Communism as a philosophical disease

[Neo Rome Republic]

Is it? All individuals (except in rare cases) are expected to pay taxes to these organizations and their will has been overridden in making them do so under law, thus they are collectivist institutions. We also see, that in regards to a police department, an individual can be detained whether he or she wishes to or not, overriding his or her will as an example of collectivism. The manner in which these organizations perpetuate is socialist in nature as the means of production for these organizations is collectively appropriated on all of society.

You're basically using socialism as a meaningless buzzword. Certainly, these institutions are created and sustained in the name of the common good, but that doesn't make them socialist. For example organizations like the law enforcement tend to be extremely hierarchical, and in practice tend to incredibly inegalitarian in the way they actually go about their business. Socialism is a subset of collectivism, not the other way around.

In America "Socialism" has mostly become a meaningless, demonizing, insult. Pretty much like "Fascism".

[Cu Math]

[background=][/background]

Leopold's Congo was more capitalist. It had a corporation holding the land, unregulated by the government, that provided a good to the market. At the expense of a few thousand africans

The thing is the only corporation allowed to extract resources was the land holding company (This resembles the East India Company).

We have the exact same thing here. Go out west and ask about the mineral rights. You'll find that even if you buy land in Idaho or Montana, you don't own the mineral rights; a corporation does from when the territory was formed. Whole swaths of exclusive control.

[Geilinor]

Hahahahah, no.

Education, Elections, etc. are not socialism. There hardly is any work place democracy, the poor-rich divide is insane.

Socialism isn't here any more. Industrialization wiped it out.

Pandeeria... you're confusing terms again. Socialism isn't just an economic paradigm. It's also a social one. It's social observations are collectivist in nature. Any and every democratic institution is collectivist. As such, socialism very much exists here in the United States.

Socialism and collectivism are not the same thing. Fascism, for example, is collectivist but not socialist.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Ah so you agree in principle. Now you quibble with the degree.



That says much for my argument, then, doesn't it?



The US does, in point of fact, possess significant collectivist institutions.

The only leader in the US is Queen of England. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN.

Silence!!! You villainous, Bourgeois, Plutocrat.

[Pandeeria]

Socialism is mainly an economic system.

Ah so you agree in principle. Now you quibble with the degree.

Not really. It's simply not socialism.

That says much for my argument, then, doesn't it?

No, not really.

The US does, in point of fact, possess significant collectivist institutions.

All ideologies do. Just because it's collectivist doesn't mean it's socialist. Monarchy, Fascism, Communism, all ideologies are collectivist.

An example of a collectivist political system is representative democracy, as in such systems, after voting occurs and a leader has been chosen by the populace everyone is expected to accept that individual as their leader regardless of whether they voted for them or not. For example, in the United States Presidential election of 2012 Barack Obama received a majority of the electoral college votes cast, and the opposition was expected to submit to letting him lead them whether or not they had originally voted for him. The will of the "collective" (President Obama voters) mattered more and is considered "collectivist" because ultimately, the totality of decision by the voters in the country, expressed through the electoral college system, was more important than the will of any single individual in that context.

Cool, all ideologies have collectivist traits.

[Geilinor]

The only leader in the US is Queen of England. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN.

Silence!!! You villainous, Bourgeois, Plutocrat.

You're just spewing words with no meaning.

[Distruzio]

Is it? All individuals (except in rare cases) are expected to pay taxes to these organizations and their will has been overridden in making them do so under law, thus they are collectivist institutions. We also see, that in regards to a police department, an individual can be detained whether he or she wishes to or not, overriding his or her will as an example of collectivism. The manner in which these organizations perpetuate is socialist in nature as the means of production for these organizations is collectively appropriated on all of society.

You're basically using socialism as a meaningless buzzword. Certainly, these institutions are created and sustained in the name of the common good, but that doesn't make them socialist. For example organizations like the law enforcement tend to be extremely hierarchical, and in practice tend to incredibly inegalitarian in the way they actually go about their business. Socialism is a subset of collectivism, not the other way around.

You're mistakenly assuming that I'm sneering the word socialism. I'm not.

And I am quite aware of what you point out. Which is precisely why I chose the term socialism. It not only satisfies the requirements horizontal collectivism but, in its own way, and vertical collectivism. Those examples I use are the most appropriate uses of socialism in the individualized American society. You, and others, merely balk at my use of the term because you presume I sneer it. I don't.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Silence!!! You villainous, Bourgeois, Plutocrat.

You're just spewing words with no meaning.

It was a joke...

[Geilinor]

You're basically using socialism as a meaningless buzzword. Certainly, these institutions are created and sustained in the name of the common good, but that doesn't make them socialist. For example organizations like the law enforcement tend to be extremely hierarchical, and in practice tend to incredibly inegalitarian in the way they actually go about their business. Socialism is a subset of collectivism, not the other way around.

You're mistakenly assuming that I'm sneering the word socialism. I'm not.

And I am quite aware of what you point out. Which is precisely why I chose the term socialism. It not only satisfies the requirements horizontal collectivism but, in its own way, and vertical collectivism. Those examples I use are the most appropriate uses of socialism in the individualized American society. You, and others, merely balk at my use of the term because you presume I sneer it. I don't.

A couple posts ago you said the US was collectivist.

[Distruzio]

Pandeeria... you're confusing terms again. Socialism isn't just an economic paradigm. It's also a social one. It's social observations are collectivist in nature. Any and every democratic institution is collectivist. As such, socialism very much exists here in the United States.

Socialism and collectivism are not the same thing. Fascism, for example, is collectivist but not socialist.

Indeed. Socialism is one manner in which collectivism is articulated. They aren't synonymous. They are dependent upon one another.

[Vazdania]

The only leader in the US is Queen of England. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN.

Silence!!! You villainous, Bourgeois, Plutocrat.

I don't deny being any of those....

[Distruzio]

You're mistakenly assuming that I'm sneering the word socialism. I'm not.

And I am quite aware of what you point out. Which is precisely why I chose the term socialism. It not only satisfies the requirements horizontal collectivism but, in its own way, and vertical collectivism. Those examples I use are the most appropriate uses of socialism in the individualized American society. You, and others, merely balk at my use of the term because you presume I sneer it. I don't.

A couple posts ago you said the US was collectivist.

No I didn't. Mind quoting me saying the US was a collectivist society?

[Master Shake]

Socialism and collectivism are not the same thing. Fascism, for example, is collectivist but not socialist.

Indeed. Socialism is one manner in which collectivism is articulated. They aren't synonymous. They are dependent upon one another.

I'm intrigued...

So it is a kind of "one hand washes the other" type of logic?

[Vazdania]

Silence!!! You villainous, Bourgeois, Plutocrat.

You're just spewing words with no meaning.

They were obviously joking.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Silence!!! You villainous, Bourgeois, Plutocrat.

I don't deny being any of those....

You're making this just a little too easy.

[The Serbian Empire]

[background=][/background]

The thing is the only corporation allowed to extract resources was the land holding company (This resembles the East India Company).

We have the exact same thing here. Go out west and ask about the mineral rights. You'll find that even if you buy land in Idaho or Montana, you don't own the mineral rights; a corporation does from when the territory was formed. Whole swaths of exclusive control.

That is a mercantilist leftover dating back to the colonial era.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. Socialism is one manner in which collectivism is articulated. They aren't synonymous. They are dependent upon one another.

I'm intrigued...

So it is a kind of "one hand washes the other" type of logic?

Meh.

More like a chicken hatching from an egg. The chicken might be male or female. It might be mutated or not. It might be still born. But it comes from somewhere. And no matter where it came from, antecedent influences alter and intervene to create a particular kind of chicken.

[Master Shake]

I'm intrigued...

So it is a kind of "one hand washes the other" type of logic?

Meh.

More like a chicken hatching from an egg. The chicken might be male or female. It might be mutated or not. It might be still born. But it comes from somewhere. And no matter where it came from, antecedent influences alter and intervene to create a particular kind of chicken.

I see...So one produces the other...

Well now I'm hungry and I'm going to order a pizza. Domino's has a 50% deal right now for all pies ordered online...

Glorious Capitalism!!!!

[Vazdania]

Meh.

More like a chicken hatching from an egg. The chicken might be male or female. It might be mutated or not. It might be still born. But it comes from somewhere. And no matter where it came from, antecedent influences alter and intervene to create a particular kind of chicken.

I see...So one produces the other...

Well now I'm hungry and I'm going to order a pizza. Domino's has a 50% deal right now for all pies ordered online...

Glorious Capitalism!!!!

BTCH PLZ. That's corporatism, not capitalism.

[Distruzio]

Cool, all ideologies have collectivist traits.

Yes indeed. But which subset of collectivism characterizes those ideologies?

Horizontal collectivism, which gives rise to both socialism and communism, enjoys a significant presence in the American consciousness - just as much as vertical collectivism (which gives rise to monarchism and bonapartism). Yet it is only vertical collectivism that characterizes American society while horizontal collectivism characterizes the philosophical underpinnings of several institutions Americans have accepted - such as emergency service providers, elections, and so on.

It is this reality that sparked the Founders argument for a Bill of Rights. Rights protecting American individualism against horizontal collectivism. Socialism, is merely the manner in which that collectivism has been administered to American society.

It ain't a bad thing. If anything, American society has flourished under this reality. While those with whom I used to affiliate myself would say that this prosperity comes despite the existence of horizontal collectivism and socialist administrations. I say it doesn't matter. Folks want a more socialized - a more egalitarian society.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I see...So one produces the other...

Well now I'm hungry and I'm going to order a pizza. Domino's has a 50% deal right now for all pies ordered online...

Glorious Capitalism!!!!

BTCH PLZ. That's corporatism, not capitalism.

Psst....The US doesn't have Corporatism.

[Vazdania]

Cool, all ideologies have collectivist traits.

Yes indeed. But which subset of collectivism characterizes those ideologies?

Horizontal collectivism, which gives rise to both socialism and communism, enjoys a significant presence in the American consciousness - just as much as vertical collectivism (which gives rise to monarchism and bonapartism). Yet it is only vertical collectivism that characterizes American society while horizontal collectivism characterizes the philosophical underpinnings of several institutions Americans have accepted - such as emergency service providers, elections, and so on.

It is this reality that sparked the Founders argument for a Bill of Rights. Rights protecting American individualism against horizontal collectivism. Socialism, is merely the manner in which that collectivism has been administered to American society.

It ain't a bad thing. If anything, American society has flourished under this reality. While those with whom I used to affiliate myself would say that this prosperity comes despite the existence of horizontal collectivism and socialist administrations. I say it doesn't matter. Folks want a more socialized - a more egalitarian society.

Welll I don't.

[Distruzio]

BTCH PLZ. That's corporatism, not capitalism.

The US doesn't have Corporatism.

You know he means corporatocracy.

[Vazdania]

BTCH PLZ. That's corporatism, not capitalism.

Psst....The US doesn't have Corporatism.

Yes it does by Corporatisms other definition which is corporate ownership of the means of production

[Silent Majority]

You're basically using socialism as a meaningless buzzword. Certainly, these institutions are created and sustained in the name of the common good, but that doesn't make them socialist. For example organizations like the law enforcement tend to be extremely hierarchical, and in practice tend to incredibly inegalitarian in the way they actually go about their business. Socialism is a subset of collectivism, not the other way around.

You're mistakenly assuming that I'm sneering the word socialism. I'm not.

And I am quite aware of what you point out. Which is precisely why I chose the term socialism. It not only satisfies the requirements horizontal collectivism but, in its own way, and vertical collectivism. Those examples I use are the most appropriate uses of socialism in the individualized American society. You, and others, merely balk at my use of the term because you presume I sneer it. I don't.

I guess my main point is that it would probably be more accurate to use collectivism in the place of where you're your using socialism. The latter having fairly specific meanings both as a socioeconomic system, and as a political philosophy, of which your examples don't really meet.

And I'm not trying to be condescending, it's just this thread is already filled to the brim with the incorrect usage of terminology.