β² 1264 βΌ Rational Self Interest (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by anna_ql@lemmy.world to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world 205 comments fedilink hide all child comments https://existentialcomics.com/comic/364
[β] masquenox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) She came from the Soviet Union, a highly collectivist society. The USSR wasn't a collectivist society - it was a centalized one. There's a vast difference. Nobody calls the US military "collectivist," do they now? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Centralised but everyone is expected to value the group over the individual. The property in the Soviet Union belongs to the people albeit managed by the state. Therefore, collectivist. Centralisation does not mean either just means individualism or collectivism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Centralised but So you are now claiming that centralization isn't inherently collectivist? The property in the Soviet Union belongs to the people albeit managed by the state. So you are now claiming nothing in the Soviet Union was nationalized? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You can be centralised but not collectivist. See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I'm guessing you're operating from different sensibility of political philosophy. Define collectivism then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I saw it... and just looking at it made it fall apart like an upside-down house of cards in a whirlwind. Strange... this seems to happen every time anyone looks at (so-called) "anarcho-capitalism" a bit too closely. Have you had better luck with it, perhaps? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work, yes. What's your point? Have you any luck yet trying to answer me how would you define collectivism? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Centralised but everyone is expected to value the group over the individual. The property in the Soviet Union belongs to the people albeit managed by the state. Therefore, collectivist. Centralisation does not mean either just means individualism or collectivism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Centralised but So you are now claiming that centralization isn't inherently collectivist? The property in the Soviet Union belongs to the people albeit managed by the state. So you are now claiming nothing in the Soviet Union was nationalized? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You can be centralised but not collectivist. See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I'm guessing you're operating from different sensibility of political philosophy. Define collectivism then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I saw it... and just looking at it made it fall apart like an upside-down house of cards in a whirlwind. Strange... this seems to happen every time anyone looks at (so-called) "anarcho-capitalism" a bit too closely. Have you had better luck with it, perhaps? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work, yes. What's your point? Have you any luck yet trying to answer me how would you define collectivism? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Centralised but So you are now claiming that centralization isn't inherently collectivist? The property in the Soviet Union belongs to the people albeit managed by the state. So you are now claiming nothing in the Soviet Union was nationalized? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You can be centralised but not collectivist. See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I'm guessing you're operating from different sensibility of political philosophy. Define collectivism then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I saw it... and just looking at it made it fall apart like an upside-down house of cards in a whirlwind. Strange... this seems to happen every time anyone looks at (so-called) "anarcho-capitalism" a bit too closely. Have you had better luck with it, perhaps? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work, yes. What's your point? Have you any luck yet trying to answer me how would you define collectivism? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You can be centralised but not collectivist. See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I'm guessing you're operating from different sensibility of political philosophy. Define collectivism then we can talk. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I saw it... and just looking at it made it fall apart like an upside-down house of cards in a whirlwind. Strange... this seems to happen every time anyone looks at (so-called) "anarcho-capitalism" a bit too closely. Have you had better luck with it, perhaps? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work, yes. What's your point? Have you any luck yet trying to answer me how would you define collectivism? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) See the theory of anarcho-capitalism. I saw it... and just looking at it made it fall apart like an upside-down house of cards in a whirlwind. Strange... this seems to happen every time anyone looks at (so-called) "anarcho-capitalism" a bit too closely. Have you had better luck with it, perhaps? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work, yes. What's your point? Have you any luck yet trying to answer me how would you define collectivism? permalink fedilink source parent
[β] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work, yes. What's your point? Have you any luck yet trying to answer me how would you define collectivism? permalink fedilink source parent
