/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

i think that all human societies are inherently collectivistic including capitalism

>>2643338

is that so

>>2643338
I personally think it is very easy to be down and out and not get any sort of connection or love from others due to the inherent nature of capitalism. You are actually a leftist are you not?

I'm not actually a Christian…

but nonetheless. You have to take into consideration racial identities, because what would you consider discrimination and prejudice as originating from? I think that saying that capitalism is not inherently racist at all is a very classical liberal outlook.

"collectivism" vs. "individualism" is a false dichotomy and anyone capable of thinking dialectically knows how to dissolve false dichotomies. There is objectively "collectivism" within "individualism" and vice-versa.

Multicellular organisms are collectives of cells, but that collective "resolves" to an individual with subjective experience of itself as an individual. That "individual" despite being both a collective of cells, and part of a collective society is still capable of experiencing individuality, be it positive individuality through autonomy and independence, or negative individuality, through alienation and ostracization. I could go on but I think this is the shortest way to put it.

>>2643341
There has been nothing written about dialectical materialism regarding collectivism and individualism as "false dichotomies"

You're kind of doing a strawman here…because I think if you were to say, the organization of a society doesn't have to strictly adhere to collectivism or individualism, then it would be understandable.

I think that generally if you were to study societies and civilizations, they more easily fall into one or more camps. It is often looked at as a spectrum with some societies being a mixture of both. It is generally just a tool, that lets you understand something that is incredibly simple, and basic, and that is out in the open. It's really nonchalant, and is usually not a big deal.

It's pretty ridiculous if we cannot even agree on established norms such as this. I mean you can disagree, but that's not entirely what is being done for sure, but I don't want to sound arrogant or like I am attacking anyone. I was going to say dichotomy again, but it's not really even the case. But generally the definitions and existence of individualism and collectivism pretty much widely appear everywhere. I mean, I guess you could say the media is controlled by a select group of wealthy individuals, and thus it is almost like a form of propaganda. But I don't know if it's really the case here with individualism and collectivism, because generally leftism is considered collectivism and it could be like arguing that leftism is not real either, because I don't know, it's like Goldsteins book "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism"

but nonetheless I see how my topic has almost turned into simply me arguing about semantics

Small capitalist perversion of socialization and the elimination of wage labor.

>>2643342
>There has been nothing written about dialectical materialism regarding collectivism and individualism as "false dichotomies"

Doesn't matter. Dialectics in general resolves false dichotomies by showing that opposing elements of a system are interdependent, interpenetrating, transforming into one another, and generally not mutually exclusive. By examining the tensions, contradictions, and shared assumptions, dialectical reasoning synthesizes the opposites into a more comprehensive framework that preserves insights from both while transcending the either/or framing.

Individuals are collectives of cells (multicellular organisms) but are also individuals within a collective (society) and a society is an individual within a collection of societies (globe), and a globe is an individual in a collective (solar system) and a solar system is an individual in a collective (galaxy). You can see how there is a nesting of individuals and collectives at every scale of life, but you can also see how ideological "individualism" and the critiques of it are always embedded in a social context, and you can see how social revolution has enhanced the rights of individuals.

Individual "ism" and Collective "ism" are a false dichotomy because it presupposes a purely zero sum struggle between negative freedom (freedom from oppression) and positive freedom (freedom to do what you want).

>>2643337
Basically meaningless question.
Stupid shit.

the whole confusion around individualism and collectivism comes from the intuitive difficulties which arise from the following state of affairs: an organism is a contained and self reproducing metabolism; a collection of chemical catalysts and templates that catalyze and constrain reactions which produce more of the same catalysts and templates and so on. you've got micro-organisms and you've got macro-organisms. macro-organisms are composed of micro-organisms that in some way mutually depend on each other to complete their respective metabolic logistical circuits. a society is a large macro-organism composed of large individual micro-organisms called people. people are macro-organisms composed of anatomic and cellular micro-organisms.

you can see the tension working when you think about thatcher's old quote "there is no such thing as society. there are individual men and women, and there are families". it's been talked to death as the watch words of individual-atomistic neoliberalism, but what's instructive is that she has to almost immediately concede a macro-organic reality in the form of the family. it is impossible for even the most radical liberal idealogue to honestly or coherently conceive of individual humans totally abstracted from sociality, because all people come into the world dependent upon other people, and the perpetuation of any population is the perpetual production of new dependents. the ideal of liberal individualism is an ideological product of universal commodity exchange. the notion that there are only individuals and families engaged in voluntary mutual exchange is only plausible to people in social conditions which obfuscate and commodify collective relations of interdependence.

consider the possibility that climate change decimates global agricultural output to the point that people are collectively only socially capable of producing enough food to feed 90% of the current world population. the obviously resulting famine deaths should illustrate the collective reality of society well enough. at human scales, individuals cannot persist without the collectives that generate and constrain them.

>>2643337
Collectivism and Individualism are not seperate things, yet alone mutually exclusive. If one shall die in the name of their 'nation' (or something else) , it is because the idea holds a domain over their mind, why is it individualism when one strives for endless wealth but it is 'collectivism' when someone dies in a crusade or something in the name of a god, accounting that the idea of that is somehow pleasant for them.

collectivism vs individualism is a false dichotomy, similar to the false dichotomy of authoritarian vs libertarian