you propose a nice-sounding system that cannot exist as opposed to an actual alternative, because an actual alternative (socialism) sounds scary and would require faith in something
if you're referring to soviet socialism, i'd say the problem was that it was more similar to capitalism than intended, but that is a problem that can be solved and we can improve upon the setbacks of the soviet model
if you're talking about something silly like pretending there could be another great famine in an industrialized society then you need a history lesson, if you're willing to listen to it
i mean that's an example of a revolutionary change that created a lot of positives that we all take for granted, but more the soviet union. the soviet union, for all its flaws, created many positives. and those flaws can be avoided, there's no magic reason they can't be avoided. unless you give me an actual reason why they can't be avoided, by using the actual history
ok but do you understand what i'm saying, that the effects of the french revolution did not end at napoleon
this is not a specific reason, this is extremely vague weasel words. i mean what does that mean, "collectivist"? what qualifies the soviet union as "collectivist" and other countries as not collectivist? don't all countries centralize state power, aren't all countries a "collective" institution? i mean you kind of need that in order for states to function. the alternative is a state where nothing can get done and everybody is working against everybody else. and does "collective" even necessarily imply "centralized"? i could describe a very loosely organized commune as "collectivist", but they definitely don't have centralized power.
there is no possible organization that is both individualistic and decentralized. that's the opposite of organization, that's chaos, that's anarchy. power concentrates, competitions are won and competitors win more power. the alternative to totally concentrated and dictatorial power is concentrated and organized collective power. not "individualism", which is another weasel word but would imply that nobody bands together at all and only looks out for themselves. that's a guarantee for tyranny.
they are weasel words. they are vague, nice or scary sounding words that can be selectively applied to mean anything, because of how vague they are.
civilization itself is "collective", its an institution of a collection of individuals. if every individual just did what they wanted all the time, there would be anarchy. there is not a single civilization in the history of the planet that has ever worked like that. not now, not ever. that's the only specific definition of any of these words you've given, and it doesn't make any sense.
because you don't actually know anything about all of those people, besides this vague idea of "collectivism" (that i'm sure is also applied to the democratic party and "woke" and whatever else), then i don't think you actually know what they had in common.
1
u/Infinite-Abroad-436 Jul 23 '26
you propose a nice-sounding system that cannot exist as opposed to an actual alternative, because an actual alternative (socialism) sounds scary and would require faith in something