-13-2015, 04:32 PM
  2. The Borg, cyber collectivism and singularity?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-24-2013, 01:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO