According to Ayn Rand's own definition of "collectivism", objectivism is collectivist, and communism is not?
@Curtis: Capitalists do not produce anything, they make a profit by exploiting the labor of their workers. By living like parasites off of the rest of the people. In capitalism, only the ruling class are allowed to be individuals. Workers are like slaves to them, they treat them as commodities, not as people. That is why capitalism is one of the worst forms of "collectivism". Communism is the liberation of the working class, it is the end of the class system itself, and since the state only exists to ensure the rule of one class over another, it also will cease to exist. The countries you mentioned where not communist, they were wannabe socialist at the most, or rather, state capitalist (i.e. state bureaucrats replacing the capitalist class).
At an individual level, we humans are great…as a collective, not often. How do we combat this collective action problem?
you’d have to incentivise social engineers to choose honesty in their approach to their problems. It makes no sense to say an idiot can’t shoot ONE Round of ammo at anyone on their own front lawn BECAUSE there exists an entire Army of Specialists Developed BY Social Engineers for the express purpose of shooting HUNDREDS of Rounds at Anyone EVERYWHERE.The shear volume of lies necessary to “reason” such Engineering is, exactly as they say, Rube Goldberg Level COMPLEX AND COMPLICATED in every degree and every vector real AND imagined.You take away that burden alone - replace it with the god’s honest truth that they simply want as many dead as they can produce TO THEIR CREDIT, let everyone get their favorite Team Mascot ID Card so that each bullet can be counted toward an Amazon or WalMart or Microsoft Gift Certificate, give the Sadists a nice Good Year Blimp to watch the show from and within a year every “problem” they Posterize as PRETENSE will be solved.But THAT AIN’T Gonna happen. Because the actual value to those master manipulators is the manipulation itself; Finding idiots they can QUALIFY as stupid enough to PERFORM the Very Act they TELL EVERYONE ELSE IS Too Stupid to Perform is the actual value of the game.So until they run out of idiots that’d prefer to die chasing their own tails than kill the morons laughing at the exhibition of stupidiy, you might as well hang the whole idea up.FLOOD The Courts with Voluntary “I’m turning myself in for” nonsense until you choke the life out of the system - Or deprive the system of every possible piece of cobweb between it and you - and see what happens then - but continuing to throw your own kids to their sacrificial alters “only encourages them” to ask for more.Enjoy.
Why do we strive for individual advancement rather than collective societal advancement?
On the one hand, the United States of America were populated by social, political and economic outcasts who believed that carving their own niche in the world was possible through sheer pig-headed effort. History has, for the most part, proven them correct.On the second hand, human society values what can be counted. I have more books than you, so I must be smarter. No, you have more degrees than me, so you're smarter. But wait, this idiot over here isn't smart at all, but he's got metric tons of money, so we all have to listen to him, because being stupid and rich speaks louder than being smart and poor.On the third hand, the person who knows the most probably has the best grasp of the concepts and we listen to them more carefully.On the fourth hand, the person with the loudest voice can drown out dissenters.The hardest working, the richest, the smartest, the most educated, the loudest - each of these "-est" have influence. So we, living in (and often, coming from) a culture that values (and historically, rewards,) individual effort encourage people to rise to the highest levels of achievement and influence in the manner that suits them, then we give that achievement disproportionately large cognitive influence over group welfare.
What is more important: Collectivism or individualism?
It just depends how you look at it. Individualism could mean meditating quietly in your room everyday while learning about yourself and becoming more aware of everything, or it could be rejecting everything that would make you associated with the norm. Collectivism could be like being part of a group of friends, family, community, association, country... and either promoting positive or negative contributions to the group. You could even be neutral by not taking sides or making major decisions, but just being with others to love and learn.... or a group meditation like in a monastery or something. I feel that both are equal, if you have a positive outlook for both of them. Of course because of the way that most people live these days, it would be better to try some individualism first. It would help you straiten-out your true thoughts and views on the big and little questions in life. You would then have a better base, to enlighten people on your personal incite instead of going along with what others say and not thinking about your views. Collectivism would also work if you had like-minded people who want to make positive steps forward without any type of biases. If there are no positive people around, then it would be better to work on yourself first, but always be open to others' opinions. ideally, collectivism is what makes the great tribes and societies stand out, but you only need one person to do the unthinkable or make the first step towards something big for everyone. In a spiritual look at it... they are equal and have no way of being wrong... they just have some right answers that take a little longer. Rationing type answer would choose collectivism because the game of life is not a one player game... even though it can look that way. We all have the same starting point and overall objective... even though selfishness and false-realities may prolong that objective. What good will it be for a person to gain the whole world, yet forfeits their soul? If its collectivism or individualism, its better to have a positive and giving mind-set. If you keep that in mind... you will always end up winning. sorry if my answer is a little all over the place. i thought it would be good to give a few outlooks, but still leaves it open for the reader to decide what they feel is right for them. Peace
How can we eliminate the dumbest idea ever - collectivism?
The problem is not collectivism itself, but coercive-collectivism that is the problem. There is nothing wrong with being part of a collective per-se, everyone sports some sort of collective even as individuals; rather instead it's when you coerce someone into joining your collective, that is threatening them with violence, such as the U.S. government does via taxes, that is what's truly immoral. It will be ended, whether the statist fools like it or not, however. This suicidal system must collapse in-over itself, and it will endanger many - whether they support it or not. So we need not look at how we can end it, so much as how we can use the system against itself while preparing ourselves & freeing those around.
What are some examples of collectivism in United States?
Voluntary or coerced?Voluntary collectivism:Every sports team and every private business is collectivist. Businesses are socialist. The military services are collectivist.Coerced collectivism:The military draft (selective-service registration). Jury duty. The Postal Service is a government-created, government-protected monopoly and might be considered collectivist. The agricultural cartels set up and managed by the Department of Agriculture are collectives (with fairly Liberal policies). Medicare. Obama Care. Eminent Domain. Government (public) schools. The Bureau of Indian Affairs. Affirmative action and official racial (or sexual) preferences treat humans as members of collectives rather than as individuals.Vaccination laws and policies are collectivist.Not all collectivism is avoidable in a civilized society, it is a characteristic of government.As salt is necessary for life, government (and its collectivism) is necessary for liberty.But too much salt destroys life and too much government destroys liberty.