Message from @Goddess Tyche
Discord ID: 653640391333118000
inherently*
Collectivism is constant throughout all forms of nationalism, you're arguing for a form of "Nationalism" which is based on voluntary co-operation which falls after one generation if not enforced
And it already has a name, Voluntaryism
So again, it is disingenuous to argue for an individualist Nationalism
Like I said, humans aren't going to have an individualist nation, because it's not typical for humans to do so
That doesn't mean the idea of nationalism itself demands collectivism
There's a difference between observable behavior and ideology
@ETBrooD By your parochial definition, Socialism can technically be "individualist" if everyone in the commune agreed to mutually share the profit according to labor theory of value
Be mindful that, just because there's a uniformed symmetry in social behavior, mainly informal and formal norms, doesn't mean it's collectivism, either. Individualism enables people to attain consensus adopting and phasing out social behavior in accordance with utility gains, and unlike nations before the U.S., we restrict individuals and institutions within which they partake, voluntarily, on the basis of mutual interests, from engaging in force to coerce individuals into adherence, absent voluntary and rational decision. Instead, individuals and institutions must rely upon competition, exempting force, though many do deploy deception, which I consider force, as it often seeks to subvert the rational decision of the individual, at the demise of their own interests, which circumvents the very idea of self-government, the reason objective truth is necessary to preserve freedom. A Constitution and the Rule of Law secures this, and though some may object to it, because they'd enjoy exercising undue influence to subvert the former, it doesn't mean it's legitimate. We're not going to throw away everything we know for a few, dissenting and illegitimate voices. Anyway, individualism and collectivism overlap, from this view, and this is the test for legitimacy.
I might add, this is a rather Natural Law/Lockean view as well.
At the root of this issue is whether or not the State or individual is to determine utility. Those who pursue consolidating power into the State, interpreting and dictating utility, rather than leaving it to individuals, see themselves as gaining utility under such a system, despite the fact they're ironically its victims. It's very simple, as is all human social behavior. Now, decisions made on the basis of utility, all social behavior is, which is how cultures form, are always filtered through a hierarchy resting on satisfying physiological functionality, first and foremost. That's why cultures in free civilizations come and go, but never leave without a trace, only retaining that of highest utility until an alternative emerges providing greater utility. It's the reason why Western civilization, what's broadly interpreted as culture, is superior to all alternatives: creative destruction. Even the advancement of the English language rested on this basis, transforming language over thousands of years into that with the highest RIE (Rate of Information Exchange), improving generation over generation. If you eliminate the freedom of the individual to determine utility, you eliminate what has enabled the creative destruction that made us the great civilization we are.
But, again, I say it overlaps and balance can exist, though you do have extreme examples of both, the dichotomy between Communism and Anarchism, for example. Neither of them fully understand the grand picture, though, despite how intrigued they are with their conflict against one another.
Some actual news from WaPo
It's a treasure trove of documents, memos, interviews of the various people involved throughout the war in Afghanistan.
The war has been confused, has no objective, riff with corruption and lies about any bit of its success.
@Monstrous Moonshine Correct, socialism could in theory be individualist. It never is because humans don't allow it to be.
My only criticism was the "inherent" part.
People throw that term around like candy on Halloween and it's so annoying that I've basically stopped correcting people. But sometimes I still say something.
I wouldn't pretend it'd be simple for an ideologue, such as yourself, to wrap your mind around what I've laid out.
But, if you're willing to do so, you may.
<:BIGBRAIN:501101491428392991>
Courtesy of your South Front, State-centralists, who support the Ba'ath Party of Michael Afleq, founder of the party and National Socialist who studied under the provision of the Reich, that of Saddam and Assad, for the same reasons then-Soviet Union supported Mosaddegh of Iran's seizure of U.K. oil assets: manipulating the supply of oil, to artificially inflate the value of Russian petrol exports, at the expense of human freedom abroad, under the imposition of totalitarianism and genocide. It's a geopolitical strategy that has outlived the Soviet Union, because the Soviets are still in power, unwilling to allow the economy to diversify, as it'd come at the expense of State power, the enrichment of their people.
"We're unbiased media and are victims of censorship!"
Get fucked, Russian cockroach.
I'm pretty sure that Putin has a strong spirit and wants to excercise his free will tbh
lmao
yea they are.
They have pretty decent syrian coverage, but man they love russia.
They have some vids that are like, US vs Russian military, they're pretty entertaining.
Bear spirit.
Perceptions management.
Yea, I like how reporting on things is now considered "spreading hatred" or w/e
I don't like that