Talk:Collectivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archive 2 Loaded term 3 Yossarian returns to this awful Catch-22...for a second 4 References help: in chronological order 5 Page erros 6 Substance supercedes form? 7 For the record, here's the version I was defending 8 My take on this entry 9 172.149.62.79 10 == True Collectivism 11 time to fix this article 12 "Collectivism" 13 Definitions 14 A Definition 15 Pejorative, perhaps? 16 Removal of dictionary definitions from the intro... 17 vandalism 18 Articulating Divergent Views

[edit] Archive

Talk:Collectivism/Archive 1 Talk:Collectivism/Archive 2 (Sam replies, page owner)

[edit] Loaded term

As far as I can tell, collectivism is nothing but a pejorative term used by followers of Rand's objectionablism "Objectivism". Accordingly, the article should be reduced to a statement of that fact or removed altogether. This is no place for proselytising on behalf of Objectivism, which is all that this article does. Shorne 16:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The list of references makes it obvious that the term "collectivism" was in use long before the creation of Rand's "objectivism". Criticism of collectivism also predates Rand.

Agreed!

In response to Sam's request for help:

The reference section in this article, I am sorry to say, is absolutely pitiful. No personal offence to anyone, but I, for one, would be embarassed to submit a writing about issues of this magnitude with only an Encyclopedia (a Catholic one: Catholicism, also collectivism?) and the Dictionary attached!

There are so many unsubstantiated claims in this article, I don't even know where to begin. A central question to start with is whether persons (often generic) the article mentions as collectivists actually title themsleves as such. The article needs to -show- that it is well-reserached precisely due to the over-lapping, loaded nature of the term. So it is strange that the latter is qualified on several occasions, but then the article proceeds to making various unsubtantiated claims. One risk this article faces is with collectivism being used to encompass virtually any ideology that is not pronouncedly individualist and perhaps even explicitly 'anti-collectivist' — that is, as synonymous to cooperation (versus competition), social (versus individual), private (versus public), etc. It quickly becomes very muddled (i.e. autocracy or meritiocracy, for example). This article desprately needs to explain -whom- today uses the term and how it is viewed, especially by those alleged as being collectivists. Do they see themsleves as such? Irrespectively, how do 'they' approach the term? What about their critics? Et cetera, etc. These are question that need to be better addressed, and this means a substantive well-reserach and well-referenced exposition. El_C

Well said. I've investigated a lot of ideologies in my day, but I've never once come across any unified "collectivism" or heard anyone say "I'm a collectivist". As described here, with a heap of very discordant ideologies and quasi-ideologies all lumped in together under one label, "collectivism" is a golden wastebasket for everything but variations on libertarianism. The article becomes a bully pulpit for libertarians. Unless someone can defend it and promptly improve it, I will call for its removal. Shorne 04:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to find myself in total agreement with you. I just wrote a little piece for the article on oligarchy here on Wikipedia. I was prompted by a post on an offsite forum regarding some Orwellian type of philosophies. In a certain post a young man described himself as an ardent oligarchical collectivist without even realizing how positively the term would not apply to him even in a literal sense stemming from a fictional work. If an oligarchy existed that could oppress as much as he believes then the chance of him being a ruling member would be so small it's not even worth discussion. Collectivism encompasses such a broad spectrum of ideological political dogma that I'm not completely sure it can be written about so concisely, not to mention the fact that I don't believe it truly exists as some people think it does. The stifling of individual thought, suppression of survival instinct in some circles, etc. Sorry if you find this doesn't relate too much to this article but I'm just sounding off about recent fallacies I've been exposed to. J. Tindall

Exactly. It is always difficult to tell serious editors that much of their writings is untenable, but at this point, this is the position I am leaning towards. The ideological juxtapositions this article makes are a product of treating the term collectivism as an epistemological category rather than a concept grounded in social, historical, cultural, etc. reality. Such juxtapositions cannot be the result of primary resreach, a prerequisite for these must be a scholarly account of, to start with, who employs the term: in politics, in academia and the social sciences, in literature and the arts, etc. Using an 'is not accepted by all' with respect to Corportism, Marxism, Meritocracy, etc. should most certainly not serve as a reason for not telling the reader who, for example, termed Meritocracy as collectivist, etc., and why. Names must be named, works must be cited. If not, then the etymological, philological, etc. uses of the term will have to do. Sorry. El_C

Ayn Rand uses the term "collectivism" a lot, therefore I think it should be deleted from Wikipedia and erased from human thought. Anything that reminds me or anyone else of Ayn Rand should be censored. She is a dangerous philosopher who promotes radical ideas. We can't have this. She makes me angry, because it challenges the everything i thought was good and true. Just as Socrates was executed for for challenging dogma, Rand should be attacked at every opportunity and ultimately censored. Maybe a hundred years from now, we can relax. But it is the job of every generation to attack and villify new philosophers that make waves. Philosophers shouldn't make waves. And the fact that she commercializes her philosophy drives me up the wall. Philosophy should be kept in academia and only accessible by pipe-smoking professor types, not exposed to the masses through bad fiction. Now her dangerous ideas are infiltrating society. She's just plain evil, and since she identifies "collectivism", it's probably not a good concept for humanity to be cognizant of. Please remove the article! (RJII)

I agree with the charge that this article is dripping with POV and inaccuracy: Anarchists and libertarian socialists, for example, are "individualists" in the sense that they believe in the absolute sovereignty of the individual, but "collectivists" in the sense that they believe a free society must abolish private property in favor of collective ownership of property and that the best form of organization for free individuals would be communes.

This was written by someone who either has an ideological ax to grind and no scruples, or is deeply ignorant. The only objection to 'private property' socialistic libertarians have is to the idea that the ownership of wealth-producing property can legitimately be concentrated in fewer hands than those who are working to produce that wealth. In other words, we believe that ownership of the means of production must be fully distributed among all the workers involved, not concentrated in the hands of a few who exploit the rest. Katzenjammer 3 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

[edit] Yossarian returns to this awful Catch-22...for a second

In responce to Mihnea's request for help:

Hmm...seems commie-ism tisn't the only page affected by this endless mind fuck. Okay, so what do we have here...? (First off, you guys need to sit back and talk about what gets included at all. That's just in general.)

Well, the first problem is that the opening paragraph tells me barely anything about what the article treads on. One can't define something by what it opposes. It seems too general as well. Something a tad more specific is needed.

Okay, moving on, we have Usage. Is it a perjorative term all the time? Is that only a western thing, or is it considered good among eastern Europeans? To socialists? To communists? Who really uses this term anymore?

Supporters and Detractors needs more. WAY more. We are given Chomsky and Rand, but this tells us nothing unless we know who they are. You CAN talk about them, you just need to define whom a detractor might be, and whom a supporter might be. Anarchist is too general. It's good to mention the other ideologies and kinds of supporters, but there's little good information here.

Theory: TELLS ME NOTHING! F MINUS!

Okay, with Politics, we're getting to the meat of it. Fascism is the first example...and yet up to this point we've been led to believe that this a purely leftist doctrine. Why wasn't this mentioned before? And, barring that, why have we been concerntrating on anarchists if this is true? Fascism needs a better definition as well: are we talking about Mussolini? Hitler? Pinochet? Franco? Give more direct examples.

Other wise pretty good. The last paragraph is okay, but it seems a little loaded. It could be put in a far more NPOV manner.

Economics: Pretty good. Needs a little expansion but otherwise fine.

Practice: And here, I assume, is where the problem is. This needs a hell of a lot more. Basically all there are are examples, which tells us little. One little place in Denmark does not collectivism make. You need to talk about Soviet collectivism a lot more...but don't even MENTION Stalin except as a reference. Maybe a little more, but leave the deaths thing alone. He killed people. He's a monster. He's an awful human being. HE'S NOT THE GOD OF COLLECTIVISM. HIS BRAND JUST HAPPENED TO KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE (I would argue that alone makes it not collectivism, but I'm not debating here...but I'm not treying to undermine the magnitude of Stalin's murders. I'm just making a point 'bout neutrality.)! Anywho, get over it. You can say it lead to deaths, but don't politicize it...He's too much of a bastard not to provoke something, you see.

Anti-collectivism: First sentence is AWFUL. Lots of interesting stuff but it seems to be a bit helter skelter with what the direction is supposed to be. It needs to be more concise. It needs to have a fairly smooth transition quality.

My verdict: forget about arguing about the politics of it, whether it works or not, whether Stalin killed every person in Russia and Europe with it, and learn to write. Certain sections are so woefully lacking, it's laughable. Others are so jumpy, it's embarassing. And some...blech. The article is entirely uninformative. You need to put all the politcs aside, and just start over. Don't talk about the deaths until you feel it warrants it. Or, make a page abot the results of Stalin's "collectivism". And what about Pol Pot? didn't he pull that crap and try to call it collectivism?

I categorically refuse to become involved in terms of philosphical debate. It's too moronic (on both sides).

And linking to the Catholic Encyclopedia? It's so dreadfully NPOV I almost threw up. Consider their articles on communism and socialism. COME ON. Find a better link.

But hey, happy Halloween.

PS: Shorne: just read your above statement. I entirely disagree. "Collectivism" was used before Rand, and I know it's used positively in some circles (even if it may or may not have begun negatively). [Was used positively in the First International shortly after the Anarchists were expelled El_C ] It's the term that we use to describe "this stuff" (whatever that is...which is one of the biggest problems with this article). It needs a place in the encyclopedia.

I'm sure I could find some citations if I bothered to pull out the Oxford English Dictionary. So what? A few old usages of the word, including that of the First International, are unlikely to have much to do with this usage as a general label for all those benighted people who haven't yet fallen in love with Ayn Rand (God bless her satin panties) and gone off to form a libertarian utopia. If there's a meaninngful and useful political definition of this term, I'm willing to hear it. I'm even willing to review an article that attempts to cover the subject in a decent way. This one, as you pointed out, is abominable. Shorne 04:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PPS: You know what you guys should try? Conservatives (American Libertarians, whatever) think like leftists. Think like dirty pinko commies. It gives one more perspective. Liberals (Social Democrats, socialists, communists, whatever) think like rightests. Think like dirty poor people bashing tories. It gives one more perspective. It also lets you guys see the other side of the argument. User:Yossarian (sig added by Sam [Spade] 01:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC))

I often do just that, even to the point of trying to figure out what my position or course of action would be on an issue if I held a different set of priorities or assumptions. Much of the time it isn't hard to answer that question if, as is necessary, one assumes logical consistency. Shorne 04:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Devil advocacy (almost perfect timing for that pun) aside, we cannot speak about politics, theory, supporters-detractors, etc., with the question of who really uses this term anymore? being left unanswered. So, for that reason alone, I disagree with the remainder of Yossarian's approach. It seems too hasty at this point to be building the roof without knowing where the foundation is layed, if at all. El_C

I sort of realize that now...but I think most of my points are valid once the definition of the article is defined. I think the problem is that this is getting a bit too intellectual...not that that's bad, but here's my point: think about who reads this article (other than hard core wikipedians). What does the basic highschool/college student/casual observer think of when someone says "collectivism". You don't want to confuse the readership. The article as it is is far too rambling to be any use. And the theory section (which is one of the most important for anyone reading up on this) is disgraceful. Theory: could it be there needs to be a distinction of two articles: one concerning collectivism as a theory of society (Marx?), and one as a practice (communist collectivism, Lenin, Stalin, etc.) Anyway, my point is, one needs to think of what the GENERAL definition of this is. Otherwise, it becomes confusing and misleads a lot of people.

-- Yossarian 10:04, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) (Remembered my sig this time! Thanks to Sam for before.)

I sort of realize that now...but I think most of my points are valid once the definition of the article is defined.

I'm pleased to learn you do. Many of your points could become valid, yes, when and/or if these defintions are established. I am of the opinion though that many could not be defined as some here intend since they likely will be proven to be incorrect defintions for the term (but I am, of course, far from infallible, we'll see).

I think the problem is that this is getting a bit too intellectual

I think it is more precise to say too abstract, methodologically inconsistent, and disjointed. This article, though, is very much in need of intellectual clarity, which I think -is- actually what you meant.

[T]hink about who reads this article (other than hard core wikipedians). What does the basic highschool/college student/casual observer think of when someone says "collectivism". You don't want to confuse the readership..

Absolutely true. At the same time, one has to be intellectually honest with the reader — this is esepcailly pressing with respects to the uses of the term throughout history, and just as significantly, to what extent (and when). And, obviously, contemporization (in various areas, as one can clearly see from the more recently published non-historical works I cited) must be firmly established.

The article as it is is far too rambling to be any use. And the theory section (which is one of the most important for anyone reading up on this) is disgraceful.

Indeed. As for the theory, as Shorne mentioned (and I tend to agree), nothing unified of the sort (has been proven to) exist today — at least not in any appreciable sense that I know of (again, for this divergence, see sources I cited).

Theory: could it be there needs to be a distinction of two articles: one concerning collectivism as a theory of society (Marx?), and one as a practice (communist collectivism, Lenin, Stalin, etc.) Anyway, my point is, one needs to think of what the GENERAL definition of this is. Otherwise, it becomes confusing and misleads a lot of people.

Again, I think you are being to hasty to jump the gun here. If the use of the term was as 'limited' as I suspect it was amongst Marxist(-Leninists), then it would be inappropriate to go on at length (seemingly, invariably in 'primary' writing style) as to these. More pertinent articles already exist. We avoid catch-22s by qualifying their carch-22 characteristics — likewise, in the case that this aforementioned 'limitation' proves true, we avoid confusion precisely through an explanation of this 'limitation.' As stated, central to this is a self-proclaimed affiliation with the term (or lack thereof, or irrespectively, its relevancy/prevelance), and how. El_C

By "intellectual" I meant the discourse on the talk page is getting a bit too bogged down in over zealous "intellectual" debate (or at least "debate". Sometimes it's not very intellectual...if you know what I mean). I should have been clear about that. But you're right too: the article is way too abstract. I was going to say that (in different words, though abstract is much better), but it seemed wrong at the time. Now it seems far more appropriate to me for some reason...

The problem is, I don't know a heck of a lot about collectivism (whatever we define it is). My grievence with the article is the lack of readablity, and the lack of any useful information (whatever the definition there's very little that's of any use either way). My original critique was based on that (I was thinking more like an English teacher looking for a coherent content). It had not occured to me this was badly defined on the article because in reality nobody really had a definition for it. So the problem is, one can't even begin to make it readable without that defining point. (My secret fear is that this is just going to become another screaming match about how many people communists have killed over the years.) Yossarian

The problem is, I don't know a heck of a lot about collectivism (whatever we define it is). My grievence with the article is the lack of readablity ... I was thinking more like an English teacher looking for a coherent content.

Fair enough, that's pivotal for the article, too. I, however, was thinking more like an historian and a social theorist — to reiterate my main point on this front though, the latter always needs to preced the former (we can always copyedit grammar and logical coherence, even expand on substance, but in order to do all encyclopedicly, this this substance needs to exist, to be made explicable a priori; meaning, needs to be appreciable enough as per the given use/emphasis accorded ). El_C

[edit] References help: in chronological order

• Tocqueville, Alexis de. (tr. by Henry Reeve, esq.) Democracy in America. (J & H.G. Langley, 1841, c1835). — first instance the term was used, in tr. from French.

• Courteous, Alphonse. Theoretical anarchism & practical collectivism. (Paris, 1885).

• Boilley, Paul. Three socialisms: Anarchism, collectivism, reformism. (Paris 1895).

• Eichthal, Eugene D. Socialism, Communism and collectivism. (Paris, 1901).

• Vandervelde, Emile. (tr. by R. P. Farley). Collectivism and industrial evolution (Independent Labour Party, 1907).

• Fountain, Julien Abbot. The ideas collectivists in France. (Belgian Co. of Bookshops, Brussels, 1908).

• Leroy-Beaulieu, Paul. (tr. and abridged by Sir Arthur Clay) Collectivism: A study of some of the leading social questions of the day (E. P. Dutton, NY, 1908).

• Dufeuille, Eugene. On the slope of collectivism (Calmann-Lévy, Paris, 1909).

• Smith, James Haldane. Collectivist economics (Routledge & sons ltd., London, 1925).

• Chamberlin, William Henry. Collectivism, a false Utopia (Macmillan, NY, 1938).

---

• Root, Edward Merrill. Collectivism on the campus: The battle for the mind in American colleges (Devin-Adair Co., NY, 1955).

• Hayek, Friedrich A. von (ed.) Collectivist economic plannin: Critical studies on the possibilities of socialism (Routledge & sons, ltd., 1956).

• Beer, Samuel Hutchison. British politics in the collectivist age. (Knopf, NY, 1965).

---

• Fforde, Matthew. Conservatism and collectivism, 1886-1914 (Edinburgh University Press, 1990).

• Kideckel, David A. The solitude of collectivism: Romanian villagers to the revolution and beyond (Cornell University Press, 1993).

• Pyne, Kathryn Addelson. Moral passages: toward a collectivist moral theory (Routledge, NY, 1994).

• Uichol, Kim, et al. (eds.) Individualism and collectivism: [psychological] theory, method, and applications (Sage Publications, for the Korean Psychological Association, 1994).

• Haberkern, Ernest E. and Lipow, Arthur (eds.). Neither capitalism nor socialism: Theories of bureaucratic collectivism (Humanities Press, 1996).

• Thompson, Janna. Discourse and knowledge: A defence of a collectivist ethics (Routledge, NY, 1998).

• Tarbox, Gwen Athene. The clubwomen's daughters: Collectivist impulses in Progressive-era girl's fiction, 1890-1940 (Garland Pub., NY, 2000).

• Best, Gary Dean. The retreat from liberalism: Collectivists versus progressives in the New Deal years (Praeger, Westport, Conn., 2002).

I still firmly believe that the present article is largely untenable. Please do not merely cite (copy & paste) these sources unless the article undergoes the (dramatic) changes recommended by myself and Shorne (a request only). El_C

[edit] Page erros

I don't know what happened, but we had a few talk page errors. Please be careful, and clean up any duplication. Thanx. Sam [Spade] 14:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Must have been me, the revision history indicates it was me. Likely I accidentally copy & pasted superfleously. Sorry about that. At any rate, I hope that the list of references will prove useful for our purposes here. El_C

Unfortunately they are books, not web links, and I'm busy reading More guns, less crime and The Dark Tower (2004 novel) at the moment ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 20:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Try following the pattern of the titles thoughout the three historical eras I highlighted, Sam. I believe you will find it quite revealing.

When I visited a good friend of mine in VA for a week during the spring (a friend, who, btw, holds a strong affinity to the various firearms he owns – we had a good time at the firing range!), he gave me that book to read. I confess to not having finished it. The book seems to sway between the anectodal and sensetional melodramatics on the one hand, and the tedius on the other, but it does provide some important insights into the policies. At the same time, much of the data and analyses of which appears to be highly distorted, possibly even intellectually dishonest — I have read several articles which I thought demonstrated this quite convincingly (though it is somewhat of an unfair statement on my part as I have yet to finish reading the book). All that said, I am actually very much in favour of having a firearm in every American household. Try to guess why, I believe you will be pleasently unsurprised! (well, maybe not so much pleasently :p ). El_C

Probably for the same reason the great revoloutionary Thomas Jefferson desired the 2nd amendment... to ensure our ability to rebel? Sam [Spade] 00:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Substance supercedes form?

I'd prefer to see them in harmony :) What I have learned most from this article and talk page is that Collectivism is poorly defined. Maybe we should just put it on VfD ;) Sam [Spade] 16:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, harmony, we're all for that, I'm sure! But first, the foundation, then the painting, roofing, cat-door, etc. :) I think an article on Collectivism should exist, but certainly not in its current form. If you submitt a VfD, I will fully support you in this — even once deleted, it isn't 'really' deleted, we can always turn to whatever grains of truth exist in the original for use in a forthcoming rewrite. El_C

Well, I don't actually intend to do that, more a bit of humor at all the stress over such an ill defined topic :) Sam [Spade] 00:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here here. --Yossarian 00:27, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] For the record, here's the version I was defending

Now that you've all seen and discussed Sam's version of this article, please see the version that I am trying to defend: [1]

You will find that it answers many of your concerns, and, though it is not perfect, it is at least better than the alternative. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The introduction exhibits great promise, but much of the rest is highly problematic. I hope that I get a chance to provide you with a more extensive response soon.

Best regards,

El_C

[edit] My take on this entry

Hello, I would just like to add my own thoughts here.

First, I thought this article was a good one on Collectivism, even if somewhat short and not very in-depth. I did not think it was a plug for Ayn Rand's philosophy. I think the article was simply reporting the fact that one often finds this term used often by Rand, her followers and others who subscribe to right-libertarian political philosophies to describe the philosophies they are opposed to. The term “collectivism” is a common term used in political science and sociology and is to be found in various dictionaries or encyclopedia on political science and political philosophy.

Second, there was, and I think there still is, a group of left-anarchists who called themselves Collectivists, a term that was used by anarchist thinkers Mikhail Bakunin and James Guillaume. This was a good term to describe their preferred economic system of ownership of the means of production by collectives of workers associations. This system was contrasted to Marx's idea of collectivising production by concentrating it all in the hands of a proletarian state. There are Anarcho-Collectivists, along with their close relatives Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Syndicalists, who have claimed that while their system advocates economic collectivism, it promotes individualism as regards social relations. Some like Peter Kropotkin, one of the foremost Anarcho-Communist thinkers, have even argued that a system like anarchist communism offers advantages that best sustains individuality. Critics of these positions have argued that economic collectivisation tends to lead towards social/political collectivisation. These critics, like the Anarcho-Individualists, Anarcho-Mutualists and Anarcho-Capitalists, would argue that social/political individualism is best supported by economic individualism.

Third, the article has only given examples of economic collectivist societies. While the article gives a quote by Mussolini, I thought the article would have been much better had it given racism, Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, militant nationalism and religious fundamentalism as examples of overtly politically/socially collectivist ideologies and/or societies.

Kubilay Ertuna

[edit] 172.149.62.79

You deleted some stuff out of the intro believing it was POV. Here is a definition of collectivism from Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary ...

• 1 a : a politico-economic system characterized by collective control especially over production and distribution of goods and services in contrast to free enterprise <forces that have led to individualism have in the last fifty years been successfully opposed by the forces of collectivism -- M.R.Cohen> b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism) c : a doctrine or system that makes the group or the state actively responsible for the social and economic welfare of its members
• 2 : a social theory or doctrine that emphasizes the importance of the collective (as the society or state) in contrast to the individual and that tends to analyze society in terms of collective behavior -- see HOLISM
• 3 : 2COLLECTIVE 2, 3

And this is from Encyclopedia Britannica...

• any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.

It doesn't look to me like it was POV but goes along with this understanding. RJII 14:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] == True Collectivism

Do any of you really know what true collectivism is? == == ==

--Phalus

[edit] time to fix this article

This article is pretty bad. Let's fix it, by replacing it with sourceable material. Right now it looks like editors are just making up stuff off the top of their heads. I'm putting in a new intro. My sources for this are the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica. RJII 05:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster: "1 a : a politico-economic system characterized by collective control especially over production and distribution of goods and services in contrast to free enterprise <forces that have led to individualism have in the last fifty years been successfully opposed by the forces of collectivism -- M.R.Cohen> b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism) c : a doctrine or system that makes the group or the state actively responsible for the social and economic welfare of its members 2 : a social theory or doctrine that emphasizes the importance of the collective (as the society or state) in contrast to the individual and that tends to analyze society in terms of collective behavior -- see HOLISM"

Encyclopedia Britannica: "any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized."

I plan on deleting the following unless sources are provided:

• Some political collectivists hold that different groups have competing interests, and that the individual's interests and characteristics are in fact tied up with the interests and characteristics of his or her group. In this line of thought, differences between groups are considered more significant than differences between individuals within groups."

• "Other political collectivists emphasize the notions of equality and solidarity, and see all human beings as part of the same group, with common interests. They maintain that competition and rivalry between individuals or smaller groups is overall counter-productive or detrimental, and should therefore be replaced with some form of cooperation."

• "There are also collectivists who combine the two views presented above, arguing, for example, that the present-day situation is the one presented in the first view (there are several competing groups), but that we should strive to reach the situation presented in the second view (one large cooperating group)."

RJII 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarian collectivists argue that the individual should be subordinate to a collectivity for his own good. Rousseau's social contract, which you cited, is an example of this view. Definition c. from Merriam-Webster, which you cited, also explains this view. Since a collective is made up of individuals, the good of the collective must logically imply the good of at least some individuals. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean implies the good of some individuals? What do you mean by "the good." Do you mean maximization of well-being --the best interest? If so, there is no logical necessity that collectivism is in the the best interest of any of the individuals in a collectivist situation. And, of course, that wouldn't be a concern of the collectivist but the individualist. RJII 01:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Collectivism"

I'm mostly looking at this article from the standpoint of issues regarding anarchism. I'm really not comfortable with how this term is being defined, particularly in comparison to individualism. This page suggests that collectivism is almost in direct opposition to individualism, even aggressive against individual freedom. I don't think many or any so-called collectivist anarchists oppose the liberty of the individual. Mikhail Bakunin, (who, according to anarchism, espoused collectivism) once said that "Where the state begins, individual liberty ceases, and vice versa." L. Susan Brown argues that all anarchists are individualist, but divides individualism between instrumental individualism and existential individualism. The difference, she argues, is only that instrumental individualists believe in the freedom of people to accomplish things and compete (ala liberalism), whereas existential individualists sees that freedom as an end in itself (ala anarchist communism). My point being that this page needs to note collectivism's relation to individualism, because it remains unclear (although is certainly not always as hostile as this article seems to suggest). Sarge Baldy 20:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the definition is sourced. If you've got any other sourced definitions feel free to cite them here. Note that "Collectivism" was the proper name of the Bakuninite philosophy. That's different than calling it a collectivist philosophy, which I agree that it isn't entirely so. It had collectivist and individualist elements. RJII 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I think that's what confuses me. Perhaps the Collectivism of Bakunin needs an article of its own? How it's discussed here it's to an extreme that just isn't consistent with how it was used by so-called collectivist anarchists, who clearly placed importance on the concept of individual liberty (if defining that liberty in a very different way than liberal anarchists). Sarge Baldy 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

Seeing that a number of people have had problems with the EB definition, I don't know why we'd use it, just because it's "sourced". It doesn't say anything this academic source doesn't say, except it says it in a very negative way. Where the source I'm using says that collectivists put group goals over individual goals, the EB source puts it as collectivism "subordinating" individuals. They mean the same thing, it's just one isn't loaded. We don't define individualism as a philosophy whereby individuals "subordinate" the larger group, because that would be completely biased. Instead, you'd say it's a philosophy where individual goals are placed above group goals. The EB article essentially seems to be describing vertical collectivism while utterly neglecting horizontal. Sarge Baldy 19:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By WP:NPOV all significant views that are backed up by reliable soureces should be presented. EB is probably one of the best and most reputable sources. By deleting EB definition you are clearly violating NPOV. -- Vision Thing -- 19:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Encyclopedic sources are considered a bit iffy in general, and rarely used on Wikipedia. Some users have even questioned whether we should use them at all. Anyway, EB probably isn't openly attempting to express a viewpoint, it's attempting to act as a tertiary source. Violating NPOV means expressing a viewpoint that most people can't agree with. The EB definition has been changed by a number of users, so it clearly isn't "NPOV". The point of NPOV is to work together to find a common solution. Sarge Baldy 20:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is official policy and what some individuals think is not relevant. Anyway, I don’t know why you think that most people have a positive view on collectivism and definition you added as replacement clearly has a positive bias towards collectivism. -- Vision Thing -- 11:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

How does it have a positive bias? That definition is (or was) an almost exact mirror of the defnition of individualism used in the individualism article. Surely if collectivism is the opposite of individualism, then it is perfectly NPOV for the definition of collectivism to be the opposite of the definition of individualism. -- Nikodemos 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If it was a mirror image it would include: "Collectivism advocates the exercise of authority over the will of the individual by the political state or society." -- Vision Thing -- 08:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean: "Collectivists oppose individualism and its focus on individual autonomy and will, arguing that it is impossible to free oneself from the influence of society without becoming a hermit"???? Individualists do NOT want to free themselves from the influence of society. They simply want to be free from being the victims of force used against them by others in society. They simply want to be treated as ends in themselves (to use Kant's words) instead of as mere means to the ends of others to be forced around by society. In other words they simply want to interact with others in society on a peaceful voluntary basis. To claim that they want to be free from the "influence" of society is preposterous. That is not what individualism is about. It has nothing to do with being a "hermit". Individualists WANT to interact with others in a society. It's about the METHOD of interaction, either peaceful or by force.

You will not find anyone actually saying that they want individuals to interact" in society by force. And "use of force" is an extremely fuzzy concept in itself - seeing how it most often refers to threats than actual force, etc.

In any case, the point is that individualists see people as separate, independent moral agents that are (or should be) free to make their own choices, whereas collectivists see people as products of society, whose choices and actions are always determined by others to a greater or lesser degree. Simply put, the collectivist view is that you want to do things because society tells you to do those things. -- Nikodemos 01:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So a sheep then. If you want to do what society tells you to do then it means you're a sheep. Instead of thinking for yourself you wait for "society" to order you around. Ok, I'll accept that that's a kind of collectivism. There are also the collectivists that will make the individual do what they wish whether the individual wants to or not. It is an ugly ugly philosophy any way you put it. But my point stands about individualism. It has nothing to do with wanting to live in isolation or away from society.

There is a subtle but important difference between the view that people should be sheep and the view that people are sheep in spite of all their efforts to the contrary. I would also like to point out that your use of "sheep" terminology is little more than an appeal to emotion. -- Nikodemos 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the comment about sheep to which you're replying here. I wrote the paragraph just below, about the phrase "use of force," but as some research in the history page would show you, another anonymous user wrote the above sheep analogy. Please don't attach my sig to stuff I didn't write. --Christofurio 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

'use of force' may be fuzzy in some contexts, but not for the reason you give. Should there not be a single concept that incorporates both firing the gun and plausibly threatening to fire the gun? Have you ever been mugged? I have. The event included both the use of force and the threat of escalating its use if I didn't hand over my wallet and watch. I don't see why it's especially "fuzzy" to see those two aspects of the event as essentially one. --Christofurio 21:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Definition

Avner Greif, a very prominent figure in economics, economic history, and game theory these days, uses the term "collectivism" to mean a set of cultural beliefs that "support an economic self-enforcing collective punishment, horizontal agency relations, segregation, and an ingroup social communications network." See his contribution to an anthology, "The Frontiers of the New Institutional Economics" (1997) for the context. I don't know how that source intersects with the partisan splits I see on this talk page. Orthogonally, I'd hope. --Christofurio 02:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful if more editors found scholarly material on collectivism rather than attempting to rewrite the definition based on a particular political bias. The libertarian view should be mentioned, but as the minority view. More scholarship from mainstream sources would help.--Cberlet 13:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand the complaint against the scholarly definition. Britannica isn't a very good source anyway, since most people would agree that Wikipedia isn't much of an encyclopedia when it quotes other encyclopedias in defining something. It's not as if Britannica would ever source, let alone quote Wikipedia in one of their articles. We can't assume any sources are "NPOV". We need to work with what sources we have to find a definition people can agree with. Sarge Baldy 18:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was just trying to fix the cite, but would rather see the Sarge Baldy version.--Cberlet 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no complaints about scholarly definition, if it’s credible (how credible and mainstream are these [2] [3] sources?). -- Vision Thing -- 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How are they not credible or not mainstream? Please explain. -- Nikodemos 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m asking for opinion on how credible and mainstream those sources are since I never heard for them. -- Vision Thing -- 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is ready to stand up for those sources? -- Vision Thing -- 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody is ready to stand up for those sources I'm removing them. -- Vision Thing -- 20:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're kidding. Those sources are peer-reviewed academic journal entries, which are absolutely the best sources to use per Wikipedia policy. If any sources on this page are of questionable use, it's the use of a tertiary source (the Encyclopedia Britannica) as a primary source. Sarge Baldy 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

However, view that collectivism is "any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class" is a significant view and it’s backed up by credible source. So there is no reason for its exclusion. -- Vision Thing -- 10:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to -- Vision Thing --. It is considered very bad form to revert a page and then in the subject line to imply that it is the result of a consensus on the discussion page. As you are well aware, there is no such consensus. The claim is false. Please refrain from this sort of aggressive and discourteous editing. The discussion should continue without a revert war. --Cberlet 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn’t make any claim of consensus, for me "per talk" means "for reasons I presented on talk page". Also, I advise you to refrain from public stigmatization and try to keep a cool head. -- Vision Thing -- 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Present intro excludes mainstream definition and includes following part: "Collectivism is often based on a view of human beings as "social animals", who need the companionship and support of others of their kind in order to survive and thrive. Collectivists oppose individualism and its focus on individual autonomy and will, arguing that it is impossible to free oneself from the influence of society without becoming a hermit. Collectivists believe that society shapes many aspects of an individual's personality, and that individualistic attempts to separate individuals from society and from each other can be psychologically or even physically harmful." which implies that individualist don’t believe that they need other people to survive and thrive, and that they want to separate from society. That’s simply wrong and biased. Because my attempts to make intro neutral are constantly reverted I’m putting POV tag on. -- Vision Thing -- 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pejorative, perhaps?

I was wondering if there are any individuals or groups that call themselves "collectivist" in the present day. I have certainly seen legions of self-proclaimed anti-collectivists, but no self-proclaimed collectivists. If the term is used exclusively (or overwhelmingly) by anti-collectivists, we should mark it as a pejorative. -- Nikodemos 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to a "defense of collectivism" http://www.geocities.com/c_ansata/Anthem.html --Christofurio 13:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about the BE reference. Where does it state that being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class, is inherently pejorative? Intangible 01:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In China, I read here, individualism is a pejorative notion. Who would have thought. Intangible 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Right-wingers asking if the term collectivism is "perjorative" is a hoot! Gotta love it.--Cberlet 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Right-wingers" are actually pretty gentle there in the US, they even call socialists "liberals" there, or actually, maybe this is some form of sinistrisme on part of the American "left," who knows... Intangible 02:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not a pejorative anymore than individualism is a pejorative to collectivists or communists. TheIndividualist 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I love the smell of surrealism in cyberspace!--Cberlet 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than the article provided above by Christofurio, I have never seen any piece of writing that supports something called "collectivism". It seems that the term "collectivism" is used overwhelmingly by those people who oppose what they see as "collectivism". -- Nikodemos 14:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Or by anthropologists who are distinguishing between individualist and collectivist attributes of a culture. But I certainly can't imagine there being any self-identified "collectivists" who would describe their ideal society as one in which people are subordinate to the will of the collective, just like you wouldn't find that many individualists describing their ideal society as one in which society doesn't exist at all and everyone is on their own. Sarge Baldy 18:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Collectivism is not very popular since the collapse of communism. To find praises of collectivism you have to go back to the writings and speeches of the old communists. Individualism is not "in which society doesn't exist at all and everyone is on their own." An individualist society is one where individuality is recognized, meaning people have individual rights instead of their freedom being sacrificed for the survival of a collective (such as the state). The United States is a rough example of an individualist society. Individualism does not mean no society or that people don't interact with others. It is not the same thing as isolationism. TheIndividualist 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You make my point for me, then. Just as most individualists don't wish to annihilate society, most "collectivists" don't want to annihilate the individual. To say one is true and not the other is hypocritical. The terms mirror one another. The difference between the two philosophies regards priority, not absolutes. Sarge Baldy 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is from the "Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development" releasd on March 5 2001 from the Chinese government: "We need to promote patriotism, collectivism and socialism." [4] TheIndividualist 22:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And yet the article that quotes that line is virulently anti-collectivist. Perhaps the term "collectivism" is not pejorative in Chinese, but it certainly is in English.

In any case, TheIndividualist, since you seem to want to reserve the right to define individualism as you see it, why not give collectivists the same right to define collectivism as they see it? As Sarge Baldy pointed out, there are no self-identified "collectivists" who describe their ideal society as one in which people are subordinate to the will of the collective. -- Nikodemos 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Being anti-collectivism doesn't make the world "collectivism" a pejorative. It appears you don't know what "pejorative" means. Also it looks like you are not understanding that collectivism does not have one meaning. One of the meanings is a label for a SOCIAL SYSTEM where the individual is subordinate to the collective. That was referenced by a source so you should not deleted it. That is a very common meaning for the term. IndividualistAnarchist 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's only a POV way of saying that the system is one in which the goals of the collective come before the goals of the individual. It's redundant, and biased. We don't define individualism as a social system in which the collective group is subordinate to the individual. For neutrality, the two articles need to mirror one another. Sarge Baldy 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In an individualist system, the individualist isn't subordinate to anyone. In a collectivist system, the individual is subordinate to the collective. It's pretty simple. IndividualistAnarchist 19:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's obviously a very individualist perspective. Think of it this way. (Most) families operate on a collectivist model, with the good of the family coming before the good of specific family members. Now, would you say that this means family members are subordinate to the collective, or would you just say the group prioritizes collective goals over individual? Saying the individual is subordinate is to say they are being repressed. Which is certainly possible, but not always true. "Subordination" assumes hierarchical organization, where many of the world's most egalitarian societies are collectively organized. In these societies the individual and the group are hardly distinguished from one another. There is no "individual" to suppress, so saying the individual is subordinate makes no sense. I think that definition works well for describing vertical collectivism but not at all for horizontal. Sarge Baldy 19:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is an even stronger source from the Merriam Webster dictionary: "1 b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism)" IndividualistAnarchist 19:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. And that definition works nicely for vertically collectivist societies. But anthropologists use the term collectivism much more broadly, which is where we end up in conflict. Sarge Baldy 19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it needs to be realized that there is more than one definition and present them instead of deleting definitions that are sourced. TheIndividualist 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't leave out the definition of a social or political system for "collectivism." IndividualistAnarchist 19:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia must do more than just quote from other encyclopedias - or worse, dictionaries. We must also strive to present information in a NPOV manner. "Subordination" is POV - but I'll accept it as long as we make it clear that it's what Britannica says, not the Absolute Truth. -- Nikodemos 19:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Merriam-Webster definition of collectivism can be found here, and it does not correspond with the text quoted by IndividualistAnarchist. -- Nikodemos 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
• Pronunciation: k&-'lek-ti-"vi-z&m
• Function: noun

1. a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also: a system marked by such control
2. emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

That is the abridged dictionary. The authoritative dictionary, The Merriam-Webster Third International Dictionary, Unabridged entry is this:

1 a : a politico-economic system characterized by collective control especially over production and distribution of goods and services in contrast to free enterprise <forces that have led to individualism have in the last fifty years been successfully opposed by the forces of collectivism -- M.R.Cohen> b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism) c : a doctrine or system that makes the group or the state actively responsible for the social and economic welfare of its members 2 : a social theory or doctrine that emphasizes the importance of the collective (as the society or state) in contrast to the individual and that tends to analyze society in terms of collective behavior -- see HOLISM 3 : 2COLLECTIVE 2, 3

TheIndividualist 00:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

<------This is a serious encyclopedia, not an out of date abridged dictionary. Get serious. Cite a serious scholar.--Cberlet 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary is neither out of date nor abridged. Wake up. It's a widely respected authority. TheIndividualist 03:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling an abridged dictionary a "a widely respected authority" is simpply ridiculous. --Cberlet 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not an abridged dictionary. It is the Merriam-Webster Third International Dictionary, Unabridged. TheIndividualist 03:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The link originally provided is to the Online version of the dictionary, which is abridged.--Cberlet 04:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was pointing out. I was providing the unabridged definition here in Talk. TheIndividualist 04:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And you are claiming that the unabridged dictionary entry supports your claims for an encyclopedia entry? Really? On what planet?--Cberlet 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am claiming that the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary defines it as I quoted above. You're funny. First you complain that the entry is from an abridged dictionary then when you find out it is unabridged you don't want the definition in the encyclopedia. I'm sorry but it is fine to put the definition in the encylopedia. TheIndividualist 04:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you wish to add that unabridged definition to the intro, TheIndividualist? I would not remove it, of course, but I would ensist that the definition is provided in its entirety, and then I would go look for different definitions in different dictionaries. I think this is a bad idea, because it would turn our introduction into little more than a collection of dictionary definitions (some of which describe the same concept and some of which don't).

I think the intro as it stands now is perfectly acceptable. Do you agree? If yes, we should remove the POV tag. -- Nikodemos 15:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of dictionary definitions from the intro...

I removed the dictionary definitions from the introduction. The introduction, after all, is intended to be an overview of the content of the article; in this case, the very first section of the article notes that there is no universally-agreed upon definition of collectivism. Therefore, presenting a dictionary definition in the intro as if it was the commonly-accepted definition of collectivism is inappropriate. Few encyclopedia articles rely on a dictionary definition, and this case, in particular, seems like a poor place to start. I think that, instead, it might make sense to have at least a mention of anti-collectivism in the intro, since the term would seem to be, in the modern world, used most often by groups that define themselves in opposition to it. --Aquillion 08:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

The Triandis article explicitly talks about fascism as Vertical Collectivism om page 119 [5]. Intangible 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly not vandalism, Intangible. Scholars disagree on this issue. It is proper to present competing viewpoints on this page. No single editor should delete properly cited material simply because they have taken a side in a scholarly dispute. We should make it clear there is a dispute among scholars, and present readers several viewpoints.--Cberlet 21:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have listed sources which discuss the Social Darwinist side of Fascist societies several times and he keeps editing them away simply because he does not agree with him. His last reason was simply "sources are bogus" though I can easily verify the sources. This whole thing is his way of getting back at me for lodging a complaint against one of his friends. Full Shunyata 12:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the edits from User:Full Shunyata makee it appear that the Triandis article actually stated that Marxist-Leninist societies are an example of VC societies, which is not the case. From the article: "Finally, those societies that neither value equality nor freedom correspond to VC (e.g. fascism or the communalism of traditional societies with strong leaders) in our conceptualization." No evidence has been provided for another kind of VC typology, so I will revert your changes as well. Intangible 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are acting like jerks. Try a compromise rather than a revert war.--Cberlet 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A compromise on what?! Page 47 of De Grand's 'Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany: the "fascist" style of rule' does not talk about collectivism, social darwinism (the term doesn't even appear in the book) or anything that even remotely suggest a relationship to this article! The only one interjecting POV into this article is User:Full Shunyata, who now has become an "expert analyst" on Hitler's Mein Kampf. Sigh. Intangible 21:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly the same author argues that Fascist socities were vertical individualist in the same book. Whether or not the actual term "Social Darwinism" is used the message is clear when he points out that Fascists wanted to empower "strong individuals" over "weak individuals". Full Shunyata 12:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articulating Divergent Views

My apologies for not discussing here sooner. There is clearly no consensus on whether or not Fascist societies were individualist or collectivist. Quite honestly they incorporated elements of both but arguably were aimed at empowering powerful individuals. They remained firm in their support of Social Darwinism which is a form of vertical individualism that views collective concern as unreasonable. I simply edited the article to point out a more clear example of vertical collectivism which is Marxist-Leninist societies. Whether or not Fascist societies were collectivist is debatable as many Capitalist societies have strong elements of collectivism as well. No society is purely anything and it doesn't have to be. Full Shunyata 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There are other sources than the scholar I quoted. The German militarist, Friederich von Bernhardi, praised the virtues of Darwinian war in strong evolutionary terms in his influential book Germany and the Next War. Bernhardi claimed war was a "biological necessity" and that it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things." Bernhardi dismissed the idea of peaceful cooperation as a "presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development." and said "war is a universal law of nature." (As quoted by Ashley Montagu in Man in Process, World Pub. Co., 1961, pp. 76-77). If you want, we can edit this article together to include both views. Full Shunyata 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So what are the major divergent views that need to be articulated for a reader?--Cberlet 14:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What divergent views? You both have not provided any sources that say fascism is not vertical collectivism. I have provided sources that say it is. So until you come to the talk page with a source, this discussion is closed. All above reading by Full Shunyata are all Original Research. Intangible 20:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"What divergent views? You both have not provided any sources that say fascism is not vertical collectivism." The articles I quoted talked about the Social Darwinist nature of Fascist societies. Social Darwinism is vertical individualism. These are not original reserach because both sources can be verified. Both Man in Process, World Pub. Co., 1961, pp. 76-77 and Alexander J. De Grand, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Routledge, 1995. pp. 47. Mussolini himself spoke of weeding out weak individuals and promoting the strong and the Fascist Minister of Agriculture wished to strengthen private property Source: Carl T. Schmidt, "The corporate state in action; Italy under fascism", Oxford University Press, 1939. pp. 128. You can't claim something is "original research" just because you disagree with it's academic conclusion. Full Shunyata 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, "vertical collectivism" is a term coined by Triandis. Obviously you won't find anyone who contradicts his findings on VC, because no one else uses the term. So you must look at the definition of VC and see if it is consistent with the findings of other researchers on the subject of fascism. In any case, it seems that far too much time and effort has been spent on trying to figure out what societies are or aren't VC, when you should have written a more detailed description of the two kinds of collectivism and left the readers to decide what societies they apply to. -- Nikodemos 03:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I only came to this page after I noted Full Shunyata made OR changes involving Max Stirner at Individualist anarchism. Intangible 14:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I agree. This article is very POV because much of it is written from the POV of individualists who are against collectivism. Now if collectivists edited the individualist article to write it from a collectivist POV, there would be an uproar. In fact, there is not "Anti-Individualism" section for the individualist article. I've been trying to tell Vision Thing that there is more than one type of collectivism and Fascism is obviously debateable on whether or not it is collectivist. However there is no doubt that Marxist-Leninist societies were/are VC, so it makes for a better example. Intangible, your editing and claims of OR is nonsense. There is nothing OC about quotes from Stirner himself. Simply because you disagree with Stirner's view on property is not good reason to erase mentioning his view on property. "I don't agree with this" is not tantamount with OR. You should be aware that I've noted other complaints against your baseless and frivolous selective editing and false crying of OR. Full Shunyata 06:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)