|This is not a forum for general discussion about Collectivism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Collectivism at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
First sentence: interdependence and scope
I'm having a real problem with the tail end of the first sentence in this article: "Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being." The interdependence of individuals may be a common reason for holding collectivist views, but it is not the best description of what collectivism is. It seems more direct and accurate to retreat to language of the Merriam-Webster definition discussed here previously, roughly: "...that emphasizes the importance of the collective and tends to analyze issues in those terms." I think the "every human being" wording could also be improved. Collectivism has no intrinsic scope; all collectivism is not about a universal collective. This just goes to show that interdependence is a red herring that is leading the description astray.
As well the list of possible outlook types is getting a bit long, accurate though it may be. I would prefer this for an initial sentence: "Collectivism is any system of thought that emphasizes groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—over individuals."
The second sentence: " Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and in some cases stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an ingroup, in whichever specific context it is defined)." is rhetorical nonsense. What is "reverse" other then a vague and useless metaphor? Collectivism contradicts individualism by placing group decisions over individual authority. The essential nature of collectivism vs. individualism is that they are mutually exclusive, for any particular issue. We may have collective use of the earth, but still have individual control of our labors. With two different issues they can both apply, but not for a single issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
USSR and collectivism
How can USSR or the other stalinist states be described as "collectivist" when they were ruled by regimes and crime families unaccountable to and unalterable by the vast majority. These states could be better desrcribed as extreme individualist, sacrificing the rights of all individuals for the privileges of the concentrated few.
- Official ideology of the Soviet Union, as expressed for example by Andrey Vyshinsky, preferred rights of abstract and vaguely defined working class over the rights of individual citizens. This is perfect example of a collectivist ideology. Kravietz (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I put for the suggestion that Collectivism is society working together without a central government. The statement "which in practical terms is the government." should be removed as it does not represent collectivism which is a form of people working together without centralized control. Government is a centralized control mechanism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government "a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective "A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together to achieve a common objective. Collectives differ from cooperatives in that they are not necessarily focused upon an economic benefit or saving, but can be that as well."
What is actually non-Collectivist?
All organizations and especially states are necessarily collectivist to some extent. They prefer the existence and interest of the whole organisaton over some rights/interest an individual may have. Even a very liberal state subscribed to individual rights would have to do so. They may feign adherence, but in the end they would engage in "collectivist" action, when their interest/existence is at stake. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Grigoriadis's comment on this article
Dr. Grigoriadis has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The analogy proposed by Greif (1994) distinguishes symmetrically between individualist economic systems and developed economies, on the one hand, and collectivist economic systems and developing economies, on the other. It suggests that cultural values matter for economic development and state capacity.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Grigoriadis has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
- Reference : Grigoriadis, Theocharis, 2013. "Religious origins of democracies and dictatorships," Discussion Papers 2013/16, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.