Communists are not Collectivitsts

[Gary Fisher]

Well don't get me wrong, they're certainly not individualists either.

If we define "collectivism" as

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

Then, first of all, any kind of Liberalism cannot be collectivist. Liberalism with a big "L" is a philosophical tradition in politics which holds that essentially, the well-being (however that is defined) of the individual is the purpose of society. This includes classical liberals, libertarians, American liberals, Objectivists, and almost all American conservatives.The main differences among ideologies within these groups concern what counts as individual "well-being" and how to achieve it.

Socialism is based on materialism and a conflict theory of society. Materialism in the social sciences is the view that material conditions (i.e. geography, overall wealth, history, technology, etc.) determine the structure of society. These structures change over time, and the driving force of these change is inherent conflict, usually class conflict.

This differs from Liberalism because it places social conflict center-stage. Whereas Liberalism holds that the interests of individuals are in a natural harmony because they all enter society for the purpose of promoting their well-being, socialism sees any talk of the well-being of all individuals (either through individual rights or welfare-state liberalism) as disingenuous since people do not have a choice about being born and raised in a human society (which is characterized by social conflict) or their social class.

The main goal of socialism is to resolve social conflict through a radical restructuring of society. Reformist socialists, such as Social Democrats (most of the European Left), think that this can be achieved by gradually reforming capitalist society until it becomes socialist. Revolutionary socialists, that is, communists, believe that this can only be achieved through a revolution.

Once all social conflict has been resolved, and we get to a communist society, only then, the socialists say, can we sensibly talk about the well-being of all individuals. So socialism, in its own weird way, finds its way back to Liberalism, and that's why I don't think it is fundamentally collectivist

So then who is collectivist?

There are two closely related groups. Revolutionary conservatives and fascists.

Revolutionary conservatives emerged in Germany after WWI. Like all (European) conservatives, they believe in political realism. This doctrine holds that the state of nature is a war of all against all, and that a strong leadership combined with a hierarchical society is necessary to maintain order. And also that the elites in society are interested in maintaining their position.

But unlike reactionary and moderate conservatives, they believed that society was not merely a collection of self-interested individuals, as in Liberalism, or a machine whose operation is determined solely by material conditions as in Socialism, but as a kind of living organism. This organism is capable of dying, and in order to survive on the international stage, it must be as strong as possible. It consists of inter-dependent parts, all of which exist for the sake of the organism and which cannot exist without it. Since they also base their thinking on political realism, and since there all individuals are self-interested and amoral, if the organism is to survive, individual wills must be suppressed, and everyone must sacrifice his own well-being for the good of society.

This type of thinking would eventually be inherited by the Nazis and other fascists. And whereas revolutionary conservatism was inherently elitist, the fascist movement borrowed some political elements from the left, and combined mass politics with nationalism and became a mass movement

[Gary Fisher]

Anyway, we can see that fascism is clearly and explicitly collectivist, according to the definition above. Except that it is even more extreme, because not only does it hold that individual interests must be sacrificed for the good of the whole, but that individuals must identify themselves with the nation or race so that they do not even have any individual identities or interests in any real sense.

[Brant Gaede]

Fascism is the root political philosophy of both Nazism and communism (and socialism too). Nazism vs communism in WWII was a sectarian conflict. The war against terrorism--which is also fascism in action, some of it fascism vs fascism too--is also essentially sectarian. The schematic is at the base fascism then war with any religion floating around on top helping to differentiate boundaries for those who don't otherwise understand who to target or why it's necessary and proper, say, to wear a suicide vest. Dying for the Japanese emperor was also an expression of fascism appropriately dressed up for mass consumption by--I believe-Shintoism. While fascism per se is totalitarianism lite, all the weight of totalitarian endeavor is piled on top. Fascism is simply force plus politics. After that Italian hung-by-his-heels clown it's become too easy to ignore this pure philosophy of force because of the moral righteousness of the Marxists all round us today stripped of all their explicit and undefendable ideology. Marxism is the emperor's new clothes and the Marxists are naked. Look, see that Marxist? He's naked. Most Marxists don't even think they are Marxists any more; they just want to smash the non-Marxists whom they identify emotionally and by lack of smell. That fellow doesn't stink? Then he must be a freedom lover. Religion and philosophy are merely fuel to get hoi polloi involved on behalf of fascistic enterprises. Proper philosophy is essentially anti-war and anti-fascism by being pro-humanity. This doesn't mean we won't fight.

--Brant

I don't always know what I am talking about (but "I can't help myself!" [Danny Koker])

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Communism is collectivist (class warfare, anyone?), therefore communists are collectivists.

However, I don't feel like arguing something that elementary or playing semantics games.

Let the reader decide what makes sense and what is nonsense.

Michael

[Selene]

Communism is collectivist (class warfare, anyone?), therefore communists are collectivists.

However, I don't feel like arguing something that elementary or playing semantics games.

Let the reader decide what makes sense and what is nonsense.

Michael

Actually Michael, you have given me a true definition of torture which would be to attempt to have a rational argument with Gary.

It is useful for his thread on torture which is, well, torture...

A...

[Jules Troy]

Adam you are always posting things I was about to post or was thinking "the same thing". Hahaha???

[Frediano]

Gary's taxonomy is much easier to wade through after applying the clarifying filter of free vs. forced association.

Then, the rapists, slave owners, meat eating totalitarians, and even the paternalistic totalitarians of all shapes and sizes meet up at their convention of the like minded, and we can easily wade through the artificial labels.

[Frediano]

A group of like minded folks collecting themselves up into a socialist commune in the Woods of Vermont may indeed be collectivists, but as long as they are all collected there via free association, more power to them.

It's only when they get the paternalistic urge to force that or any such puddingheadedness on a national scale and advocate for national socialism that they are a cancer on the body politic. That they sell their sweet nothings based on a tale of 'pure democracy', 51% to 49%, is far less convincing, but the exact same process that goes on at a gang rape, with an even more purely democratic 90% to 10% outcome...

[Frediano]

Does any kind of liberalism advocate forced association? Hell yes.

Does any kind of conservatism? Hell yes.

And, a pox on both kinds.

[Brant Gaede]

A group of like minded folks collecting themselves up into a socialist commune in the Woods of Vermont may indeed be collectivists, but as long as they are all collected there via free association, more power to them.

It's only when they get the paternalistic urge to force that or any such puddingheadedness on a national scale and advocate for national socialism that they are a cancer on the body politic. That they sell their sweet nothings based on a tale of 'pure democracy', 51% to 49%, is far less convincing, but the exact same process that goes on at a gang rape, with an even more purely democratic 90% to 10% outcome...

A lynch mob then is 100% democratic outcome.

--Brant

[Selene]

A group of like minded folks collecting themselves up into a socialist commune in the Woods of Vermont may indeed be collectivists, but as long as they are all collected there via free association, more power to them.

..

F.

This was the precise argument that I would make at four (4) in morning at our anarchist "conferences" at Columbia, NYU and the New School in the '60's.

They could live fully in an anarcho-capiitalist society wherein their commune would collectively "own" their area.

Whereas, I could not exist in their communal society wherein I could not own my area.

A

Kinda like how those Pilgrim folks found out that marxism/communalism jest didn't work out to well in terms of putten the vitales on the table

[Frediano]

Whereas, I could not exist in their communal society wherein I could not own my area.

I can only exist in one community at a time; a corollary is, I don't have to exist in every community at the same time, except for whatever is impressed upon me on a national basis.

50 Socialists who move into a town of 49 in the woods of Vermont, throw an election, and declare a municipal communal society is not 'free association.' It is gang rape.

50 Socialists who collectively buy a plot of land and establish a communal society in the woods of Vermont is free association.

50 Socialists who then politely campaign for their neighbors to join in on all the resulting Reindeer Fun is free association.

Neighbors who agree are an example of free association.

Neighbors who disagree and politely say 'No thank you' are an example of free association.

Ratcake politicos who scurry to the guns of government for a gang rape -- I mean, pure democracy unfettered by free association-- is an example of forced association.

None of us are significantly impacted by driving by a soon to fail commune in the woods of Vermont. More power to 'em.

And none of them are significantly impacted by -er, hiking-- by a thriving community of non socialists. And the purpose of an over-reaching federal government in the context of freedom is to make sure all that association is free and not forced, to the best that it imperfectly can.

And, that included examples of enforcement against forced association such as clean air and water laws, where the consequences of third party industry and commerce are forced on third parties. When our laws have a foundation in free vs forced association, their reason for being in a free nation is apparent. Other laws that are themselves instances of forced association -- such as ACA -- not so much.

[Frediano]

The forced association folks seem overwhelmingly of the liberal bent, but for sure, not exclusively. W.T.F. was all that 'defense of marriage' nonsense by the GOP? Marriage is a concept defined by churches, plural, and for sure not 'the' church. If federal statute refers to 'marriage' then fix the statute by referring to 'civil union' instead. The GOP has lost its mind, pandering to theocrats for votes and selling out freedom.

There are few clearer examples of 'free association' than the personal choices one makes for a life partner; there are few clearer examples of areas where the state should stay the fuck out of except to defend that free association, not prohibit it(or as bad, tell all churches what they may and may not refer to as 'marriage.') And the idiot braintrust of the GOP is all over it, transparently pandering to eyes rolled back into the head snake worshippers for votes..

Feel free to go to associate freely in any church that defines marriage in a manner consistent with your beliefs, but stay the fuck out of Congress with that spooker shit, you fucking idiots; read the goddamned Constitution, apparently for the first time.

Note: idiots not because of your spooker beliefs; feel free. Idiots because you have no concept at all what is and what isn't a proper issue of public policy enforceable at the point of the states guns in the context of freedom.

Merry Christmas!