Traditional Japanese culture is collectivist. Naturally when they come across something that opposes their traditions and culture like communism, they label it as individualistic. I've seen right wing Japanese people even today who label communism and socialism as individualistic
probably means liberal values of equality, natural rights etc
when taking to extreme, you get socialism and communism where everyone is supposed to be absolute equal and everyone gets everything - but to do so in practice it leads to totalitarianism to enforce the ideology
Think of it in terms of how socialism and communism, though collectivist, overwhelmingly emphasize the state as the most important entity for individuals to organize their lives around, to the exclusion of family, church, or any other traditional institution.
Juxtapose the title(s) of Houllebecq's novel on this topic: The Elementary Particles (or Atomized for some translations/printings). It's 'about individuals' insofar as it breaks down all other 'bonds' between people (hence the chemistry metaphor) to create the ideal horde of atomized goyslop gobblers.
'Individualism', by which you mean liberalism-libertarianism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. Sociopolitical, non-economic equality is sufficient.
(Marxist) 'socialism'/communism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. However, 'individualism' does not realize true freedom if Man is still enslaved to basic needs; additionally, any reasonable understanding of equality cannot be restricted to the sociopolitical. It must be extended to the economic. Economic equality is thus required for true freedom and equality to be realized in the world.
The only differences between you and them are economic and trivial, you blithering idiot. You're a liberal stuck in the nineteenth century, just like most of the other users here. You simply argue with the Left over implementations and interpretations of the very same ideals and values that they hold. If you just accepted the last 150-200 years of liberalism wholeheartedly, without putting up some arbitrary, nonsensical boundaries, you'd be a guaranteed Democrat voter: practically all Americans who do not vote Democrat are simply Democrats with some minor reservations here and there—'I like gays, but... trannies are one step too far'—your beloved Trump being a prime example.
... What.
Socialism and communism are literally the opposite of individualism.
I'd need to read the original Japanese (which I can't do at that level) or something, because it sounds retarded.
Traditional Japanese culture is collectivist. Naturally when they come across something that opposes their traditions and culture like communism, they label it as individualistic. I've seen right wing Japanese people even today who label communism and socialism as individualistic
I think what they really mean are 'humanistic' and 'materialistic', from a western understanding of the terms. .
Also because socialism originated as an extrapolation of liberal reasoning.
probably means liberal values of equality, natural rights etc when taking to extreme, you get socialism and communism where everyone is supposed to be absolute equal and everyone gets everything - but to do so in practice it leads to totalitarianism to enforce the ideology
Think of it in terms of how socialism and communism, though collectivist, overwhelmingly emphasize the state as the most important entity for individuals to organize their lives around, to the exclusion of family, church, or any other traditional institution.
Juxtapose the title(s) of Houllebecq's novel on this topic: The Elementary Particles (or Atomized for some translations/printings). It's 'about individuals' insofar as it breaks down all other 'bonds' between people (hence the chemistry metaphor) to create the ideal horde of atomized goyslop gobblers.
I think that's what it is. Communism destroys actual communities and atomizes people. Hence you can call communism as individualistic.
Then what about Socialism, which is basically voluntarily pooling resources towards some common goal?
sooo like a religion? you could call religion as "socialist" if you define socialism as "voluntarily pooling resources towards some common goal"
I don't see how you can use socialism and voluntary together in the same sentence.
Yeah. They emphasize the state. Aka the collective
It makes no sense. we need to copy and paste the original into chatgpt or something
'Individualism', by which you mean liberalism-libertarianism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. Sociopolitical, non-economic equality is sufficient.
(Marxist) 'socialism'/communism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. However, 'individualism' does not realize true freedom if Man is still enslaved to basic needs; additionally, any reasonable understanding of equality cannot be restricted to the sociopolitical. It must be extended to the economic. Economic equality is thus required for true freedom and equality to be realized in the world.
The only differences between you and them are economic and trivial, you blithering idiot. You're a liberal stuck in the nineteenth century, just like most of the other users here. You simply argue with the Left over implementations and interpretations of the very same ideals and values that they hold. If you just accepted the last 150-200 years of liberalism wholeheartedly, without putting up some arbitrary, nonsensical boundaries, you'd be a guaranteed Democrat voter: practically all Americans who do not vote Democrat are simply Democrats with some minor reservations here and there—'I like gays, but... trannies are one step too far'—your beloved Trump being a prime example.