The following youtube series is important for all political intellectuals.








This mini-series contains some very very important truth. While I always felt indignation toward collectivist type theories I have never before had such a clear understanding of just what it is that I dislike so firmly about them. This, to me, is the missing piece of the jigsaw in the political landscape. I now understand why people react the way they do, why they think the way they do, and why collectivism and all political systems based on collectivism are fundamentally immoral.

Now, i would agree with you Sythe and i do.

But given the fact that the ideology of the collectivist society is good, it is not as bad in the perfect world.

This is much like communism, in the world where communism is established as it was truly meant to be at first, then yes, it would be a perfect society. Almost the same thing with collectivism, but many more issues in it. Such as there is no individuality in it, no singular person. This is a very serious issue in it and i see that. Also, the immorality is not as big an issue of it as the insensitivity to the individual's needs.

So yes, i see now that it is a very immoral and ignorant political stand point, but give it in the perfect world and it could be established to something great.

So Sythe, if you could, please tell me if you think it could work out in the "perfect" world.

Because see, communism needs to be established by a leader, and in communism, there is no leader. So, it no longer becomes communism but a dictatorship. Because, the common people would never work together to establish this society, they need a leader. This is why that in the perfect world we could establish governments like this that would be great.

So please, tell me if you agree or disagree.

Communism is a form of collectivism. The collectivist form of society is a fallacy. There is no such entity as 'the group' or 'the society', these are just abstractions we use to discuss the interactions of many individuals. This is an especially important point with respect to human beings. Unlike trees in a forest, or bees in a hive, each human has free-will and thus is able (and willing) to make his own judgments and decisions about his actions and the actions of others.

To assert that 'the group' has particular rights is a fallacy. 'The group', or 'society' is unable to make decisions, as it is just an abstraction, and thus has no rights, nor any responsibilities. It is only members of the group, individuals, who make decisions, and thus take on the responsibility of these decisions. Because, ultimately, an individual makes decisions on behalf of other individuals within the group, rather than on behalf of 'the group' itself (which would be impossible), those decisions carry only the authority of that individual; the same authority that any other individual in the society has. Thus if it is illegal for a man within society to steal, then it is equally illegal for a man within government (which is within society) to tax.

This concept of a perfect world is arbitrary. In a perfect world there'd be no need for politics, no one would ever be violent, the weather would always be good, the food would never run out.

The whole reason we have politics is precisely because we do not live in a perfect world and can never hope to.

Again, if the world were already perfect there'd be no need for any government or any political group or philosophy.

Socialism, of which communism is a form, results inevitably in dictatorship because the concept of collectivism is fallacious and irrational. Unlike the rational scientific understanding of the free market underpinning capitalism, socialism (and all collectivist theory) rests on the premise of faith in the arbitrary. You (the collectivist) want to create a utopia, and you (the collectivist) believe you know how to do so, but unfortunately for you, and everyone involved, the "how" (method) you have chosen is not rational, and thus will not lead you (the collectivist) to the desired (expected) outcome. Just like the woman who prays to god to cure her cancer instead of undergoing treatment, you too will confront metaphysical justice, wherein you will discover that socialism is terribly inefficient and leads to a severe drop in the standard of living of the vast majority of its citizens. When its citizens attempt to rebel the government will become aggressive in silencing dissent, at which point it (the socialist government) becomes totalitarian. Reality is objective, and therefore can only be correctly predicted and understood by intense rational scientific scrutiny.

The fact is collectivism leads inevitably to totalitarianism, because that is its nature. On the other hand individualism leads inevitably to both economic democracy, and limited (or non-existent) government, (whichever satisfies the universal preferences of the individual most) because that is its nature.

Hm, ok i see the fact that in a perfect world no government would be needed to facilitate the common people.

But, what i mean by "perfect" world is that what if communism/collectivism were established like they were meant to be. You see, all governmental societies have flaws, there is no doubt about it. But the ideology behind it is very good and acceptable. The fact that it can only be executed by a leader, and eventually lead to other types of governmental rule does make it bad and not doable in this world.

So i see that yes, no perfect world would ever need a government, but in a world where ideology became true, communism/collectivism would be good.

So you make a good argument and i agree with you, collectivism is immoral, but just look at the ideology and the goal behind it.

The task behind the idea is not a bad notion, but it could never be executed. Communism and collectivism are trying to create a "perfect" world, where there essentially is no government or class.

No nation could ever establish one of these societies though because it would require the PEOPLE to make it and the PEOPLE to back it up.

And yes, all these societies lead to a totalitarian government, but i am saying WHAT IF it didn't and maintained itself as the ideal society.
So all-in-all, i agree with you, but just see my case that if the ideology behind it was made true, the government would not be bad.

You're a collectivist. Did you understand nothing from the video? Collectivism is a fallacy. Listen to reason.

The ideology behind socialism ISN'T SOUND. And it is precisely because of this that it fails and becomes totalitarian.

Collectivism is a secular religion. It is unscientific, irrational, and arbitrary.

No, because the ideology itself is the problem, not the world.
An irrational ideology will lead you to unforeseen consequences. The rationality of a proposal is its conformity to reality and logic. An irrational proposal therefore is a proposal which does not conform to reality; and if one were foolish enough to follow it one should not be surprised when one does not end up where one intended.

To make this perfectly clear to the layman take the following scenario:
Two men are given a task: fly off the top of a building onto the pavement below without injuring yourself.

The first man chooses a random hypothesis: "I can fly" that does not relate to reality, but instead is arbitrary. In applying his irrational hypothesis he jumps off the building and is surprised when he breaks both his legs.

The second man chooses a rational hypothesis based on the science of physics. His hypothesis is that gravity will pull him down, since he cannot fly, and thus he must use some method to create an upward force to support him on the way down. This man, in applying his rational hypothesis, employs the use of a hang-glider and lands safely on the ground.

The first man is like the collectivist. His irrational hypothesis lead him to break his legs, despite the fact that he genuinely thought he was going to fly.

The second man is like the individualist. His rational hypothesis lead him to his preselected destination precisely because it was rational. The rationality of a statement being its conformity to reality.

Likewise, the collectivist society will always end in totalitarianism because it is an irrational theory and thus cannot accurately predict the results of its implementation.

So, in short, the ideology itself is fundamentally flawed, not to mention highly immoral. And that is why socialism, communism, and all forms of collectivism, will not work as intended in the real world. There is no other reason. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.


The goal behind it is the same goal all political systems attempt to achieve. Peace and prosperity for all.

It is essential you understand that just because something claims that it will fulfill its promise doesn't mean it actually will. And the way we test this in advance is by applying rationality to the claims; in asking "how?"

There is no real government or class as it is. These are misleading concepts. There are only individuals. Speak on the level playing field and all becomes clear.

You seek to 'fix' the problems of 'unequal society' by stealing from the wealthy and giving to the undeserving. You have robbinhood syndrome. This is immoral. Further, what happens when you run out of wealthy people to thieve?

Ideal society would be one in which there is no government and no need for government. There is no reason to even bring collectivism into it if you are going to speak blindly of an ideal society. Why choose collectivism over any other irrational immoral theology? Christianity promises you the same thing; heaven.

(edits out)

__________________

Quickly to clear things up: I am not a collectivist, the idea of me being one is outrageous and not supported

And yes, classes and government are manipulations of the mind that allow a central person/persons to hold the essential power of the people.

So i think you really have closed your argument, at least to me.

But now you raise another (Pain in the ass aren't i? )

Please, do not compare governments and different hopes to the idea of heaven. Heaven is something that can NEVER, EVER be proven to be true, same with the "good" behind communism,collectivism etc. No good will ever be proved or found behind them because no one will want to take the risk.

Finally, thank you, burning my political dictionary has made me very happy.

I really enjoyed that young man's videos. Go into his YouTube profile and you'll find two or three interesting and informative videos about current issues. He does a very good job at explaining and analyzing the dilemmas of society.

__________________

oh u sythe, don't you know that anyone can simplify politics and apply new labels?

Of course, but to do it rationally, sweeping the way the debris to reveal the fundamental philosophy below all, is useful and enlightening. This, as opposed to anyone else's attempt to apply new labels, is actually true.

No good will ever be proved or found behind collectivism because there exists no good to find.

collectivism is a load of you know what. I think we should stick with democracy and let the people decide

That is only a matter of opinion, and is true because noone will ever try... thankfully


And we are not in a true democracy right now, democracy is where the people vote for laws etc. But instead, we have twisted the meaning a little to where we vote for officials who speak for us. So, yes, "democracy" is good for the time being. (thank you ShredderBeam)

I laughed when he said socialism was a "greater good" mentality, when the whole idea is to benefit individuals at the expense of a strong state. GTFO political moron.

See you are exactly the sort of idiot collectivist to which he refers. How does an individual benefit from the state when the state IS JUST A COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUALS?

Essentially the phrase you have used breaks down into the following:
"when the whole idea is to benefit individuals at the expense of other individuals within the state"

IMHO, You are the political moron.

Agreed With Everything you said sythe..

__________________

When you've finished thinking of me as your new boogieman (BURN THE COLLECTIVISTS THEY MIGHT SOCIALISE YOUR KIDS), maybe you can comprehend what I've posted. The whole idea of socialism is to detract from the state to aid the least fortunate individuals. Yes, a state is a collection of individuals but that is entirely irrelevant.

Well your original post was ambiguous; perhaps I misunderstood you. If you are are advocating abolition of the state AND the implementation of socialism, then you have a contradictory/conflicting political ideology. Who is to determine which enterprises produce for other enterprises and what is needed where?

Inevitably socialism leads to larger government. It is a large government ideology because replacing the free market with "public property" is replacing freedom with control. Control has to be administered, thus a large administration is entirely necessary under socialism.

Tell me why it is you believe every attempt to form a socialistic or communistic country in the world, be it international or nation (like the nazis), has always resulted in totalitarianism?

LAFFO I have advocated no particular political ideology, I've just been pointing out holes in this terrible "intellectual" series.

National Socialism as implemented between the 1930s and the 1940s in Germany was actually stripped of it's socialist elements during the Night of the Long Knives, so that's not particularly a good example.

No political ideology will ever work. Democracy does not work. Socialism does not work. ANARCHO-CAPITALISM does not work (Not least because of it's hilariously obvious contradictions).

But a hodge-podge of commonly accepted theories hacked together to work around or with an existing culture does work. If you stick to an ideology, or govern yourself solely by it, you simply lose flexibility and cannot tackle new threats or opportunities.

You suck at politics and at life.

Arguably it became entirely socialist when the government became totalitarian. Socialism results in totalitarianism.

Limited government democracy does work; it needs some improvement. As for anarcho-capitalism, I am interested to hear what contradictions you believe it holds (other than the possibility a new government would spring up.)

Lol! If you think your little jibes and jabs can hurt my feelings you've come to the wrong place. I pity the poor soul who injects his nihilism into intellectual debates in the hope of squeezing a little more joy out of his otherwise miserable and meaningless life.

If you want to have a meaningful debate then do so, otherwise don't post in Something.For.All.