User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Collectivism

  1. #21
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Seeing as we have so many socialists, communists, and Mao (Chineese revolutionary who was responsible for the deaths of nearly 70 MILLION people), and other revolutionary thinkers in the White House, I thought it prudent to post this little piece I found about collectivism:
    Obama is Mao!!

    In the real world, the Obama administration is moderately center-left in their policies. Far far too moderate for even many regular liberals.

    You don't get to be the first black President without being extremely pragmatic.

  2. #22
    Senior Member compulsiverambler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Socialism and communism are just economic models; collectivism doesn't have to accompany them. Sometimes it has done, sometimes it hasn't. Furthermore some capitalist societies are collectivistic.

  3. #23
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by compulsiverambler View Post
    Socialism and communism are just economic models; collectivism doesn't have to accompany them. Sometimes it has done, sometimes it hasn't. Furthermore some capitalist societies are collectivistic.
    I agree with the second part, definitely. Look at some of the East Asian nations. I don't know that "socialism and communism are just economic models," though. Communism certainly not.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #24
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I agree with the second part, definitely. Look at some of the East Asian nations. I don't know that "socialism and communism are just economic models," though. Communism certainly not.
    Right. Communism is not an economic model, it's a system of governance. Communism can be associated with some manner of capitalist economic policy, case in point, China (yes, China is a communist nation). The wealth of knowledge here is unbelievable. I'm surprised I haven't come in here and had to argue that the sky is blue. No, wait, the sky is really green and pink!

  5. #25
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    It's pointless to try splitting this hair. All economic models are bound to be socio-economic models. How on earth would you establish an economic system without arrangng society for it in some way? So none of socialism, capitalism, and communism are "just" economic models.

    Collectivism as it is defined in that article is an option for both capitalism and socialism, while it is more a less a requirement for communsm. But there's a lot wrong with that article. Who have wrote it has failed to notice the degree to which all societies are collectivist. Any sociologist could point it out to yuo. Trying to divide society or culture into being either individualistic or collectivistic is a hopeless endeavor and serve no practical value. However, I didn't have to read far before seeing the name Rand mentioned, and then I knew it was bullshit from there. She never understood how humans work.

    And China is communist only in-so-far as its public policy is to call itself communist.

    EDIT: Due to the need for some collectivism in all societies, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that communism is separate from capitalism and socialism in that it requires an absence of individualism.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #26
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    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 agree that for the person's own good, he is to act in a way that is not to the extreme of individualism, as stated in one of my quotes above. Individualism and collectivism is a real dichotomy, but they exist on a continuum and nothing is completely one or the other (in much the way you can't say a nation is completely communist or democratic in governance, it can only really be applied 100% to the original country/system the model was based on). Although communism in the classical sense utilizes largely socialist economic principles, those aspects can be diminished and replaced with others such as capitalism. Surely the motivations for such a change are to advance and procure more wealth, in bastardized capitalistic fashion that increases productivity and ingenuity, but in much less of an individual sense than with capitalism under a less limiting form of government.

    Thus, we'd have to consider how much the individual's right and interests come into play in the government's political agenda. Say (for the purpose of discussion, lets just call this speculation) the goals of the current administration were to consolidate and concentrate control within the government in order to exert a greater influence over society. In the fashion of panapoticon philosophy, they would attempt to extend the government's influence into society through controlling the media, which is control over information and the message they spread to the populace. Media and entertainment shapes our culture in this technological age, and setting a common theme amongst news organizations, film, radio, tv, and even the internet can be used to influence the population. Such would be the ways of totalitarian/authoritarian states, communist systems being among them:

    Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.[1][2][3] Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.

    As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism; a broad group of economic and political philosophies that draw on the various political and intellectual movements with origins in the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution.[4] Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems with the capitalist market economy and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Marx states that the only way to solve these problems is for the working class (proletariat), who according to Marx are the main producers of wealth in society and are exploited by the Capitalist-class (bourgeoisie), to replace the bourgeoisie as the ruling class in order to establish a free society, without class or racial divisions.[2] The dominant forms of communism, such as Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism and Trotskyism are based on Marxism, but non-Marxist versions of communism (such as Christian communism and anarcho-communism) also exist.

    Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism. As a political movement, communist regimes have historically been authoritarian and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power, with no substantive concern for the welfare of the proletariat.[3]
    Contents


    And of course they'd gain as much business and economic regulatory power as possible. But for what purpose? Suppose the goal would be to reshape society and government itself. But into what? Imagine that the directive is to even out wealth in the country, and in the world. But why? Think, social justice and equality. None of us need to be better or richer than our neighbor, or our fellow country. We are a part of a global COMMUNITY, and it is the rich guy's responsibility to give to his poorer neighbor to raise him up.

    So what else is there? All things are made equal and just by sharing and redistributing... the means of doing and buying stuff, but there must also be a new direction in the hearts of the people. In order for people to become a part of a global community, working for the greater good, we need to be more community and service oriented. We need to work together for a common cause, not just for our own self interests and improvement. Only then can rise to a new level of cooperation that lifts us all up. And the people will follow what must be done to create a "sustainable" world, and they will sacrifice whatever necessary towards that end. They will limit their life(span), individual freedom, and wealth for the greater good of the community, the good of the earth, and the good of the human race.

    And just say we had a government that believed those (very general) things, and tried to institute systematic and structural changes to manifest that. Looking at it, I'd have to say perhaps it is more communitarian, as you suggested before, Peguy.

  7. #27
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It's pointless to try splitting this hair. All economic models are bound to be socio-economic models. How on earth would you establish an economic system without arrangng society for it in some way? So none of socialism, capitalism, and communism are "just" economic models.
    The definition of economic systems is designed to apply to the economic SIDE of any system, which works synergistically with styles of governance to mold society, economic policy, and everything else. You point to the economic side of the system, and define it based on those parts. With systems of government, you are pointing to the political structural side and describing it separately. Often one cannot be fully focused on to the exclusion of the other though.


    EDIT: Due to the need for some collectivism in all societies, I suppose it would be more accurate to say that communism is separate from capitalism and socialism in that it requires an absence of individualism.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    However, I didn't have to read far before seeing the name Rand mentioned, and then I knew it was bullshit from there. She never understood how humans work.

    .
    Hurray for constantly focusing on personalities and not on information itself. In fact, i didn't even pay attention to who wrote it. It was a collection of definitions and quotes illustrating a point, but not being explicitly spoken by the author themself.

  8. #28
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    The definition of economic systems is designed to apply to the economic SIDE of any system, which works synergistically with styles of governance to mold society, economic policy, and everything else. You point to the economic side of the system, and define it based on those parts. With systems of government, you are pointing to the political structural side and describing it separately. Often one cannot be fully focused on to the exclusion of the other though.
    I don't think, in any realistic terms, we can try to exclude in any case. In other words, I think all economics are socio-economics. Society is an abstract conception of a collection of people that make up society. It is essentially a social pattern.

    I can't imagine how you'd have something like a communist culture, and a socialist government structure, and a capitalist economy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Hurray for constantly focusing on personalities and not on information itself. In fact, i didn't even pay attention to who wrote it. It was a collection of definitions and quotes illustrating a point, but not being explicitly spoken by the author themself.
    I read the information. Even if I think something is bullshit I still have to digest it if I'm going to try critiquing it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #29
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I don't think, in any realistic terms, we can try to exclude in any case. In other words, I think all economics are socio-economics. Society is an abstract conception of a collection of people that make up society. It is essentially a social pattern.

    I can't imagine how you'd have something like a communist culture, and a socialist government structure, and a capitalist economy.
    You're right in that they are socio-economical in nature, but the definitions of the different economic, social, and governing systems apply to different parts of the whole system. And the more they attempt to define an entire society structure, the more that definition only applies to the one example in history the definition was formed from. No two countries are exactly the same, and neither are their socio-economical systems. SocialIST and communISt are ways of DESCRIBING systems (ie, China has a communISt style of government, it's government has qualities of communism), communISM and SocialISM are defined systems themselves, adhering more directly to the historical definitions of those systems. It's a large distinction that I think people often confuse and undermine in importance.

  10. #30
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Even then, I'd say China has both more socialist and more capitalist elements than it does communist elements. I'd say communist is the least of the three.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

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