Ever wonder why the establishment calls everything it doesn't like "fascist"? Wonder no more; fascism is the spectre haunting modern socialism from within.
Very Informative. I have a distinct dislike for the lot of totalitarian state worshippers, as it is never particularly clear what their states are meant to accomplish that a much less totalizing state would not be able to, nor what they would do in the modern environment but empower already disagreeable forces. This is all before mentioning their history.
However, you mentioned that individualism and collectivism exist as a pure dichotomy, which I am not sure that I believe and I wanted to explore this.
I interpret individualism to be the belief that the atomic unit of society is the individual, whereas collectivism believes it to be the collective with atomic describing the characteristics of being the smallest inseparable element.
Arguably, you could say something like the atomic unit of society exists as a dualism with two smallest units, let’s say completed individuals and weak collectives, which could be considered a “third option” or perhaps a “0th option” as it is possible that some pre-modern societies would consider themselves to have such a scheme.
I wonder what your thoughts are on this? Would you disagree with my characterization of individualism and collectivism?
I agree with your characterisation of individualism and collectivism, which, oddly enough, is precisely why I consider them a dichotomy; the "0th option," or pre-society condition, renders the very concept of individual or collective immaterial. However, the very notion of a pre-society condition presents its own set of problems. Since you've given me something to think about, I'll probably explore this in another article, because I can already see this getting fairly complicated.
Hey Sasha, I think your article highlights, inadvertently, the uselessness of labels.
God bless the intellectual who studies them, but among the commoners, they divide us.
We don't need more division.
Labels mean what the person sees in them. So many people have proclaimed they are "libertarians" or "socialists" or "anarchosyndicalists", without understanding these movements. And as a commoner who has to go to work, I don't care so much what my neighbor calls himself, as much as I care about what they do.
Politicians especially say a lot of things, and we must never judge them by their words. We judge them based on what they do.
I want a government of action that fights for working families. In my dream, the only property that changes hands are the national resources- gas, oil, timber, metals, WATER, etc- that the profits from those materials be used to fund people's needs, not the profits of a select few.
You hit on a Real Big Truth in this essay:
<<The mainstream narrative may be so severely distorted that it is completely unreliable, but the best lies contain a grain of truth, which is why so many people believe them. On the flip side, just because an alternative perspective turns the mainstream narrative on its head, doesn’t make it true. Don’t automatically reject everything you’ve been told, otherwise you end up believing in utter nonsense like flat Earth. Besides, that’s not thinking for yourself, that’s allowing the establishment to control what you think via reverse psychology; always remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day.>>
Spot on. There are quite a few dumbasses with big followings. But they have that following because they've hit on a truth.
However, when they structure their entire ideology based on that single truth, they end up in a confusing, crazy mess.
Oh no, I am rather deliberate in highlighting the uselessness of labels, I just don't feel the need to come out and say it. In fact, I'll elaborate in a future article why the word "libertarian" doesn't have a consistent meaning either, and thus why I don't particularly like it. I've already done one for "capitalism." In both cases, the gist is "define your terms," *then* we can discuss the validity of the ideas.
As for me, the only label I'm particularly attached to (other than my nationality) is "maker." I make stuff. I'd rather not talk about political theory, I do it because it's necessary in order to snap people out of the spell that the political class has them under. "Alex the Varyag" is just a character I created specifically for this purpose when I'm not busy repairing heavy equipment, fabricating custom outdoor light fixtures, or tending to my animals.
Very Informative. I have a distinct dislike for the lot of totalitarian state worshippers, as it is never particularly clear what their states are meant to accomplish that a much less totalizing state would not be able to, nor what they would do in the modern environment but empower already disagreeable forces. This is all before mentioning their history.
However, you mentioned that individualism and collectivism exist as a pure dichotomy, which I am not sure that I believe and I wanted to explore this.
I interpret individualism to be the belief that the atomic unit of society is the individual, whereas collectivism believes it to be the collective with atomic describing the characteristics of being the smallest inseparable element.
Arguably, you could say something like the atomic unit of society exists as a dualism with two smallest units, let’s say completed individuals and weak collectives, which could be considered a “third option” or perhaps a “0th option” as it is possible that some pre-modern societies would consider themselves to have such a scheme.
I wonder what your thoughts are on this? Would you disagree with my characterization of individualism and collectivism?
I agree with your characterisation of individualism and collectivism, which, oddly enough, is precisely why I consider them a dichotomy; the "0th option," or pre-society condition, renders the very concept of individual or collective immaterial. However, the very notion of a pre-society condition presents its own set of problems. Since you've given me something to think about, I'll probably explore this in another article, because I can already see this getting fairly complicated.
Hey Sasha, I think your article highlights, inadvertently, the uselessness of labels.
God bless the intellectual who studies them, but among the commoners, they divide us.
We don't need more division.
Labels mean what the person sees in them. So many people have proclaimed they are "libertarians" or "socialists" or "anarchosyndicalists", without understanding these movements. And as a commoner who has to go to work, I don't care so much what my neighbor calls himself, as much as I care about what they do.
Politicians especially say a lot of things, and we must never judge them by their words. We judge them based on what they do.
I want a government of action that fights for working families. In my dream, the only property that changes hands are the national resources- gas, oil, timber, metals, WATER, etc- that the profits from those materials be used to fund people's needs, not the profits of a select few.
You hit on a Real Big Truth in this essay:
<<The mainstream narrative may be so severely distorted that it is completely unreliable, but the best lies contain a grain of truth, which is why so many people believe them. On the flip side, just because an alternative perspective turns the mainstream narrative on its head, doesn’t make it true. Don’t automatically reject everything you’ve been told, otherwise you end up believing in utter nonsense like flat Earth. Besides, that’s not thinking for yourself, that’s allowing the establishment to control what you think via reverse psychology; always remember that even a broken clock is right twice a day.>>
Spot on. There are quite a few dumbasses with big followings. But they have that following because they've hit on a truth.
However, when they structure their entire ideology based on that single truth, they end up in a confusing, crazy mess.
We must be open to information.
Oh no, I am rather deliberate in highlighting the uselessness of labels, I just don't feel the need to come out and say it. In fact, I'll elaborate in a future article why the word "libertarian" doesn't have a consistent meaning either, and thus why I don't particularly like it. I've already done one for "capitalism." In both cases, the gist is "define your terms," *then* we can discuss the validity of the ideas.
As for me, the only label I'm particularly attached to (other than my nationality) is "maker." I make stuff. I'd rather not talk about political theory, I do it because it's necessary in order to snap people out of the spell that the political class has them under. "Alex the Varyag" is just a character I created specifically for this purpose when I'm not busy repairing heavy equipment, fabricating custom outdoor light fixtures, or tending to my animals.
I call those particular simps Mommies big man and they get more insufferable the older they get.