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.
The crux of the distinction for me is that on the one hand, functional religions are informed by all the centuries of organic wisdom and tradition built up by a people, whereas socialism is a set of abstract, pie-in-the-sky utopian ideals that conceptualizes all humans as identical in their fundamental nature and malleable in their behavior.
To be fair: the people who came up with those ideals understandably did not foresee them being applied to rationalize things like urinating on each other at pride parades to own the Christians.
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"
The crux of the distinction for me is that on the one hand, functional religions are informed by all the centuries of organic wisdom and tradition built up by a people, whereas socialism is a set of abstract, pie-in-the-sky utopian ideals that conceptualizes all humans as identical in their fundamental nature and malleable in their behavior.
To be fair: the people who came up with those ideals understandably did not foresee them being applied to rationalize things like urinating on each other at pride parades to own the Christians.
I don't see how you can use socialism and voluntary together in the same sentence.
Yeah. They emphasize the state. Aka the collective