Comment: Ditto: but, the proper terms of distinction should be between

(See in situ)

Ditto: but, the proper terms of distinction should be between

collectivISM vs. voluntary collectIVE.

When it comes to these things, defining the terms properly, should be the first order of things. Then, its practically accepted usage, be it right or bastardized form of its original definition, etc.

To wit:

A "collectIVE" is just a group of individuals with shared values. But the term itself is wholly neutral: it doesn't dictate forcibly enforceable 'group values.' It's wholly voluntary.

For instance: the R3VOLution is a collective, in a broad sense. But is there some R3VOL dictator or committee that hands out membership card or force a 'council of R3VOL Elders' dictates?


On the other hand, "collectivISM"/"collectivIST" is defined as having a group of individuals (ie, a collective), whom, INTERDEPENDENTLY stick together for the sake of perceived common values where the harmony of the group supersedes the needs of any one individual within that group.

But, in reality, a collective based on collectivISM in its manifestation can only exist to equalize everyone's 'rights' forcibly, and assumes that the arbitrary group 'values' are more important than the individual. Worse, politically it means exerting the collective will (majority vote mob rule) not only over their particular collective, but over other collectives as well as individuals who don't share their values, nor may even want to be in their group.

So, yes: you CAN have a voluntary collective.

But, as soon as that collective chooses to exercise power while rationalizing 'it's for the greater good,' and that their collective by default, due to the perceived nature of the values that the 'group' hold, each member of that group derives certain power or more powers than those outside of their group, worse exert said perceived powers over others?

Then, that collective just became collectivists.

So to be simple, yes, you CAN have a voluntary collective, because it just means a group of individuals who share similar values or traits, got together to do something together, voluntarily.

But, no: in the political vernacular sense, as defined, "collectivism" CANNOT be "voluntary" in the strict definitional sense, because that 'philosophical' belief system assumes that it has "group rights," and that one derives certain 'right' simply by the virtue of being a member of that group.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul