How Progressivism, Socialism, and Communisim all share a common bond: Collectivism

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I am for individualism, including all the responsibilities that come with it, in order to enjoy the freedom that it entails.

I love my country's constitutionalism, idividualism, and federalism (as in the federalist papers).

Marxists criticize this use of the term "collectivism," on the grounds that all societies are based on class interests and therefore all societies could be considered "collectivist." Even the liberal ideal of the free individual is seen from a Marxist perspective as a smokescreen for the collective interests of the capitalist class. Social anarchists argue that "individualism" is a front for the interests of the upper class. As anarchist Emma Goldman wrote:

'rugged individualism'... is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality. So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation of the masses by the [ruling] classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit ... That corrupt and perverse 'individualism' is the straitjacket of individuality. ... [It] has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions driving millions to the breadline. 'Rugged individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking 'supermen.' ... Their 'rugged individualism' is simply one of the many pretenses the ruling class makes to mask unbridled business and political extortion.

Ludwig von Mises wrote:

On the other hand the application of the basic ideas of collectivism cannot result in anything but social disintegration and the perpetuation of armed conflict. It is true that every variety of collectivism promises eternal peace starting with the day of its own decisive victory and the final overthrow and extermination of all other ideologies and their supporters. ... As soon as a faction has succeeded in winning the support of the majority of citizens and thereby attained control of the government machine, it is free to deny to the minority all those democratic rights by means of which it itself has previously carried on its own struggle for supremacy.
Wapedia - Wiki: Collectivism

Thats a very interesting take on individualism. I disagree with the assertations in the first 2 paragraphs but it was interesting to read none the less.

Thanks for making this post, it was great to read even if I didn't agree with some of it.

 

[Ragnar]

The ideals behind those ideas are good. Its just in practice those forms of government always end up in the people who live under said governments getting screwed over.

If you could really run a true communist government that would be great for everyone, but power always corrupts and we saw what happens first hand in the soviet union last century.

I disagree with your idealism. But I do agree very much with almost everything else you said. I'm an individualist of the "radical" variety myself. (laissez-faire capitalist)

I do take issue with the idea that WWI interupted progressivism, if anything W. Wilson's presidentcy was as close to fascism as we likely will ever see in America. Otherwise, right on!

Thanks man. Its healthy to disagree with some stuff. Like I said in my opinion communism at its purest of intentions is a good form of government, its just that you can't translate those intentions into reality without human nature getting in the way.

Therefore we are left with the one great forum of government, OURS.

Americanism, Constitutionalism, Republicism (no not republicans read THE REPUBLIC), Individualism, Federalism, capitalism....my list of good isms is growing

And the way you framed it is interesting, as an "ideal". That's hard to be critical or really, as opposed to "Communism works in theory, but not real life" (what kind of theory "works" but not in real life) or "Communism looks good on paper" (yeah, so does 1+1= 11) or some other construction. Ideal takes the idea into the land of fantasy so maybe I was wrong to be critical. (who would dis someone's fantasy?)

Anywho, power to the "good ism's"! (though I would put Capitalism first every time)

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I disagree with your idealism. But I do agree very much with almost everything else you said. I'm an individualist of the "radical" variety myself. (laissez-faire capitalist)

I do take issue with the idea that WWI interupted progressivism, if anything W. Wilson's presidentcy was as close to fascism as we likely will ever see in America. Otherwise, right on!

Thanks man. Its healthy to disagree with some stuff. Like I said in my opinion communism at its purest of intentions is a good form of government, its just that you can't translate those intentions into reality without human nature getting in the way.

Therefore we are left with the one great forum of government, OURS.

Americanism, Constitutionalism, Republicism (no not republicans read THE REPUBLIC), Individualism, Federalism, capitalism....my list of good isms is growing

And the way you framed it is interesting, as an "ideal". That's hard to be critical or really, as opposed to "Communism works in theory, but not real life" (what kind of theory "works" but not in real life) or "Communism looks good on paper" (yeah, so does 1+1= 11) or some other construction. Ideal takes the idea into the land of fantasy so maybe I was wrong to be critical. (who would dis someone's fantasy?)

Anywho, power to the "good ism's"! (though I would put Capitalism first every time)

I see where your going with the logic there.

 

[Diuretic]

Capitalism, in its modern form, requires collectivism. What's a corporation if it isn't a collective?

As far as individualism is concerned, it's a fable.

It seems to me that the ideological advocates of extreme individualism are really saying....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0lfCcbQPyk]YouTube - Skyhooks - Why Don't You All Get Fucked (1978)[/ame]

 

[Luissa]

The ideals behind those ideas are good. Its just in practice those forms of government always end up in the people who live under said governments getting screwed over.

If you could really run a true communist government that would be great for everyone, but power always corrupts and we saw what happens first hand in the soviet union last century.

I disagree with your idealism. But I do agree very much with almost everything else you said. I'm an individualist of the "radical" variety myself. (laissez-faire capitalist)

I do take issue with the idea that WWI interupted progressivism, if anything W. Wilson's presidentcy was as close to fascism as we likely will ever see in America. Otherwise, right on!

Thanks man. Its healthy to disagree with some stuff. Like I said in my opinion communism at its purest of intentions is a good form of government, its just that you can't translate those intentions into reality without human nature getting in the way.

Therefore we are left with the one great forum of government, OURS.

Americanism, Constitutionalism, Republicism (no not republicans read THE REPUBLIC), Individualism, Federalism, capitalism....my list of good isms is growing

Jefferson also thought wanted small government which was based mostly on agruiculture, I will also add Jefferson more than doubled the size of the government during his term. Are fouding father's set up an education system and funded exploration, they also were smart enough to know the government had to change with the people.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So the weak should ALWAYS die? I know you are going to say this is absurd but isn't it the logical conclusion of individualism? The STRONG should ALWAYS RULE? Might makes RIGHT?

When human beings live together in SOCIETIES there MUST be a sharing of RESOURCES which are necessarily limited or the weak will ALWAYS be VICTIMIZED by the POWERFUL.

The problem I have with your viewpoint PLYMCO is that the weak are FORCED to rely upon the HUMAN DECENCY of the powerful which I am afraid to say is NOT in large enough supply to care for all the people born less fortunate or into the wrong family. Eventually MOST of the resources will be controlled by the VERY FEW families NOT by merit but by BIRTH. Do you consider that to be a GOOD thing?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Take an agrarian society for example. A man losses both his arms in a horrible plow accident should he be cast out of society because he can no longer contribute? Should he be mercifully killed quickly? Should he do the noble thing and cast himself upon the stones at the bottom of a cliff? Should his wife and young children be left to beg for scraps? How do you reconcile these things?

 

[slackjawed]

I would offer than unless the no-armed farmer was a complete asshat, the rest would take care of him and even find something for him to do, like run around and spit at the birds to keep them away from the crops.
he best be nice because he would need someone to pick his nose for him, as the picking fingers are connected to the arms, and those are missing.

 

[Ragnar]

So the weak should ALWAYS die? I know you are going to say this is absurd but isn't it the logical conclusion of individualism? The STRONG should ALWAYS RULE? Might makes RIGHT?

When human beings live together in SOCIETIES there MUST be a sharing of RESOURCES which are necessarily limited or the weak will ALWAYS be VICTIMIZED by the POWERFUL.

The problem I have with your viewpoint PLYMCO is that the weak are FORCED to rely upon the HUMAN DECENCY of the powerful which I am afraid to say is NOT in large enough supply to care for all the people born less fortunate or into the wrong family. Eventually MOST of the resources will be controlled by the VERY FEW families NOT by merit but by BIRTH. Do you consider that to be a GOOD thing?

No, that's why we have the military, police and the courts. (a.k.a. the legitimate powers of government, to protect the people from force or fraud)

Resources are not "necissarily" limited, that is subject to human invention, work and creativity all of which flourish when people are free to keep the rewards of their labor.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Eventually ALL wealth will be controlled by the VERY FEW.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

And yes resources ARE limited. Productivity will not increase in perpetuity.

 

[Article 15]

Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.

 

[slackjawed]

Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.

And when the collective becomes the oppressor, another collect must form to fight the oppression of the first, ad infinitum.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Just for fun


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHi0Uymw42Y]YouTube - Coyote catches the Road Runner[/ame]

 

[Ragnar]

And yes resources ARE limited. Productivity will not increase in perpetuity.

Not for those who ask why, but certainly for those who ask why not.

The greatest resource is the human mind and that has no limit.

 

[rdean]

Why are you guys obsessed with words that end in "ism"?
And China had a form of socialism long before the 18 century, when your country has only 10% farmable land, the Warlord system doesn't really work out too well for the peasant.

Don't forget "jism".

Look what the conservatives are into.

Anti education
anti civil rights
anti science
clear class distinctions between the gawdly rich and the breeder poor

Republicans, kill and maim tens of thousands of Americans "keeping us safe" by sending them to their deaths overseas in senseless wars. But oh, do those wars make money.
Don't we all feel safe?

Name 5 things Republicans have done for this country in the last 10 years. 4 things. Two things. Ok I can't think of anything either.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So the weak should ALWAYS die? I know you are going to say this is absurd but isn't it the logical conclusion of individualism? The STRONG should ALWAYS RULE? Might makes RIGHT?

When human beings live together in SOCIETIES there MUST be a sharing of RESOURCES which are necessarily limited or the weak will ALWAYS be VICTIMIZED by the POWERFUL.

The problem I have with your viewpoint PLYMCO is that the weak are FORCED to rely upon the HUMAN DECENCY of the powerful which I am afraid to say is NOT in large enough supply to care for all the people born less fortunate or into the wrong family. Eventually MOST of the resources will be controlled by the VERY FEW families NOT by merit but by BIRTH. Do you consider that to be a GOOD thing?

No thats not what I'm saying at all. I understand where you are coming from but the same can be said for communist and socialist regimes. How many millions starved to death under stalin and Mao?

Like I said in theory socialist, progressive, and communist ideals are good. Their intentions are honorable. However when played out as a government system they end up causing more suffering, poverty, and death than our constitutional republic style of government has.

The facts of the matter are 70million chinese starved to death under MAO's communist regime and over 10million were intentionally starved under the the regime of Stalin.

Unfortunately due to human nature those types of governments will always end the same way. This is because their very setup centralizes power in the hands of the government and puts the trust and welfare of the people in the hands of that government. Our system keeps the power in the peoples hands (unless the people are too inept to keep the power, such as you have seen in the USA over the last few decades).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Take an agrarian society for example. A man losses both his arms in a horrible plow accident should he be cast out of society because he can no longer contribute? Should he be mercifully killed quickly? Should he do the noble thing and cast himself upon the stones at the bottom of a cliff? Should his wife and young children be left to beg for scraps? How do you reconcile these things?

That is EXACTLY what communist regimes such as MAO and Stalin did to people like that.

Which is why I dont like them. I know the below is beck but just spend the 5 min and watch what the people in it have to say.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2FHQjsFMog]YouTube - Part 6| Glenn Beck Documentary: "The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free...Or Die" - 01/22/10[/ame]

 

[Bfgrn]

PLYMCO_PILGRIM...The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Your posted piece serves as a prime example.

'There are only two ways to regard man's relationship to society: either he has the right to live for his own sake, or he must live for others. Whichever principle you espouse places you in one or the other of opposing camps.

If you accept the principle that man has the right to live for his own sake, you are an individualist. If you believe that man must live for others, you are a collectivist.'

This statement IS pure collectivism. It is the logical fallacy of false dilemma.

It comes from a mind controlled by polarized thinking. Support thinking like this at your own peril.

Vladimir Lenin - "It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco."

Benito Mussolini - "O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us

George W. Bush - "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

'If you accept the principle that man has the right to live for his own sake, you are an individualist. If you believe that man must live for others, you are a collectivist.'

A civil society requires only of the individual that he consider the right of others, and demand that others rights be equally protected...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Collectivism is necessary to fight against oppression and give a voice to people, who as individuals, don't have one.

Now who's drinking the Kool aid

Individualism is the only way to keep liberty.


BFGRN You have me pegged way wrong. You assume I'm a hardcore conservative and that I think its all or nothing, both assumptions are innacurate. Our society does respect the rigths of others and looks out for those less fortunate, and we are not a collectivist style society. Sure we have our faults and people fall through the cracks but Poor people in america have it way better than poor people in other countries.

Are you denying that these forms of government, the forms that emulate "collectivism", have failed throughout history and caused more pain and suffering than freedom and prosperity?