>>746000There 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