@sharinincarmel I am a retired IT guy. I am an eternal optimist. We old people see change as bad, I am not sure the younger people do. I recall being young, living in a multi gender house. My dad was mad I was watching Saturday morning cartoons. My grandfather told me after that I shouldn't feel bad, my dad (greatest generation) wasted his time listening to the radio instead of doing extra work
Each generation hates the new stuff the next Gen has. Doesn't make it bad, just different
As to the topic at hand, does this sound individualist or collective, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Can you name any country, society, etc. where collectivism has yielded better results than the rugged individualism of the US over the course of human history?
I'm interested in this answer.
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
@dbmhoosier I am at a total loss as to what can be done about the Dem party. Just frightening.
Anti-capitalist
Anti-Christian
Anti-white
So basically, today’s Dems stand against the foundation of this country. Why don’t they just go somewhere else & make what they want instead of trying to take what’s ours?
Individuals have the right to pledge themselves to each other (and have throughout history--due to "reason," self-interest, and probably quite a bit of evolutionary psychology. But it's an individual's choice, not the collective's, which is why that pledge carries such a punch.@sharinincarmel I am a retired IT guy. I am an eternal optimist. We old people see change as bad, I am not sure the younger people do. I recall being young, living in a multi gender house. My dad was mad I was watching Saturday morning cartoons. My grandfather told me after that I shouldn't feel bad, my dad (greatest generation) wasted his time listening to the radio instead of doing extra work
Each generation hates the new stuff the next Gen has. Doesn't make it bad, just different
As to the topic at hand, does this sound individualist or collective, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Think about it for a second: if the collective forced the individual to give his life and fortune and honor up for the collective, does it really resonate as much with you as the situation where a fully autonomous individual, with rights to jealously guard if he so chooses, makes the same pledge? Of course not.
@bradstevens in my book a corporation is a collective.
Interestingly the corporation relies on workers to show up each day willing to sacrifice some of their rugged individualism for the team.
I say sacrificing some of their rugged individualism, because by working hard while demonstrating special skill sets some among the collectives by exercising this rugged individualism can move up the corporate ladder.
As a country we proudly declare ourselves to being rugged individualists while at the same time joining churches and having strong ties to family which can be called collectives.
In closing would like to call attention to the link below...
https://share.google/aimode/CutPX5eqedfzhNOU6
Yeah.....Interestingly the corporation relies on workers to show up each day willing to sacrifice some of their rugged individualism for the team.
FOR A FEE.
@hoot I'm super happy to see your words and have you here!
To me, in the context of this thread and Mamdani's words--all of his words--you have to read his use of "collective" in the true Marxist sense (which wasn't even being used until the '50s or 60s, I don't think, and might have been first coined by their detractors). It's a particular kind of thing, that we can't then abstract into other areas and forget what it meant to the people who wanted to use this rationale and where it lead. I don't see it that much differently than the people who accuse politicians of being racist for "dog whistle" language used during a previous era.
So contra ArthurDent, I don't see Mamdani talking about collectivism as abstract. I think he's making a call back to Lenin, Mao, etc. with his words here and elsewhere and that should give people pause.
Regarding your link, I think critiquing Americans as buying into some "rugged individualism" in the sense in your link--that there are a lot of people in public life or in the political sphere who actually think an individual isn't helped or affected by the world or society around him--is a straw man. I don't think many people in 2026 think that way and I'm not sure if anyone seriously ever did. Conservative thought, in fact, used to value the importance of tradition, culture, religion, and the family as limitations on individual desires and "freedom" through the concept of duty. And even some strains of Marxist socialists, post-Marx, justify socialism by reference to the individual's best interest and duty, too.
Lincoln had it exactly right when he said to the effect that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor. This idea is inextricably intertwined with private property rights and both are cornerstones of conservative approach to politics and economics.
Collectivism destroys both. Social, economic, religious, or other groups that people join from self-interests cannot be collectivism. In a collectivist system, the fruits of your labor, talents, etc. are taken in exchange for the collective providing for your needs. Neither is selling your labor to a corporation collectivist because the laborer still owns the fruits of such sale.
https://twitter.com/vigilantfox/status/2025064625834696725?s=61&t=1KiTJ7EYgX-uQgf4Wkb9sg
Spot on. Schools are one of the biggest reasons we’re fvcked. CoH has been saying this for years, & he’s right.
So contra ArthurDent, I don't see Mamdani talking about collectivism as abstract. I think he's making a call back to Lenin, Mao, etc. with his words here and elsewhere and that should give people pause.
But whatever you do, don't you dare make Hitler/Nazi/Fascist references about Trump or his followers. That's TDS, of course.
Collectivism in theory is a lot more attractive than the historical collectivism we've seen in practice,
What’s the difference? Jamestown should have been our furst clue?
Not sure that makes any consideration of collectivism practically evil.
Depends on what you see as evil. The mind- crushing egalitarianism socialism rests on is evil from my POV. It removes important aspects of what it means to be a human being and turns society into an aunt colony.
Why do Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania call themselves Commonweal/Commonwealth states? Sounds evil adjacent, does it not?
Oh, I know this one! I can't believe I ignored this thread.
Back in the day, "Commonwealth" was generally considered the English translation of "Republic." It's purely stylistic, and implies that the government exists for the good of all citizens.
Lincoln had it exactly right when he said to the effect that every individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor. This idea is inextricably intertwined with private property rights and both are cornerstones of conservative approach to politics and economics.
Collectivism destroys both. Social, economic, religious, or other groups that people join from self-interests cannot be collectivism. In a collectivist system, the fruits of your labor, talents, etc. are taken in exchange for the collective providing for your needs. Neither is selling your labor to a corporation collectivist because the laborer still owns the fruits of such sale.
Private property rights are just as prohibitive to enjoying the fruits of one's labor as collectivism is. If I work for a guy who owns what I work on where I work it, I don't enjoy the fruits of my labor; he does. I simply receive wages in exchange for giving up those fruits.
I simply receive wages in exchange for giving up those fruits.
Wages (compensation) are the fruits of your labor. You are free to sell your labor, talents, etc. for a price you choose. Can’t do that in a collective.