Would hive-mind collectivism benefit society?

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 60
#31
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
I didn't ask you "does socialism work?". I asked you "how does socialism result in hive-mind collectivism". 

Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're not answering my question. Open to either. 
#32
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Username
It doesn't...But Mr F makes great lemonade.
#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
The bit about ALL members of society... collectively. They are taught/forced into a collective. Funny thing, that's descriptive of unions, isn't it. Everybody paid the same as an hourly wage regardless of their actual capability, but in tiers. Some tasks are worth more than others, but individual worth, capability, and ambition be damned. None of it is recognized. And not one of them [actually, maybe a couple can in an environment like that, can calculate their own productive worth], but in a union, they surrender their own ability to negotiate their worth to an employer to some idiot with an agenda of his own. Why shouldn't people just be taught to know their own worth and negotiate themselves? Socialism does not even allow such an individual act. When I was in the corporate world 25 years ago, I taught my employees how to calculate their productivity and, thus, what their payment was worth. Made my job of assessment interviews a lot easier, too. I just asked for their calculation and how they arrived at it, and thus what they thought their raise should be. mostly, they low-balled, at first. I had to increase their raise in many cases, and was glad to do it. I knew my budget and what I could do for them if it was deserved. Socialism would never, ever do that. They want to keep people thinking the same. A hive mentality.
#34
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
The bit about ALL members of society... collectively. 
Right, referring to capitalism. 

Why shouldn't people just be taught to know their own worth and negotiate themselves? Socialism does not even allow such an individual act.
I'm a bit confused. Which part of socialism prevents negotiating for higher wages?
#35
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Socialism would never, ever do that. They want to keep people thinking the same. A hive mentality.
Do artists, intellectuals, personal freedoms, etc. cease to exist under socialism? 
#36
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
Get this straight: Marx is claiming that in order for capitalism to work, every member of society must participate, but he is WRONG. Haven't I said that enough? Capitalism is an individual effort. It is, ultimately many individuals, but the point is, while people who invest some of what they earn, they are participating in the fruits of capitalism, but if your work, earn a wage, but do not invest any of it, you're not really participating. You're working for money, only, instead of putting money to work for you. There's the distinction of capitalism that socialism never understands is essential for individual success. But socialism does not care about individual success. Socialism expects that the money supply is a finite resource. Capitalism knows that the money supply has no ceiling. Obama, a socialist, was dead wrong saying "There comes a time wen you have earned enough money." If he really believed that, why isn't he back in Chicago, organizing the streets like he promised on the afternoon of 1/20/19 on the tarmac leaving D.C. Funny. He went to CA instead, then bought a home on Martha's Vineyard. He could care less about Chicago, but that's not what he told you
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
Artists, intellectuals, under socialism are strangled, unless they express the party line. Russia once had a brilliant cultural, artistic stamp of the society of Europe until Lenin and Stalin screwed it all with their "revolution" that crumbled within 70 years. Their artists, writers, intellectuals were tortured unless they played along. It will happen hear if the likes of Bernie, AOC and the Squid get their way. No, soc/com does NOT support individual freedom. That is, to soc/coms, a big joke.
#38
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Haven't I said that enough? 
You haven't made your point. I keep asking you how Marxism is collectivist, and you keep talking about Marx's critiques of a system he opposes. 

But socialism does not care about individual success. 
Not a good way to put it. The Marxist view is that the "individual success" existing under capitalism necessarily exploits and alienates its workers. You can dispute the truth of that if you want, but it's not like Marxists just have some collectivist hatred for people being themselves. 

Obama, a socialist,
Ah yes, I remember when Obama democratized the workplace and abolished traditional private business 
#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
I'll give you an example. In a paper AOC published [www.gp.org.webarchive] before introduction of the Green New Deal as a resolution to Congress https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text

one of the supporting ideas of the GND is an item called "participatory budgeting," by which the government would establish a commission in oversight of private industry to "assist" private industry in organizing their annual budgets. Government participation in private industry budgeting? Really???? What do you think that leads to?  It is o longer private industry.
#40
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Artists, intellectuals, under socialism are strangled, unless they express the party line. Russia once had a brilliant cultural, artistic stamp of the society of Europe until Lenin and Stalin screwed it all with their "revolution" that crumbled within 70 years. Their artists, writers, intellectuals were tortured unless they played along. It will happen hear if the likes of Bernie, AOC and the Squid get their way. No, soc/com does NOT support individual freedom. That is, to soc/coms, a big joke.

Feudal Russia was a hellhole where 90% of the non-elite population was treated as subhuman and Jews were regularly attacked. If you think that a large-scale revolution that comes out of a country like that is going to respect human rights, I don't know what to tell you. 

And no, the Russian Empire didn't respect culture and art. Look what happened to Dostoyevsky. 
#41
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
one of the supporting ideas of the GND is an item called "participatory budgeting," by which the government would establish a commission in oversight of private industry to "assist" private industry in organizing their annual budgets. Government participation in private industry budgeting? Really???? What do you think that leads to?  It is o longer private industry.

I don't know? I'm not familiar with the practice of private industry budgeting. Definitely not totalitarianism lmao
#42
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
Marx bloody well !@$@#!#%~#!$~%~%^%%^ does not understand what he opposed and misrepresented it. Did you read my posts 29, 33, 36? Read them again. Marx says capitalism is "this," but he gets it completely bloody wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET IT? He is not describing capitalism, he is describing soc/com and calling it capitalism. He is showing you a puppy, while keeping the rattlesnake behind his back, because he knows if you see the rattlesnake before he allows it to bite you, you will know him for what he is. A rattlesnake.

Oba'a, in his 2008 campaign, told us he would "fundamentally change America." What is fundamental to America? THE CONSTITUTION. What of that needs to change? Not a bloody thing. It has worked for 230 years. How long has any system advocated by Marx lasted. USSR: about 70 years. The average, about 40 years. I've told you that, already. Do you get it, yet? 
#43
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
So communism is just capitalism with the collective action of all members of society setting capital in motion? lol

And Marxists didn't believe in setting capital "in motion." they believed in abolishing it. 

Seems like you're more interested in arguing against socialism than establishing it as a system that advocates for hive-mind collectivism. 
#44
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
I'm not familiar with the practice of private industry budgeting
Private industry budgeting, in a nutshell, accrues it's fiscal year end net profit, it's available bank credit, it's available year-end inventory value as a gage of expected future sales, and it's raw material inventory value, and, finally, in-process material inventory, and effectively asks: How do we best allocate these values to accommodate our expected expenses next year and arrive at next fiscal year end with another net profit we can use for the following year, and so on. That's very simplistic, but it's not much different than your looking at what money you have coming in next month, and what your expense obligations are next month, and will you end next month with money still in your pocket for the next month after that. The difference with "participatory budgeting" is that Uncle Sam rings your doorbell and tells you what you will do with your money. Participation my ass. That's nice-speak for "your money is really mine; I'll handle it for you, thanks.." And that, my friend, is soc/com.
#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
So communism is just capitalism with the collective action of all members of society setting capital in motion? lol

And Marxists didn't believe in setting capital "in motion." they believed in abolishing it. 

Seems like you're more interested in arguing against socialism than establishing it as a system that advocates for hive-mind collectivism. 
You're kidding, right?

No, and I will not describe it again. If yu don't get by now, it's never going to hit you over the head.

No, Marxists do not believe in abolishing capital, the believe in using it. What they fail to understand is how to make it go to work for them, They are just like the guy who works for money, but has no idea how to put it to work for him, so that, as he spends money, he has not created a replenishing supply, because his spending habits seem to always exceed what he earns working  for it, and is therefore constantly in debt. And when the money's gone, and he has not created a separate continuous revenue stream in addition to what he works for [and he may lose that job, yeah?], he runs out of money. That's soc/com, because soc/coms do not know how to create a continuous revenue stream, they just use other peoples' money.

No, because hive-mind is soc/com. Look, when you convince society that they should all earn the same, work the same, think the same. and act the same, you have created a hive-mind with no individual earning, working. thinking, acting at all. Soc/com's greatest enemy is the individual who earns/works/thinks/acts by his own wits, his own experience, his own self-generated ambition and accomplishment.
#46
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw
Marxists define capital as “a social, economic relation” between people (rather than between people and things). In this sense they seek to abolish capital.

16.1C: The Marxist Critique of Capitalism - Social Sci LibreTexts. Even if you're right, common ownership of capital during some sort of transitionary stage isn't hive-mind collectivism. 

they just use other peoples' money.
The statement here is reliant on the assumption that Marxists believe that capitalism is a legitimate transfer of wealth and property insofar as money that people legally own actually fairly belongs to them. This assumption is false. 


No, because hive-mind is soc/com. Look, when you convince society that they should all earn the same, work the same, think the same. and act the same, you have created a hive-mind with no individual earning, working. thinking, acting at all. Soc/com's greatest enemy is the individual who earns/works/thinks/acts by his own wits, his own experience, his own self-generated ambition and accomplishment.
[citation needed]

No, and I will not describe it again. If yu don't get by now, it's never going to hit you over the head.

I'd actually prefer that you don't describe it again because it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about. 
#47
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Thanks for your 16.1C reference. I wish you would read it.. It appears you criticism of me. is shared. Wear it well.

Read through your 6 key points, particularly the 1st [and note that while capitalism has endured in America for 400 years = before America was America], socilaism has neve succeed beyond 70 years. And the 6th, regarding revolution, and the4n read the definition of revolution under key terms, and then tell me why an economic system that begins with revolution [and recall I just said capitalism has thrived in America for 400 years, while our revolution was 156 years following the first settlements, and still thrives] and socialism always has begun and ends by revolution. Oops. Yes, I know what I'm talking about.
#48
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@fauxlaw

Read through your 6 key points, particularly the 1st [and note that while capitalism has endured in America for 400 years = before America was America], socilaism has neve succeed beyond 70 years. And the 6th, regarding revolution, and the4n read the definition of revolution under key terms, and then tell me why an economic system that begins with revolution [and recall I just said capitalism has thrived in America for 400 years, while our revolution was 156 years following the first settlements, and still thrives] and socialism always has begun and ends by revolution. Oops. Yes, I know what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with hive-mind collectivism? 
#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Username
Look it up. I'm not your tutor.

631 days later

#50
redbeard83
redbeard83's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1
0
0
0
redbeard83's avatar
redbeard83
0
0
0
I suppose it depends on how hive mind would be defined.
If all humanity shares one consciousness with no individuality, it would be doubtful there would be any independent thought, and would probably result in no artistic expression. To me, that is what makes humanity what it is. Without that, there is only survival and procreation, without much need for evolutionary steps. 

Now, if all humanity had individual thoughts that were shared, and most importantly, understood by all, in a hive mind capacity, I do think it would benefit. That is to say, everyone can know what everyone else knows, there are no secrets, no subterfuge, no desire to out-do, just a desire to improve humanity, then yes, it would be. 

#51
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think it is beneficial. The entire society is rid of conflict because everyone is in harmony, does anyone oppose to this idea?
We just saw the end of the Queen in a hive minded collectivism called the Monarchy. It worked well for the Monarchy.

#52
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
A Zedku for Shila.

Hive mind.

Head down

Tap Tap Tap.

What mind are you hiving?
#53
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Atheists love the idea of everyone being like robots.
#54
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Atheists love the idea of everyone being like robots.
Unlike some religions who want people to submit and conform to what is perceived to be the word of God.
#55
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @Shila
A Zedku for Shila.

Hive mind.

Head down

Tap Tap Tap.

What mind are you hiving?
Commonwealth!!

#56
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Elliott
Well what's the point of being in a religion and not worshipping a god? Duh.
#57
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
--> @Polytheist-Witch
Atheists love the idea of everyone being like robots.
Unlike some religions who want people to submit and conform to what is perceived to be the word of God.
Religions also offer you a choice….which god you wish to follow.

#58
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
No one cares about your spam posting,  atheist.
#59
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @Shila
Polytheist _Witch: No one cares about your spam posting,  atheist
If so then Why are you reply to my posts?
#60
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,084
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Poly

What's the point of being in a religion and worshipping an imaginary GOD?

It makes you feel better I suppose.

Whereas I can manage quite well without.


But what does religion make you feel better than?

Wherein lies your need for fantasy escapism?