Capitalism is the worst political system out there.

[Marci-]

Sweden's economy crashed in the early 1990s as a result of socialist policies that destroyed its economic competitiveness and the incomes of its citizens.

it crashed due to banks givieng out too much credit withc also was a major cause of the great depression so it wasnt inherently socialism related

Mercantilism led to Native American genocide and African slave trade.

okay but what about the two World Wars, colonial wars, anti-communist campaigns, repressions and mass killings, ethnic conflicts, and victims of famines or malnutrition all as a result of capitalism we only joined the world wars because it made money

Do you actually believe that the working conditions in factories in Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Guyana, India, Laos, Nepal, Nicaragua, North Korea, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Vietnam are safer than those in major capitalist countries like the Australia, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, USA, etc.?

those are develpoing nations, developing CAPITALIST nations mind you, and the paralalls between early industral revolution america and thoes countries right now is identical. so now we dont have those same laws but at some point we did and at some point they will come to match our safty laws

I understand capitalism. Individualism results from capitalism. The benefits of capitalism include limitless productivity, private enterprise, private property, fair competition, economic expansion, etc. The imbalance between the rich and the poor, the absence of social benefits, monopolies, etc. are all downsides of capitalism.

limitless productivity? peple litterally make thier products worse so they can make more money off of it and socialism does the same thing because you can still make an insane amount of money from being inventive. Socialism doenst completely abolish private property either. And fair compitition my ass, go tell that to people who grew up poor or are a minority so they are unable to get a job because of private enterprise discrimination that one is laughable. And are thoes really worth the hundreds of downsides capitalism has.

With complete control over economies and resources, socialism poses a risk of public control and abuse, including the possibility of population imprisonment and murder. While capitalism provides individual freedom, socialism does not. The majority of deaths caused by capitalism were the result of people's own recklessness and laziness. Deaths caused by socialism were the result of the government's own sick agenda. Individual freedom should be granted to everyone. They should be able to make their own decisions considering it is their life.

the RISK of it is not copareable to the actuall deaths caused directly by capitalsim and are you saying that all the deaths i listed above were just from the folleshness of themselves? because i assure you its not and also socialism does not promote that tatalitarianism does. Witch also leads into the fact that socialism doesnt snuff out personal freedom tatalitarionism does. And socialism wasnt the thing that was preventing the people to be free.

Deaths caused by socialism were the result of the government's own sick agenda

exactly, not due too the way the economy fuctioned that caused them to do that it was the governments own interest. I assume that the deaths youre refferng too happend under the USSR witch was not socialist, in fact it was communist witch is a completely different system. The governments decitions are not solely dictated by the economy but with capitalism they are hevily because they want to make more money at the expense of others..

Even with all of its disadvantages, capitalism remains the best economic system. The only economic system that allows for individual freedom is capitalism. Every other system requires people to live on the resources of others. That and that alone should put an end to this disappointing debate. You can continue to argue if you oppose individual liberty. It's your opinion.

That is not true there are a ton of capitalist nations that didnt promote individual freedom for example, Nazi Germany. The rest of this "argument" is just either: a lie, an opinion, or a personal attck (witch i colud group in with lie) your argument is about as strong as a wet peper towel you support capitalism because you were told too and you despise anyone else because you were told too. You were never able to think for yourself or mabey you were just too stupide too, either way the only reason you suppoert a corrupt system is because they have told you too, people make mistakes all the time dont worry.

 

[GreatAndHolyPangolin]

Capitalism isn’t the worst (cough cough fascism cough cough), but it definitely isn’t the best. I don’t know what is, but I know that the politician’s corruption will ruin all political systems, and everyone is so stoutly against communism, socialism, etc, that we’re unlikely to be able to make the switch to them. Also, socialism is proven to work on small communities, and become less effective the larger you get, so although it may be fine for the small country examples you’ve provided (probably provided, I have not read through all of chat, but it’s a popular socialism argument), it’s going to fail in, say, the USA, even without the propaganda and Red Fear. (Also I’m joining this conversation very late, deal with it I guess)

I’m not a capitalist, just playing the devil’s advocate and being painfully aware that the best alternatives aren’t applicable worldwide.

 

[bobby_]

it crashed due to banks givieng out too much credit withc also was a major cause of the great depression so it wasnt inherently socialism related

Sweden, which had an open capitalist economy from 1870 to 1970, changed to a socialist economy by expanding its government and imposing increased regulations and taxes. This led to a 20-year period of economic stagnation and a banking crisis in the early 1990s, which had an influence on the living conditions of its people.

okay but what about the two World Wars, colonial wars, anti-communist campaigns, repressions and mass killings, ethnic conflicts, and victims of famines or malnutrition all as a result of capitalism we only joined the world wars because it made money

World War 1: U-boat campaign; Colonial Wars: British mercantilism; Repressions and mass killings; ethnic conflicts; and victims of famines or malnutrition result from socialism too.

those are develpoing nations, developing CAPITALIST nations mind you, and the paralalls between early industral revolution america and thoes countries right now is identical. so now we dont have those same laws but at some point we did and at some point they will come to match our safty laws

China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam are official socialist countries. Bangladesh, Eritrea, Guyana, India, Nepal, Nicaragua, Portugal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania's constitutions support socialist policies, which define them as socialist states.

Socialism doenst completely abolish private property either.

A country's socialist status reduces the availability of private property since socialist policies impose public property and oppose private property.

And fair compitition my ass

Fair competition is supported by American capitalism. It implies that in order for people's businesses to succeed, they must go out and step up their game with better prices, services, and new concepts and goods. It results in an economically prosperous nation.

And are thoes really worth the hundreds of downsides capitalism has.

Yes. Capitalism is the only system that protects individual freedom.

Witch also leads into the fact that socialism doesnt snuff out personal freedom tatalitarionism does.

Socialism is collectivism. Collectivism leads to totalitarianism.

the USSR witch was not socialist, in fact it was communist witch is a completely different system.

Communism is a type of socialism.

there are a ton of capitalist nations that didnt promote individual freedom for example, Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany was not capitalist; the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy. Without in any way destroying its class character, a comprehensive planning mechanism was imposed on an economy in which private property was not expropriated, in which the distribution of national income remained fundamentally unchanged, and in which private entrepreneurs retained some of their prerogatives and responsibilities in traditional capitalism. All this was done in a society dominated by a ruthless political dictatorship.

That is not true there are a ton of capitalist nations that didnt promote individual freedom

Name one, please.

The rest of this "argument" is just either: a lie, an opinion, or a personal attck (witch i colud group in with lie)

This debate started with an opinion. I'm sorry if you take this personally. If you don't believe me, that's fine.

You were never able to think for yourself or mabey you were just too stupide too

Please don't insult my intelligence.

people make mistakes all the time

Take your parents, for example. Just kidding. Sorry.

 

[bobby_]

Native American genocide was not a prime cause due to Mercantilism.

Influenza, measles, smallpox, killed about 90% of the Native population from 1610-1619. Mercantilism and imperialism caused genocide among the rest from 1609-1890 (Indian Wars).

As a NATIVE AMERICAN myself

Claiming you're descendant of Indigenous Americans doesn't make you a historian. You were born in the 2000s. You should provide some historical information to support your claims.

 

[Marci-]

Sweden, which had an open capitalist economy from 1870 to 1970, changed to a socialist economy by expanding its government and imposing increased regulations and taxes. This led to a 20-year period of economic stagnation and a banking crisis in the early 1990s, which had an influence on the living conditions of its people.

No the banking crisis was caused by the banks giving too much credit and that is not 100% socialism's fault. Also, this is only one of many successful socialist nations Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, and Italy are defined as socialist nations that are still around and successful today

World War 1: U-boat campaign; Colonial Wars: British mercantilism; Repressions and mass killings; ethnic conflicts; and victims of famines or malnutrition result from socialism too.

yeah, some of those things happen under socialism but not on the level that it does in capitalism also WW1 only involved America because they had made treaties with other nations for protection and more profitable trade agreements so our involvement is a direct result of capitalism.

China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam are official socialist countries. Bangladesh, Eritrea, Guyana, India, Nepal, Nicaragua, Portugal, Sri Lanka, and Tanzania's constitutions support socialist policies, which define them as socialist states.

China is defined as a capitalist nation because you are allowed to own private property and the main wealth is owned by enterprises, not the central government and most of those have somewhat primitive worker protection, again, similar to early industrial America

A country's socialist status reduces the availability of private property since socialist policies impose public property and oppose private property.

Socialism promotes personal property: cars, houses, small businesses, etc. The only things non-privatized are essential services and large businesses.

Fair competition is supported by American capitalism. It implies that in order for people's businesses to succeed, they must go out and step up their game with better prices, services, and new concepts and goods. It results in an economically prosperous nation.

No it promotes people to make the most money that doesn't always mean the best product for example Apple phones that stop working after 2 years, its not the best product but it make more money

Yes. Capitalism is the only system that protects individual freedom.

No, it's not you still have individual freedom under socialism, it's not just the economic system that causes tyranny.

Socialism is collectivism. Collectivism leads to totalitarianism.

not always, making an over-encompassing statement like that is a logical fallacy

Communism is a type of socialism.

but they are 2 completely different systems and practiced a different way and I'm not arguing for communism I'm arguing for socialism

Nazi Germany was not capitalist; the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy. Without in any way destroying its class character, a comprehensive planning mechanism was imposed on an economy in which private property was not expropriated, in which the distribution of national income remained fundamentally unchanged, and in which private entrepreneurs retained some of their prerogatives and responsibilities in traditional capitalism. All this was done in a society dominated by a ruthless political dictatorship.

the only socialist policy was collecting wealth in order to put it into the military similar to what American taxes do just much higher the rest of the market was free and mind you Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

Name one, please.

China as I explained earlier, Russia, Chile under Augusto Pinochet, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are all totalitarian and capitalist.

This debate started with an opinion. I'm sorry if you take this personally. If you don't believe me, that's fine.

I belive facts so no I don't belive most of what you're saying

Please don't insult my intelligence.

how could I not (joke)

Take your parents, for example. Just kidding. Sorry.

LMAO

 

[bobby_]

No the banking crisis was caused by the banks giving too much credit and that is not 100% socialism's fault.

That economic crisis was caused by Sweden's socialism experiment, which resulted in a credit squeeze and bank insolvency.

Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, and Italy are defined as socialist nations that are still around and successful today

All of which have both forms of capitalism and socialism in their economies. None of those nations are defined as socialist. Their constitutions do not support socialist policies.

China is defined as a capitalist nation because you are allowed to own private property and the main wealth is owned by enterprises

China has a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism. China continues to have a one-party system. If they so want, they can take ownership of private companies and properties. In that regard, it's collectivism.

Socialism promotes personal property: cars, houses, small businesses, etc. The only things non-privatized are essential services and large businesses.

Capitalism supports personal property too. Socialism abolishing private property leads to slower economic growth. Slower economic growth leads to stagnation. Stagnation leads to poverty.

No, it's not you still have individual freedom under socialism

Third time's a charm. Socialism is collectivism. Socialism is not individualism. Capitalism is individualism.

not always, making an over-encompassing statement like that is a logical fallacy

Totalitarianism results from socialism. That doesn't necessarily mean totalitarianism will ever exist in certain socialist nations. Simply put, socialism carries that significant risk that capitalism does not. Socialism is collectivism. One of totalitarianism's key traits is collectivism.

but they are 2 completely different systems and practiced a different way and I'm not arguing for communism I'm arguing for socialism

Socialism isn't a type of government system. It's a philosophy. When you argue for socialism, you're arguing for all 10 types of socialist systems, including communism.

Chile under Augusto Pinochet, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are all totalitarian and capitalist.

Another thing links all of those nations: All of them were under socialism. Socialism drove authoritarianism in all those nations. A dictatorial regime is in control of the entire nation, including the economy. Their governments adopted capitalism as an economic system because they desired greater economic growth. Those countries wouldn't be under a totalitarian government if they continued to operate under a free market economy. Their economies are capitalist but their political system is collectivism which opposes individualism.

I belive facts so no I don't belive most of what you're saying

That's ironic. Lets keep going.

how could I not

xd

 

[MarquizdeGuillotin]

"That economic crisis was caused by Sweden's socialism experiment, which resulted in a credit squeeze and bank insolvency."
Socialism consists in the abolition of the state altogether, social and economic classes and hierarchies, private property, and the common ownership of the means production, and in this regard is interchangable with communism.

"All of which have both forms of capitalism and socialism in their economies. None of those nations are defined as socialist. Their constitutions do not support socialist policies."
This is true, those countries aren't socialist.

"China has a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism. China continues to have a one-party system. If they so want, they can take ownership of private companies and properties. In that regard, it's collectivism."
It's highly contestable if China is socialist or communist AT ALL going by the precise definition of these two terms. One-party systems aren't exclusive to socialism, neither is the state regulation of the economy exclusive to socialism.

"Capitalism supports personal property too. Socialism abolishing private property leads to slower economic growth. Slower economic growth leads to stagnation. Stagnation leads to poverty."
Seeing as no socialist economy has really ever existed, except for the "socialist" economies wherein the state regulated private property and had ownership, but not even then total control, over the means of production, this is debatable. A socialist "economy" would be very radically different from anything we have seen.

"Third time's a charm. Socialism is collectivism. Socialism is not individualism. Capitalism is individualism."
Socialism is collectivism, collectivism and individualism aren't mutually exclusive, the way "collectivism" is being used here is as a scary buzzword, and the way "individualism" is being used here is equally vague but in the opposite fashion.

"Totalitarianism results from socialism. That doesn't necessarily mean totalitarianism will ever exist in certain socialist nations. Simply put, socialism carries that significant risk that capitalism does not. Socialism is collectivism. One of totalitarianism's key traits is collectivism."
Indeed, putting all ownership of the means of production into the hands of the state is likelier to result in what is called totalitarianism, but then state regulation or ownership is altogether a simplistic and vague definition of socialism.
Not every instance of collectivism is totalitarian, nor does collectivism have to be mutually exclusive with individualism, there can be non totalitarian collectivism such as communitarianism.

"Socialism isn't a type of government system. It's a philosophy. When you argue for socialism, you're arguing for all 10 types of socialist systems, including communism"
Bombastic absurdity. Not all forms of socialism and communism are the same or even friendly to each other, for example stalinism and anarcho-communism are completely different and hostile to each other.

"Another thing links all of those nations: All of them were under socialism. Socialism drove authoritarianism in all those nations. A dictatorial regime is in control of the entire nation, including the economy. Their governments adopted capitalism as an economic system because they desired greater economic growth. Those countries wouldn't be under a totalitarian government if they continued to operate under a free market economy. Their economies are capitalist but their political system is collectivism which opposes individualism."
Singapore and Russia and Chile don't extend state ownership over the means of production and by far they largely have free markets. Pinochet was very antisocialist and conducted a reign of terror against them.
Before there was the Soviet Union, there was the Russian Empire, and if anything modern Russia autocracy and Soviet autocracy were both extensions of Russian tzarist autocracy.
I don't recall Singapore being ever socialist at all.

 

[Marci-]

Bombastic absurdity.

incredible

 

[bobby_]

One-party systems aren't exclusive to socialism

One-party systems are inclusive of fascism and socialism.

neither is the state regulation of the economy exclusive to socialism.

State regulations are inclusive of authoritarianism, direct/indirect democracy, fascism, monarchy, and socialism.

It's highly contestable if China is socialist or communist AT ALL going by the precise definition of these two terms.

That's why I used the term 'collectivism', so it'd be relevant to all forms of socialism.

"socialist" economies wherein the state regulated private property and had ownership, but not even then total control, over the means of production

Since controlled private property prevents market prices and the incentives offered by profit-and-loss accounting, the economies under socialism degrade and stagnate.

the way "collectivism" is being used here is as a scary buzzword, and the way "individualism" is being used here is equally vague but in the opposite fashion.

Even so, what I wrote was true. I figured they had no idea what individualism and collectivism were. I tried to get them to do their own study by making a vague blanket statement.

there can be non totalitarian collectivism such as communitarianism.

Communitarianism supports state regulation and ownership. Which evidently leads to totalitarian collectivism.

Not all forms of socialism and communism are the same or even friendly to each other, for example stalinism and anarcho-communism are completely different and hostile to each other.

Communism is a type of socialism in and of itself, even though it conflicts with other forms of socialism. My main argument is that socialism in general supports state ownership and regulation, which may result in authoritarianism. I am aware that it is simplistic and vague. I shouldn't be providing someone who is obviously ignorant about the subject with complex criticism.

Before there was the Soviet Union, there was the Russian Empire, and if anything modern Russia autocracy and Soviet autocracy were both extensions of Russian tzarist autocracy.

The tsarist autocracy did not continue in the USSR. The Bolsheviks fully abolished the tsarist autocracy and founded the Marxist-Leninism movement that is referred to as the Soviet Union.

I don't recall Singapore being ever socialist at all.

Although Singapore was never officially a socialist nation, they were ruled by socialists. For 31 years, Lee Kuan Yew ruled as a socialist dictator and enacted laws in favor of socialist policies. The current benign one-party dictatorship in Singapore was established during his rule.

 

[MarquizdeGuillotin]

"One-party systems are inclusive of fascism and socialism."
And capitalism.
"State regulations are inclusive of authoritarianism, direct/indirect democracy, fascism, monarchy, and socialism."
And social democracy, which is capitalist.
"Since controlled private property prevents market prices and the incentives offered by profit-and-loss accounting, the economies under socialism degrade and stagnate."
Indeed, a controlled economy isn't altogether successful, it doesn't account for variations and unpredictabilities.

"Even so, what I wrote was true. I figured they had no idea what individualism and collectivism were. I tried to get them to do their own study by making a vague blanket statement."
Using certain terms as scary buzzwords to incite fear and opposition is disingenuous. The use of individualism and collectivism here is so vague so as to be useless, societal structures exhibit a great degree of variation and cannot be just pinned down to a black white opposition between "collectivism" and "individualism". Such a worldview betrays a rigid, barren, and lifeless approach.

"Communism is a type of socialism in and of itself, even though it conflicts with other forms of socialism. My main argument is that socialism in general supports state ownership and regulation, which may result in authoritarianism. I am aware that it is simplistic and vague. I shouldn't be providing someone who is obviously ignorant about the subject with complex criticism."
Communism and socialism seek the common ownership over the means of production and property, but the former seeks the abolition of the state as essential for liberty.

"The tsarist autocracy did not continue in the USSR. The Bolsheviks fully abolished the tsarist autocracy and founded the Marxist-Leninism movement that is referred to as the Soviet Union."
This is not what was meant here. Of course, the Soviet Union wasn't literally Tsarist autocracy, it was very different in many aspects, what was the point here is that the Soviet Union was a lineal descendant of Tsarist autocracy, but a descendent with a great amount of mutations so as to alter it considerably.
The Soviet Union perfected the Tsarist bureaucracy, it was the culmination of the centralisation the Tsar aimed for but couldn't achieve, and it had greater control over the life of the citizens than the Tsardom.

"Although Singapore was never officially a socialist nation, they were ruled by socialists. For 31 years, Lee Kuan Yew ruled as a socialist dictator and enacted laws in favor of socialist policies. The current benign one-party dictatorship in Singapore was established during his rule."
I don't recall Lee Kuan Yew ever being socialist.

 

[bobby_]

And capitalism.

Capitalism isn't inclusive of a one-party system. A one-party system can only transition to a capitalist economy. With a one-party system, they are unable to embrace a capitalist political system.

And social democracy, which is capitalist.

A form of socialism known as social democracy backs socialist policies in a capitalist economy. A capitalist economy can exist under authoritarianism, direct/indirect democracy, fascism, monarchy, and socialism. However, none of which can support a political system centered around capitalist politics.

Using certain terms as scary buzzwords to incite fear and opposition is disingenuous. The use of individualism and collectivism here is so vague so as to be useless, societal structures exhibit a great degree of variation and cannot be just pinned down to a black white opposition between "collectivism" and "individualism". Such a worldview betrays a rigid, barren, and lifeless approach.

xd I sincerely apologize if I offended you. I'll try to make the subject matter as comprehensible as I can.

collectivism

Socialism is collectivism. Collectively, we can do more when everyone works together. When collectivism is practiced, it's probable that the rights of individuals would be disregarded because doing so would not serve the group's interests. As a result, too much collectivism might result in an authoritarian regime.

individualism

Capitalism is individualism. Individualism is all about respecting each person's rights, granting them total autonomy, and abstaining from interfering in their affairs. When it enables people to live their own lives without having to worry about the communal will, this is beneficial to a certain extent.

The use of individualism and collectivism

For a more stable nation, a mixed political and economic structure that incorporates both capitalism and socialism is ideal. Due to the dangers collectivism poses to a nation, individualism should have more priority over collectivism. A more secure and prosperous nation would ideally be around 70–80% capitalist and 20–30% socialist.

the Soviet Union was a lineal descendant of Tsarist autocracy, but a descendent with a great amount of mutations so as to alter it considerably.

Yes. The tsarist autocracy and the Soviet Union were both authoritarian regimes. Since the late 14th century, Russia has been an autocracy. I'm sorry. I reviewed this discussion, and saw my misguided error. I'll make sure to fix it.

I don't recall Lee Kuan Yew ever being socialist.

Yes. Lee Kuan Yew was a Marxist.

 

[MarquizdeGuillotin]

Individualism itself can be destabilising, and it can produce apathy, apoliticalness, and inaction as it does today in the modern polity. Collectivism, although I prefer communitarianism, incites people towards active participation in the affairs of the state, it incites them to civic virtue, and it creates greater cohesion and cooperation amongst the people that inhabit a state.

What is the state of the modern person? He languishes in isolation, he lives in alienation from his fellow people, being so petty-mindedly concerned with what concerns him only, he neglects the well-being of his community and of humanity as well.

Moreover, this individuality gives birth to a toxic amour-propre in people's hearts, a great paradox; although they seek to magnify and exert their individuality, their individuality is only dependent on what others perceive of them and on the recognition of the others, and since they are unable to get people to perceive them and recognise them as they would want, they burn in the passions of rage, jealousy, and hatred. Although they have greater individuality, they are also fragmented, isolated, and alienated from a wider community.

Humans are a social animal, to give more favour to individualism is harmful for the health of the species, in my opinion.

 

[bobby_]

Individualism itself can be destabilising, and it can produce apathy, apoliticalness, and inaction as it does today in the modern polity. Collectivism, although I prefer communitarianism, incites people towards active participation in the affairs of the state, it incites them to civic virtue, and it creates greater cohesion and cooperation amongst the people that inhabit a state.

What is the state of the modern person? He languishes in isolation, he lives in alienation from his fellow people, being so petty-mindedly concerned with what concerns him only, he neglects the well-being of his community and of humanity as well.

Moreover, this individuality gives birth to a toxic amour-propre in people's hearts, a great paradox; although they seek to magnify and exert their individuality, their individuality is only dependent on what others perceive of them and on the recognition of the others, and since they are unable to get people to perceive them and recognise them as they would want, they burn in the passions of rage, jealousy, and hatred. Although they have greater individuality, they are also fragmented, isolated, and alienated from a wider community.

Humans are a social animal, to give more favour to individualism is harmful for the health of the species, in my opinion.

Wow. What a poetic manner of thought-provoking criticism. Just kidding.

Collectivism, although I prefer communitarianism, incites people towards active participation in the affairs of the state, it incites them to civic virtue, and it creates greater cohesion and cooperation amongst the people that inhabit a state.

Communitarianism is in favor of state regulation and ownership. It, evidently, could result in totalitarian collectivism. If individualism is limited or abolished, communitarianism may succeed. This ideology only creates cohesion and cooperation amongst the people that inhabit a state in a form of authoritarianism.

Humans are a social animal, to give more favour to individualism is harmful for the health of the species, in my opinion.

Respecting each person's rights, giving them complete autonomy, and refraining from meddling in their affairs are the core principles of individualism. People have the freedom to contribute to society both individually and collectively through individualism. People only have the option to work collectively under collectivism. Collectivism can be useful in certain circumstances, but in my opinion, encouraging this practice more thoroughly could lead to severe harm to the well-being of the human race. People's individual freedom could be limited or abolished by an excessive degree of collectivism.

 

[Trench-]

Wow. What a poetic manner of thought-provoking criticism. Just kidding.

Communitarianism is in favor of state regulation and ownership. It, evidently, could result in totalitarian collectivism. If individualism is limited or abolished, communitarianism may succeed. This ideology only creates cohesion and cooperation amongst the people that inhabit a state in a form of authoritarianism.

Respecting each person's rights, giving them complete autonomy, and refraining from meddling in their affairs are the core principles of individualism. People have the freedom to contribute to society both individually and collectively through individualism. People only have the option to work collectively under collectivism. Collectivism can be useful in certain circumstances, but in my opinion, encouraging this practice more thoroughly could lead to severe harm to the well-being of the human race. People's individual freedom could be limited or abolished by an excessive degree of collectivism.

Okay but is Bobby your actual name, is it Bobby in reality?

I just find the name bobby humorous.

 

[MarquizdeGuillotin]

Ok.

 

[bobby_]

Okay but is Bobby your actual name

Yes. Robert is my given name, but I go by Bobby.

 

[Trench-]

Yes. Robert is my given name, but I go by Bobby.

ROBERTTTTTTTTTT



BOBBYYY


Bobby, describe what you do on a typical friday night man?

 

[bobby_]

Bobby, describe what you do on a typical friday night man?

Could you please stop with your irrelevant questions? It may cause this thread to be blocked.

 

[Trench-]

Could you please stop with your irrelevant questions? It may cause this thread to be blocked.

It wouldn't be blocked unless it contains inappropriate statements or rule breaking. But I will respect you.

 

[bobby_]

It wouldn't be blocked unless it contains inappropriate statements or rule breaking. But I will respect you.

Thanks. I'd be glad to discuss the main topic of this thread with you. If you're up for it, of course.