How come leftism is so collectivist in general?

How come leftism is so collectivist in general?

Other urls found in this thread:

I could make the same argument for right wing ideologies.

Anarcho-individualism does exist.

Define "collectivist"

I never hear talk of the individual. people always are defined by their class, race, etc.


Because large collectives of small actors are needed to take on the forces of capitalism. An individual cant take down whole economic systems despite what fiction may have told ya. The more isolated, atomized and fearful you are of others the more likely it is that you're prey to economic, social and governmental forces.

Social forces are a useful fiction, also known as a spook but a little known fact that is never discussed in western society is that the rugged individual invariant of all social and economic forces is an even bigger spook and unlike the other it goes largely unchallenged and believed by many because it fells good to think you individually have as much power as large institutions and things that without this ideology you would know are well beyond you own individual scope and control.

Over emphasis on individualism also leads to idpol because it prizes individual unknowable experience and difference over solidarity and similarity between differing groups and persons.


But, that's because the individual has nothing to do with society. If you want to talk about our social system, you're going to be talking about economic systems, social systems, relations between various groups, relations of various groups to the mode of production, etc.

There's not much value in looking at the individual. It's like trying to understand an ant colony by looking at a single ant.



Materialists only idealists get out


and you were calling us collectivist.

All is collectivist. It's just other ideologies define "collective" differently.

Some prioritize race, ethnicity, ideology, or nationality.

For instance: it is common in this society to see animals as- less than human, more than human, or simply equate them to humans in some sick absurd manner- as opposed to the old religion of emulating them; as we once saw ourselves and in the same breath thought ourselves to be just like them.

The fact is: Humans are first an individual, then form families liken to pack animals, then form communities liken to herd animals. Then they form societies liken to insect colonies.

Germanic tribes before the Romans had no cities. Looking at that transition, and the before and after results might give you some more insight into collectivism.

As a side note: When lab monkeys were taught to use currency, they quickly discovered prostitution on their own.

: I have often marveled on the singularity of Communistic mathematics. My act you call charity, our act is not charity. If one person does a kind act you stigmatize it; if one plus one, summed up and called a commune, does the same thing, you laud it By some species of alchemy akin to the transmutation of metals, the arsenic of charity becomes the gold of justice! Strange calculation! Can you not see that you are running from a bugaboo again? You change the name, but the character of an action is not altered by the number of people participating in it."

Holy fucking shit…

Some monkeys even raided the central bank.

post article

wew sounds like somone needs to read some *sniff* Lacan.

What is a single person then? Hypothetically isolated in some fashion. Perhaps in a limited fashion wherein regular purchases of goods are required and perhaps even a service provided, but still a person with no social standing and a limited number of interactions.

If that is not an individual, then what would they be called?

Because it's full of communist degenerates who can't harden the fuck up.

(Read first few pages)

Because we're a social species and naturally group together. Learning to get along and not screw everyone over for a short term advantage (money, power, whatever) is an overall positive for society.

Fuck forgot to remove my shitposting flag.

In that case I should be a nazi.

And you call yourself a nihilist.

Over emphasis on collectivism leads to becoming a literally limb on a machine. A pawn for the king called the "communist state".

I believe militias should be temporary and used only when necessary, with minimum preparation and maintenance of state owned arms to be used for future conflict.
I also believe in encouraging ideologies unless one aims to destroy all other ideologies (see Islam, communism, etc)

You people are so fucking blind to reality that when someone shows it to you, you deny it's existence.

Communism is just like religion.

An opiate to the masses. It makes you lose your identity and become in cog.
There is nothing free in communism. That's why it failed and why the right was so attractive to voters this election rather than any form of liberalism.

The bankers want you to be weak. They want to control you.
Communism is the perfect opiate for this. Porky dislikes how the right is scrutinizing their use of money. They dislike the right's goal in making people stronger. They want you weak and controllable.

define collectivism
im leftist in that I don't believe in some magical thing that should be conserved in society through "reaching to the past"
t. anarchist

Any society must be necessarily collectivist. Leftism is recognizing that and trying the collective work for everybody instead of the boss

We know Race's basis as a category emerged from European colonial practices. Its only usefulness is within the context of those colonies. Other than that very limited usage, its pretty much useless as a category. There ways to accurately categorize people, even into scientific genetic clusters, but race is not one of them.

When did I cal myself that? I made a joke about spooks, don't get carried away familam. It happens often here.

I'm a socialist because morally and efficiently it makes the most sense to me. You know your argument can just as inversely be thrown back at you that nazism and libertarianism and marxism are the best systems for the individual or equally as good. The point of my post wasn't determining that, it was saying why I think leftists see collectivization as important in attaining their goals not evaluating theirs in comparison to others.

Yes but as the majority of my post alluded to, we are aware of the problems of collectivism because western society makes those clear. The other extreme rugged individualism's faults are rarely examined or talked about though. In fact it has become the cornerstone of identity and the starting point for most peoples philosophical and political ideals despite the absurdity of taking such an un nuanced uncritical look at reality.

A lot of the time this leads to absurd ideas about politics particularly in America where I was told last night by Ted Cruz that individuals have as much power as the state and insurance companies when determining their health care. If you don't find that absurd I don't know what possibly could be and yet that is a point taken seriously in a lot of different political cases and causes here.

On the contrary you can't harden up to the fact even in capitalism you as an individual are not important in the fucking slightest

Ok guy.

This whole post is incoherent and riddled with fallacies. Wouldn't even attempt to read it again.


Society in general is easier to talk about in terms of "collectives". Humans are a social animals, we arrange things not as individuals but in terms of groups of some kind.
That said, I would like to see more leftists emphasise the struggle of the individual. This is one thing anarchists get right more often than not.