NationStates Jolt Archive

Collectivism..what are your opinions on the concept? It's many features and flaws? Could total collectivism work or none at all? What about certain collectivism mixed with other ideas...tell me what you think?
But while you do also answer these question just for a measuring stick...

Age:

Nation in which you live:

Are you in a rural area or urban area:

If applicable to your opinion would you take part in some type of collectivist experiment:

Perhaps you're using a stronger definition of collectivism than I am, but collectivism is impossible not to have save in a society of one man. Man is by nature a social and political animal, and requires the presence and assistance of others to truly reach the good life. Any kind of arrangement that betters human existence then, by definition, is a social and collective one.

The question is too vague.

im not too interested in collectivism of any sort but perhaps you would like to elaborate on what YOU mean when you ask us about collectivism.

*waits for clarification*

I think I am personally too independent to really be happy in a collective society, sure I take care of others, but I really wouldn't want to rely or depend on them taking care of me.

Age: 25

Nation in which you live: USA

Are you in a rural area or urban area: Urban

If applicable to your opinion would you take part in some type of collectivist experiment: not a chance.

I am in favor of the Collective; I for one welcome our new Borg overlords. May my assimilation be swift.

I am in favor of the Collective; I for one welcome our new Borg overlords. May my assimilation be swift.

It just goes to show, what you see on TV is true after all. :D ;)

It just goes to show, what you see on TV is true after all. :D ;)

What do you mean 'after all?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
or
Theory that the state should own the means of production. Term first used by Mikhail Bakunin when describing himself as a collective anarchist. In 1880 a congress in Belgium adopted collectivism; demanding state ownership of all means of production in order that the community as a whole enjoys the fruits of its labour. Collective farming under Stalin was generally regarded as a failure. [RE]
www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/c4encyc.htm

An emphasis on collective goals as opposed to individual goals.
enbv.narod.ru/text/Econom/ib/str/261.html

Bolshevism: Soviet communism
a political theory that the people should own the means of production
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Collectivism, in general, is a term used to describe a theoretical or practical emphasis on the group, as opposed to (and seen by many of its opponents to be at the expense of) the individual. Some psychologists define collectivism as a syndrome of attitudes and behaviors based on the belief that the basic unit of survival lies within a group, not the individual. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism


Dictionary Definitions---
Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

col·lec·tiv·ism /kəˈlɛktəˌvɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source col·lec·tiv·ism (kə-lěk'tə-vĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

WordNet - Cite This Source collectivism

noun
1. Soviet communism [syn: Bolshevism]
2. a political theory that the people should own the means of production

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University


collectivism Show phonetics
noun [U] SPECIALIZED
a theory or political system based on the principle that all of the farms, factories and other places of work in a country should be owned by or for all the people in that country
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)


col·lec·tiv·ism [ kə léktə vìzzəm ]
noun

Definition:

people's ownership and management: the system of control and ownership of factories and farms and of the means of production and distribution of products by a nation's people



collectivism - refers to all economic and political systems that emphasize central planning and group, as opposed to individual, endeavor. Thus socialist and communist societies are collectivist. The theory of collectivism emphasizes the value of cooperation under, usually, authoritarian leadership. The efforts of the individual matter less than the goals of the group as a whole.
http://www.fast-times.com/dictionaryco-cu.html



That clear it up for you? I am talking about Collectivism.

What do you mean 'after all?'

I have no idea.

The question is too vague.

Asking for your opinion is too vague...? What do you think about Collectivism...at all, in small doses or large gulps.

im not too interested in collectivism of any sort but perhaps you would like to elaborate on what YOU mean when you ask us about collectivism.

Well to disclose my intent would ruin my theory.
But, I have come up with an idea for a Collectivist Experiment, hence the last question.

However just on explaining the experiment would infact spoil it.

Asking for your opinion is too vague...? What do you think about Collectivism...at all, in small doses or large gulps.

I think that the serving size on the container is a pretty good guide for how much you should take at a time.

It's not really my flavor, though.

Well to disclose my intent would ruin my theory.
But, I have come up with an idea for a Collectivist Experiment, hence the last question.

However just on explaining the experiment would infact spoil it.

I throw a wooden shoe at you.

I throw a wooden shoe at you.
You could at least throw two.

You could at least throw two.

Fine, take them both. French shoes are for losers anyway.

I have no problem with voluntary collectivism, provided the members can freely associate with the collective.

Forced collectivism is an utter, unequivocal disaster, if the massive famines in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and the modern North Korea are any evidence. Millions of people starved, and millions more died from complications due to malnutrition. Even after the famines, collectives were so terribly underproductive and inefficient that they could not meet the demand for food and it had to be imported.

Theory that the state should own the means of production. Term first used by Mikhail Bakunin when describing himself as a collective anarchist. In 1880 a congress in Belgium adopted collectivism; demanding state ownership of all means of production in order that the community as a whole enjoys the fruits of its labour. Collective farming under Stalin was generally regarded as a failure.

oh well then

NO NO NO NO NO

its a horrible idea.

im in favor of "workers" getting together to run a business or consumers getting together to build a buying club. but the state should never ever own the means of production.

those few state run enterprises such as the post office, the schools and roads are bad enough.

I have no problem with voluntary collectivism, provided the members can freely associate with the collective.

Forced collectivism is an utter, unequivocal disaster, if the massive famines in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and the modern North Korea are any evidence. Millions of people starved, and millions more died from complications due to malnutrition. Even after the famines, collectives were so terribly underproductive and inefficient that they could not meet the demand for food and it had to be imported.
Fair enough---would you over the course of the next year be interested in participating in a Collectivist Experiment? This is contingent upon a number of factors on my part and of course yours but for the time being would a social experiment interest you?
And are you over 18 years of age?

I think "collectivism" is a useless and fairly meaningless term, but I am a "collectivist," I suppose, in that I believe in direct public control of the economy.

Fundamentally I believe in self-determination, both individual and collective.

I value life, property and the pursuit of happiness as my rights. Each individual should have these rights availible, along with not being allowed too infringe on any other indivinviduals rights, which follow the same classification. Collectivism was used in the Soviet Union, then later in the USSR. Of course at this was a harder version of the idealology, and disturbing at times. The Individual comes before the group. I am a libertarian, if my pro-isolationist sentiment, hasn't given any hint of this.

The Individual comes before the group.

What does this mean? I've wondered ever since I first heard it.

Fair enough---would you over the course of the next year be interested in participating in a Collectivist Experiment? This is contingent upon a number of factors on my part and of course yours but for the time being would a social experiment interest you?
And are you over 18 years of age?

Yes, yes and yes.

Perhaps you're using a stronger definition of collectivism than I am, but collectivism is impossible not to have save in a society of one man. Man is by nature a social and political animal, and requires the presence and assistance of others to truly reach the good life. Any kind of arrangement that betters human existence then, by definition, is a social and collective one.

Collectivism works in small groups 30-100? it was the way of the world for centuries, in some places it still exists. It breaks down in large anonymous groups.

I'm a frickin' anarchist, so no, your definition of collectivism, absolutely against it.

Communalism, or collectivism in another paradigm...aboriginal communalism...all for it. But, that happens to fit into my anarchist views as well.

Vetalia-
How would you like me to contact you?
Email, Phone, Snail-Mail?

What does this mean? I've wondered ever since I first heard it.

Perhaps you've heared of tyranny by the majority? In essence, if a group of people, say 3, want too only eat donughts, and I want pizza, just because the moral majority desires it, does not mean it too be so. The impass is either broken through debate, in which I should be thoroughly convinced as too why donughts would be better, or me getting pizza while they get donughts. Or in other cases, me being shot, and the 3 people eating donuts...

Perhaps you've heared of tyranny by the majority?

Yes. What does that have to do with anything?

In essence, if a group of people, say 3, want too only eat donughts, and I want pizza, just because the moral majority desires it, does not mean it too be so.

I don't see any conflict here at all. They get donuts... you get pizza. What does that have to do with elevating the individual above the group? Everyone is happy.

The impass is either broken through debate, in which I should be thoroughly convinced as too why donughts would be better,

If there is no way to give each person her preference, how is it at all rational for the desires of ONE person for pizza outweigh the desires of THREE people for donuts?

Are they not individuals?

I'm a frickin' anarchist

is this new-ish, or were you just quiet about it earlier?

Collectivism was used in the Soviet Union, then later in the USSR.

what?

what?

Yeah, I think it's 'let's invent some shit' night.

I love collectivism.

is this new-ish, or were you just quiet about it earlier?

I'm so anarchist, I don't even want to seem like I'm part of a group, so I never called myself anarchist :D

Not new-ish, it's just not something I give a shit about debating. Saying 'left!' and leaving it at that frees up time for other things.

I love collectivism.

Collecting things? Yeah, it's sweet.

Not new-ish, it's just not something I give a shit about debating. Saying 'left!' and leaving it at that frees up time for other things.

You should really pay attention to AnarchyeL when he discusses anarcho-primitivism, I do think it would appeal to you.

Collectivism..what are your opinions on the concept? It's many features and flaws? Could total collectivism work or none at all? What about certain collectivism mixed with other ideas...tell me what you think?
But while you do also answer these question just for a measuring stick...

Age:

Nation in which you live:

Are you in a rural area or urban area:

If applicable to your opinion would you take part in some type of collectivist experiment:

No. I hate collectivism. The individual is the only moral agent and only actor. No 'group' can truly exist or truly have rights, because it's only an abstraction. All institutions must be voluntary for ALL parties, or must be destroyed. I would include democracy in my definition of collectivism, which is founded on the ridiculous idea that the 51 somehow are always right and hold the best interests of the 49, even if the 49 say otherwise. This is inherently collectivist, as it focuses on the 'rights' of the aggregate of the 100 as opposed to each and every one of the 100 individuals.

Age: 20

Nation: USA (Not Austria)

Area: Urban

Collecting things? Yeah, it's sweet.

I love collectively collecting things.

You should see the community collection of locks of Barbara Streishand's hair that my subdivision is putting together.

Yes. What does that have to do with anything?



I don't see any conflict here at all. They get donuts... you get pizza. What does that have to do with elevating the individual above the group? Everyone is happy.



If there is no way to give each person her preference, how is it at all rational for the desires of ONE person for pizza outweigh the desires of THREE people for donuts?

Are they not individuals?

...You honestly dont see how that applies too the situation?

They're are situations when the individual, or minority, may not get what they want, with the majority getting what they want. A winner takes all situation (speaking in terms of votes) for example.

Ah therein lies the great flaw of the libertarian ideals. There is no more efficient way too decide then a democratic vote. But this is still not fair? It is an eternal impass in some situations. This is why there are no libertarian societies, and thier are little things called filibusters.

what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR

...You honestly dont see how that applies too the situation?

No. Actually, I don't think it ever applies.

A group is just a bunch of individuals. To subordinate the group to "the individual" is necessarily to subordinate individuals to other individuals... which contradicts the whole notion of individualism in the first place.

You should really pay attention to AnarchyeL when he discusses anarcho-primitivism, I do think it would appeal to you.

Thanks, but no. It makes some colonialist assumptions about aboriginal societal structures that just don't fit. We have our own understandings, that can still be filed under 'anarchist' and that suit me better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR

actually, i'm just wondering what the soviet union is such that it is distinct from the ussr.

No. Actually, I don't think it ever applies.

A group is just a bunch of individuals. To subordinate the group to "the individual" is necessarily to subordinate individuals to other individuals... which contradicts the whole notion of individualism in the first place.



But when applied too a certain circumstance, such as pizza vs donuts, people are alligned too either belief. In my case, I was an individual, and for the moment, people formed too a dount group.

In my case, I was an individual, and for the moment, people formed too a dount group.

So an individual who is part of a group is somehow less valuable than one who is not?

actually, i'm just wondering what the soviet union is such that it is distinct from the ussr.

Soviet Union was pre- and during WWII, USSR is the Soviet Union after WWII, with a bunch of new satilites forced on.

actually, i'm just wondering what the soviet union is such that it is distinct from the ussr.

The same thing that makes them both different from the CCCP.

Um.

In Soviet Russia, vodka drinks YOU! *runs*

Soheran--
Would you be insterested in a Collectivist Experiment?
And are you over 18?

So an individual who is part of a group is somehow less valuable than one who is not?

Actually, by the groups opinion, they would be more important. Its based on whos perspective, which is based on sympathies too the matter.

Now lets say the group is making the purchase...a collective purchase with collective funds.

There is enough money to feed the group pizza or doughnuts but not both---
Why should the majority yield to the individual?

Now lets say the group is making the purchase...a collective purchase with collective funds.

There is enough money to feed the group pizza or doughnuts but not both---
Why should the majority yield to the individual?

Why should the individual submit too the group? ;)


Ill admit, Libetarians ideals can run in circles at times. Most social/political paradoxes are created by Libertarianism.

Actually, by the groups opinion, they would be more important. Its based on whos perspective, which is based on sympathies too the matter.

So the principle that "The individual comes before the group" means... what?

Why should the individual submit too the group? ;)


Ill admit, Libetarians ideals can run in circles at times. Most social/political paradoxes are created by Libertarianism.

I am a Libertarian. My question on Collectivism has no bearing on my politics.

Back to my question, so then an individual should be entitled to reap the benefits of the group but bear no responsibility to it? No obligation of participation per the rules of the group? That sounds more like lawlessness then Libertarianism. Since it is a simple fact that among humans a consensus can not be reached at all times at some point one must submit to the majority or leave.

Am I to take it that while you are willing to reap the benefits of collective power you are unwilling to bear your share of the burden?

So the principle that "The individual comes before the group" means... what?

You should never have too submit too the majority, if your life, property, or pursuit of happiness is at stake. Some circumstances avoid these protections of course, in the case of a murderers and child molesters, etc.

I am a Libertarian. My question on Collectivism has no bearing on my politics.

Back to my question, so then an individual should be entitled to reap the benefits of the group but bear no responsibility to it? No obligation of participation per the rules of the group? That sounds more like lawlessness then Libertarianism. Since it is a simple fact that among humans a consensus can not be reached at all times at some point one must submit to the majority or leave.

Am I to take it that while you are willing to reap the benefits of collective power you are unwilling to bear your share of the burden?

As for your consensus sentiment, see where I stated "Democracy is the fairest and most efficent way too run society" (in a differnt wording)

Re-state you question please, im not sure how your linking the two.

Im glad that has no bearing on your politics. It shouldnt, in this day and age, in Europe, and North America. Now if you'll kindly step into this time machine leading too 1930's Russia... Perhaps then you'd connect the two.

Soviet Union was pre- and during WWII, USSR is the Soviet Union after WWII, with a bunch of new satilites forced on.

Um... that is completely not true.

Here's a quick timeline: following the Russian Civil War (which itself followed WWI) the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic was formed.

The Russian SSR supported socialist movements throughout the old Russian Empire, and by the 1920s all of the Old Russian Empire was incorporated as Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Soviet Constitution created a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovyetska Sotsialiskaya Respublika), which was often referred to, right from the start as the Soviet Union, even internally as the Sovyetskiy Soyuz.

While the post-war satellite states may have been controlled from Moscow, legally, they were nothing to do with the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Constitution acknowledged that.

Age: 18

Nation: USA

Area: Currently a small town so sort of in the middle.

No, I would not take part in a collectivist experiment. A collectivist experiment would give me no personal benefit, unless I was to receive large sums of money to recompensate me for time lost. Currently, my goals are more valuable to me than the participation in a collective experiment. I don't think that collectivism will work though for a large scale society and I don't really care about the small-scale ones. Large scale societies though cannot be personal enough to rely on non-traditional economic incentives, and therefore I think that they must then rely upon more traditional economic incentives for coordination and upon individual guiding action.

traditional economic incentives

you don't mean to tell me that you think wage labor and other modern inventions now count as traditional, do you?

Um... that is completely not true.

Here's a quick timeline: following the Russian Civil War (which itself followed WWI) the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic was formed.

The Russian SSR supported socialist movements throughout the old Russian Empire, and by the 1920s all of the Old Russian Empire was incorporated as Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Soviet Constitution created a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovyetska Sotsialiskaya Respublika), which was often referred to, right from the start as the Soviet Union, even internally as the Sovyetskiy Soyuz.

While the post-war satellite states may have been controlled from Moscow, legally, they were nothing to do with the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Constitution acknowledged that.


So thats why the soviets kept complete millitary prescence and dominance, with say the Berlin Wall, and putting down the Budapest revolts? The Warsaw pact bound them even tighter too soviet influence and control.

"Nations within the Eastern Bloc were sometimes held in the Soviet sphere of influence through military force. Hungary was invaded by the Soviet Army in 1956 after it had overthrown its pro-Soviet government and replaced it with one that sought a more democratic communist path independent of Moscow; when Polish communist leaders tried to elect Władysław Gomułka as First Secretary, they were issued an ultimatum by the Soviet military, demanding that Gomułka's election be canceled.[1] Czechoslovakia was invaded in 1968 after a period of liberalization known as the Prague Spring. The latter invasion was codified in formal Soviet policy as the Brezhnev Doctrine."

-Wiki



Educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_State

I used to frequent a forum and there was this one user who talked about it in every post. He actually opposed drink-driving on some messed-up collectivism-related ground.

As for your consensus sentiment, see where I stated "Democracy is the fairest and most efficent way too run society" (in a differnt wording)


Democracy is certainly not the most efficient way to run anything. Indeed, unless the citizenry are participatory, it isn't even close to being the fairest. (And, even with 'educated' participation, 'fair' is too amorphous a phrase to mean anything.)

Asking for your opinion is too vague...? What do you think about Collectivism...at all, in small doses or large gulps.
I think collectivism is a fine thing, and here's why! I find that I prefer music when played in groups, and that I far prefer playing in bands than playing alone. Thus, collectivism is the only way.

(see what I mean? the term can be applied to anything)

That clear it up for you? I am talking about Collectivism.
You should have said socialism, then!

I think that some collectivism is necessary and thus every state is somewhat "socialist" but then it can go too far, obviously (Stalin, the Borg)

For what it's worth

Age: 20

Nation: Ireland

Area: Urban

I hate collectivism and all it stands for.It generally results in poverty and totalitariansism,because it runs agaisnt the human nature of individualism and therefore does not work.It has been tried before many times anyway and found to be wanting,so I question what the point of another collectivist experiment would be.

Age:14
Country:America
rural area

So thats why the soviets kept complete millitary prescence and dominance, with say the Berlin Wall, and putting down the Budapest revolts? The Warsaw pact bound them even tighter too soviet influence and control.

that's different from being formally part of the soviet union.

I hate collectivism and all it stands for.

and what do you believe it to stand for?

I hate collectivism and all it stands for.It generally results in poverty and totalitariansism,because it runs agaisnt the human nature of individualism and therefore does not work.It has been tried before many times anyway and found to be wanting,so I question what the point of another collectivist experiment would be.

Age:14
Country:America
rural area

What you call 'individualism' is selfishness. That is a survival characteristic for individuals, but we sublimate it in the groups we live in... family being the obvious example.

The problem with this cold, clinical age we now live in, is that our societies have become impersonal behemoths bound up in red tape... and that has had the adverse effect of making people feel like they either don't need anyone else, or are better off alone.

So, we raise generation after generation of citizens who favour getting as much of everything as they can get, and screw everyone else.

In that way, this 'individualism' you talk about, is far more likely to create poverty than a collectivised culture - because 'all for me' must come at the expense of someone.

Fair enough---would you over the course of the next year be interested in participating in a Collectivist Experiment? This is contingent upon a number of factors on my part and of course yours but for the time being would a social experiment interest you?
And are you over 18 years of age?

Don't do it, Vetalia.

Its a pyramid scheme.

Thanks, but no. It makes some colonialist assumptions about aboriginal societal structures that just don't fit. We have our own understandings, that can still be filed under 'anarchist' and that suit me better.

Oh.

Please explain.

I think collectivism is a fine thing, and here's why! I find that I prefer music when played in groups, and that I far prefer playing in bands than playing alone. Thus, collectivism is the only way.

(see what I mean? the term can be applied to anything)


You should have said socialism, then!

I think that some collectivism is necessary and thus every state is somewhat "socialist" but then it can go too far, obviously (Stalin, the Borg)

For what it's worth

Age: 20

Nation: Ireland

Area: Urban

No I shouldnt have said socialism you dolt, as those are all definitions for COLLECTIVISM. Your lack of knowledge as to the actual definitions of collectivism doesnt make what I said wrong.

As for your example---that is a perfectly fine answer--as my question was broad, not vague.
As a matter of fact the music example is a perfect example of collectivism people take for granted. Also note in my first post where you seem to have been confused...I never said anything political....only collectivism, most people just assume politics....others wanted to be led by the nose.

I believe collectivism as a political ideology is flawed, it is not functional for a state...but it does indeed hold great potential in other applications.

Just like these people who believe the experiment I am talking about is living on a commune or some other blather, I never said that--it is just assumed.

Don't do it, Vetalia.

Its a pyramid scheme.

It's detergent or some shit.

you don't mean to tell me that you think wage labor and other modern inventions now count as traditional, do you?
Well, past societies really did not have much to coordinate and were not really what I was looking. I call wage labor and such traditional as opposed to more unorthodox ideas rather than in terms of history. Whippings can be considered in terms of history to be what we have historically done, but they are not a part of our current tradition.

I hate collectivism and all it stands for.It generally results in poverty and totalitariansism,because it runs agaisnt the human nature of individualism and therefore does not work.It has been tried before many times anyway and found to be wanting,so I question what the point of another collectivist experiment would be.

Age:14
Country:America
rural area

Of course you do.
Collectivism isnt a symbol, therefore it doesnt "stand" for anything...it simply is.

Next Collectivism is not entirely a political ideology and can be applied to many things...hence the braodness of the original post.
You speak in terms of nations and governments as if i would be able to set up a government or some other political structure.

At least others have assumed some type of communal living...which has been proven to WORK--you dullard--on small scales at least and there are several communes that have functioned for quite a long time....all things considered.

I am so disappointed.

I really was counting on the left leaning nature of the NSG to come out and give some intelligent responses....so much for that.
Only a handful of insightful and intelligent responses.
And a load of tripe from forums whores and one line spammers...and simple minded dolts who dont even have an idea of what they are talking about before they jabber on about hating this and hating that.

Well, past societies really did not have much to coordinate so I call them traditional as opposed to more unorthodox ideas rather than in terms of history. Whippings can be considered in terms of history to be what we have historically done, but they are not a part of our current tradition.

Bartering has longer and greater history then wage based labor...or does that not count....because current tax structures and regulatory laws make bartering in the US essentially illegal?
Hence forcing the Wage Labor Tax scheme on the public, not a choice but an imposed system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
or
Theory that the state should own the means of production. Term first used by Mikhail Bakunin when describing himself as a collective anarchist. In 1880 a congress in Belgium adopted collectivism; demanding state ownership of all means of production in order that the community as a whole enjoys the fruits of its labour. Collective farming under Stalin was generally regarded as a failure. [RE]
www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/c4encyc.htm

An emphasis on collective goals as opposed to individual goals.
enbv.narod.ru/text/Econom/ib/str/261.html

Bolshevism: Soviet communism
a political theory that the people should own the means of production
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Collectivism, in general, is a term used to describe a theoretical or practical emphasis on the group, as opposed to (and seen by many of its opponents to be at the expense of) the individual. Some psychologists define collectivism as a syndrome of attitudes and behaviors based on the belief that the basic unit of survival lies within a group, not the individual. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism


Dictionary Definitions---
Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

col·lec·tiv·ism /kəˈlɛktəˌvɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun the political principle of centralized social and economic control, esp. of all means of production.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source col·lec·tiv·ism (kə-lěk'tə-vĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

WordNet - Cite This Source collectivism

noun
1. Soviet communism [syn: Bolshevism]
2. a political theory that the people should own the means of production

WordNet® 2.1, © 2005 Princeton University


collectivism Show phonetics
noun [U] SPECIALIZED
a theory or political system based on the principle that all of the farms, factories and other places of work in a country should be owned by or for all the people in that country
(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)


col·lec·tiv·ism [ kə léktə vìzzəm ]
noun

Definition:

people's ownership and management: the system of control and ownership of factories and farms and of the means of production and distribution of products by a nation's people



collectivism - refers to all economic and political systems that emphasize central planning and group, as opposed to individual, endeavor. Thus socialist and communist societies are collectivist. The theory of collectivism emphasizes the value of cooperation under, usually, authoritarian leadership. The efforts of the individual matter less than the goals of the group as a whole.
http://www.fast-times.com/dictionaryco-cu.html



That clear it up for you? I am talking about Collectivism.

No I shouldnt have said socialism you dolt, as those are all definitions for COLLECTIVISM. Your lack of knowledge as to the actual definitions of collectivism doesnt make what I said wrong.

As for your example---that is a perfectly fine answer--as my question was broad, not vague.
As a matter of fact the music example is a perfect example of collectivism people take for granted. Also note in my first post where you seem to have been confused...I never said anything political....only collectivism, most people just assume politics....others wanted to be led by the nose.

I believe collectivism as a political ideology is flawed, it is not functional for a state...but it does indeed hold great potential in other applications.

Just like these people who believe the experiment I am talking about is living on a commune or some other blather, I never said that--it is just assumed.

are those not both YOU?

if you didnt want people to take it as political, why did you go on and on with political definitions?

if you wanted to stay "broad" you should have said so.

Bartering has longer and greater history then wage based labor...or does that not count....because current tax structures and regulatory laws make bartering in the US essentially illegal?
Hence forcing the Wage Labor Tax scheme on the public, not a choice but an imposed system.
Bartering is also incredibly inefficient. It also doesn't count in my mind because we don't currently have it and even if it weren't illegalized we still likely would not have large scale bartering but rather tend towards a certain thing(a currency) such as shells or cigarettes as a standard way of dealing with trade.

It's detergent or some shit.

Actually its a sexual experiment with your mother.
I need more people though, she demanded it.

Actually its a sexual experiment with your mother.
I need more people though, she demanded it.

Smarten up.

are those not both YOU?

if you didnt want people to take it as political, why did you go on and on with political definitions?

if you wanted to stay "broad" you should have said so.

I posted every definition I could find. I didnt make up my own, like many.
IN those definitions are plenty of references to NONE political ideas---

So your point is what? that I used multiple broad sources for my broad question.

If you have other definitions please show me and cite the source....and as I said they include none political definitions much like you most simply chose to focus on politics.

Any other pointless remarks ?

Smarten up.

Smarten up?

You mean like "talk gooder"....how about I "smarten up" when you admit you cant possibly be the anarchist you claim to be or you wouldnt suggest anyone conform to rules that society defines as courtesy....what kind of anarchist wants to imfringe on individual freedom just because you dont liek what i said.

It isnt my fault his mother likes the group thing...oh wait, I need to "smarten up" wow.

I believe collectivism as a political ideology is flawed

I don't see how collectivism is a real political ideology. Every political ideology that involves a government is collectivist to some degree.

Bartering has longer and greater history then wage based labor

bartering sucks. it's just market relations in the absence of an agreed upon medium of exchange - fit only for economic relations with strangers and enemies.

Collectivism..what are your opinions on the concept? It's many features and flaws? Could total collectivism work or none at all? What about certain collectivism mixed with other ideas...tell me what you think?

Many purely or mostly collectivist systems could function adequately given the appropriate social and cultural base from which to operate, though most would run into serious practical issues when trying to operate on a large scale. Sometimes those practical issues can be overcome, but not always.

My opinion is that individualism and collectivism are both valuable, and that in the interest of a healthy society, both should be balanced and integrated in any society's approach to their social and political endeavors.

But while you do also answer these question just for a measuring stick...

Age:

22

Nation of Residence:

United States of America

Are you in a rural area or urban area?

Rural

Would you take part in some type of collectivist experiment?

That depends very much on the nature of the experiment and the participants.