: : Interesting I've heard the whole Somalia thing raised as "do you want socialism? Because this is what it is!" elsewhere but anyway I was interested in what you where saying about possessive individualism.
: SDF: It's really difficult for me to imagine a situation of competing warlords, no government, and perpetual theft amidst the starvation of the masses as having anything to do with socialism.
Well me too but some conservatives think that this anarchic violence is the only alternative to the bolstering of elites.
: : Take facism it is merely a system that extends competition to every aspect of human existance (as opposed to limiting it to the economy) and identifies competition as primarily to do with strength (well that's what it's about isnt it)like race, nation etc.
: SDF: In his book "Fascism" (doubtless cribbed from Giovanni Gentile, but whatever), Benito Mussolini defines fascism as a system wherein the individual must "submit or be conquered" to all higher forms of social organization, the family, the church, the business, the town, the nation-state. So Fascism was a form of collectivism, as sure as Mussolini was a former member of the Italian Socialist Party.
That is in it's classic sense that isnt going to go down a storm with the KKK or any of the Libertarian Facist/Anarcho-nazi's now will it?
I suppose you would mind the viciously free market if you where guaranteed a black, or other hated category, slave to work for you.
: SDF: The problem at hand is in creating a form of collectivism that will benefit everyone and not merely require a power struggle to decide who will benefit from the labor of whom.
True enough but collectivism is only of value where it:
1)Combats elitism and Machavalian government.
2)Assists the struggle against oppression regardless of the author or victim.
3)Encourages a positive humanism, where autonomy of the individual is fully reconciled with empathic understanding of your neighbours, and hostility to militarism or the like.