# Vertical & Horizontal + Collectivism & Individualism and Socionics



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

These aren't precise definitions, but they should give you a good idea on what horizontal and vertical mean in the context of sociology.



Horizontal individualist (HI) people want to be unique and self-reliant, but they are not especially interested in becoming distinguished or having high status.
Vertical individualist (VI) people try to compete with others for distinction and status.
Horizontal collectivist (HC) people perceive themselves as an aspect of in-group and emphasize common goals with others, and
Vertical collectivist (VC) people sacrifice their personal goals for the sake of in-group goals, but the members of the in-group are different from each other, some having more status than others

(source: Individualist and collectivist orientations across occupational groups.)

I'm thinking, within socionics, democratic = individualism and aristocratic = collectivism. Fe-valuing = horizontal and Fi-valuing = vertical

So that would make:



Alpha: Horizontal Individualism
Beta: Horizontal Collectivism
Gamma: Vertical Individualism
Delta: Vertical Collectivism



Thoughts? How would you equate the the Reinin dichotomy and types of ethics to vertical-horizontal and collectivist-individualist dichotomies? If at all.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

I would make the parallel vertical=Se and horizontal=Si.

The thing about Beta is that cooperation requires sacrifices (Se valuing) so members within groups are still seen as individuals due to the effort that it requires for everyone to put aside their differences for a common cause.

A frequent misconception that I see about Beta in this regard is the idea that Betas will browbeat anyone that is independent, but that is far from the truth. The true reason is that a collective effort requires the participation of everyone and if someone thinks that they doesn't need to make sacrifices (which Betas feels that they must do in cooperation due to their own will and desire with Se) then that individual will be seen as a burden to the rest of the group. Think about it in a sort of all-or-nothing way of thinking regarding cooperation, either we do it and everyone participates, or we don't and everyone can do what they want, but trying to find a compromise in the middle is just not worth the effort as I will have to make sacrifices even when it's with fence-sitters. The revolution doesn't take place without collective motivation.


----------



## vosquoque (Jul 26, 2012)

Yeah, vertical collectivism fits better for Beta types and their revolting revolutionary bent.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Reinin's traits is not a normal Socionics and is not even close to Jungian typology.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> These aren't precise definitions, but they should give you a good idea on what horizontal and vertical mean in the context of sociology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It sounds accurate for overall quadra perceptions on group dynamics if each quadra were to operate in a vacuum. Not so sure about how the dichotomies would affect it but I'd be inclined to say not at all.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Oh, here's a thought. For the democratic quadras, movement along the horizontal and vertical spectrum is discrete and can be fairly rapid in a circle of dynamics. For statics once a certain impression has set in then a notable change needs to occur before that perception is altered. 

Interesting and it agrees with what I've observed. 

Also, rather than use the term "collectivist" for the aristocratic quadras I think "collaborative" is a better suited term.

Anyways, Vertical Collaborative seems good to me.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

considering that communism is beta and imperialism is delta I think the original version is right

communism -- horizontal -- beta
imperialism very much vertical -- delta


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> considering that communism is beta and imperialism is delta I think the original version is right
> 
> communism -- horizontal -- beta
> imperialism very much vertical -- delta


That's overly categorical, don't you think? Especially considering Betas as disparate a group to hold a wide variety of ideologies and not all Deltas are expansionists. I like the original term simply collectivist (I prefer collaborative) better.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

No. I'm HI according to this but Amaterasu is VI. Same quadra, duals.

I think this overlaps too much with say, enneagram motivations and instincts to be fully accurate.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@ThatOneWeirdGuy
so, in other words, if we used countries as examples
Horizontal Individualism: England
Horizontal Collectivism: Western Europe
Vertical Individualism: The United States
Vertical Collectivism: Japan


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Inguz said:


> I would make the parallel vertical=Se and horizontal=Si.
> The thing about Beta is that cooperation requires sacrifices (Se valuing) so members within groups are still seen as individuals due to the effort that it requires for everyone to put aside their differences for a common cause.
> A frequent misconception that I see about Beta in this regard is the idea that Betas will browbeat anyone that is independent, but that is far from the truth. The true reason is that a collective effort requires the participation of everyone and if someone thinks that they doesn't need to make sacrifices (which Betas feels that they must do in cooperation due to their own will and desire with Se) then that individual will be seen as a burden to the rest of the group. Think about it in a sort of all-or-nothing way of thinking regarding cooperation, either we do it and everyone participates, or we don't and everyone can do what they want, but trying to find a compromise in the middle is just not worth the effort as I will have to make sacrifices even when it's with fence-sitters. The revolution doesn't take place without collective motivation.


and yet you think I'm a Beta? that doesn't sound like me at all XD


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> and yet you think I'm a Beta? that doesn't sound like me at all XD


This is like beta in a nutshell lol: 






Stereotype and exaggerated, but oh so fucking beta NF in particular. EIE mostly. Notice the conflict with Rei, the gamma SF type. I think she's SEE? Saeko ILI I'm quite sure. Could never place Komuro but he seems Se-valuing. 

Anyway, as much as I understand that beta prefers collectivism and tries to invite all individuals, this is also why beta aristocracy can be dividing if people do not adhere to said collective values. Se just draws more of a hardline here I think.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @ThatOneWeirdGuy
> so, in other words, if we used countries as examples
> Horizontal Individualism: England
> Horizontal Collectivism: Western Europe
> ...


Funny you say that, because when I was researching this I found a sociologist who said America was vertical collectivist. 

I also don't see how those countries correlate to those classifications. Is it in reference to the governments? The culture?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Funny you say that, because when I was researching this I found a sociologist who said America was vertical collectivist.


makes sense. I don't think America is as individualist as it is claimed to be



> I also don't see how those countries correlate to those classifications. Is it in reference to the governments? The culture?


culture


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> makes sense. I don't think America is as individualist as it is claimed to be


You may have a point for American corporate culture but outside of corporate America stressing individualism is pretty much the norm.

Also, I really doubt SEE for you. EIE makes much more sense.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MNiS said:


> You may have a point for American corporate culture but outside of corporate America stressing individualism is pretty much the norm.
> 
> Also, I really doubt SEE for you. EIE makes much more sense.


Huh, why? SoM seems so Se-Fi to me. o:


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Nonsense said:


> Huh, why? SoM seems so Se-Fi to me. o:


I had a brief conversation with @_Swordsman of Mana_ and it began with stating status in a joking manner. I don't think he was being serious...or maybe he was, but the fact that the conversation even went there points to Beta aristocracy, namely Beta Fe-Ti which includes Se-Ni.

I mean, I could be wrong and he really might be an SEE but that's just what seemed immediately clear to me.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I had a brief conversation with @ _Swordsman of Mana_ and it began with stating status in a joking manner. I don't think he was being serious...or maybe he was, but the fact that the conversation even went there points to Beta aristocracy, namely Beta Fe-Ti which includes Se-Ni.


Ahh, I see. I think that could be him being a type 7 though. I don't know. x3


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Nonsense said:


> Ahh, I see. I think that could be him being a type 7 though. I don't know. x3


Socionics is completely independent of the Enneagram although I would think that would be more of a 3 quality than 7 but that's beside the point.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Socionics would be completely independent of the Enneagram. Besides I would think that would be more of a 3 quality than 7.


Still, both enneagram and socionics is likely to affect a personality, don't you think?

As for 3 being more likely to do that... I don't know, I can see both doing it, but a 3 might try to be more subtle because they take their image more seriously. If that makes sense. Of course, I'm neither a 7 or a 3, so. =P


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Nonsense said:


> Still, both enneagram and socionics is likely to affect a personality, don't you think?


The enneagram would have no bearing on affecting a person's type and for the most part they're mutually exclusive. I guess the best way to relate the enneagram to socionics would be to say that it adds much more variation within a single type; much like how subtypes and DCNH offer more diversity within a single type.



> As for 3 being more likely to do that... I don't know, I can see both doing it, but a 3 might try to be more subtle because they take their image more seriously. If that makes sense. Of course, I'm neither a 7 or a 3, so. =P


Psst. The Enneagram subforum is thata' way: --->

:wink:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

MNiS said:


> You may have a point for American corporate culture but outside of corporate America stressing individualism is pretty much the norm.
> Also, I really doubt SEE for you. EIE makes much more sense.


I can't see myself as collectivist in any sense of the word, or is that not what it's about.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I can't see myself as collectivist in any sense of the word, or is that not what it's about.


I meant EIE/ENFj being your type whether you see yourself as a collectivist or not without one implying the other.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

MNiS said:


> I meant EIE/ENFj being your type whether you see yourself as a collectivist or not without one implying the other.


I don't quite get what you mean. could you rephrase that XD


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MNiS said:


> The enneagram would have no bearing on affecting a person's type and for the most part they're mutually exclusive. I guess the best way to relate the enneagram to socionics would be to say that it adds much more variation within a single type; much like how subtypes and DCNH offer more diversity within a single type.


...If you say so.



> Psst. The Enneagram subforum is thata' way: --->


Well, I mentioned it because it seemed relevant enough.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

MNiS said:


> I had a brief conversation with @_Swordsman of Mana_ and it began with stating status in a joking manner. I don't think he was being serious...or maybe he was, but the fact that the conversation even went there points to Beta aristocracy, namely Beta Fe-Ti which includes Se-Ni.
> 
> I mean, I could be wrong and he really might be an SEE but that's just what seemed immediately clear to me.


You need to meet my girlfriend then. She loves having social status. I have no doubt in my mind that she's an SEE after all this time knowing her. Social status, prestige and gain is an Se thing, not uniquely beta thing. Our very first PM exchange here on PerC was me pretending being some aristocratic upper class guy speaking in Victorian-esque manner (greetings, m'lady) and her responding accordingly. This kind of social exchange is just Se-Ni. It's a part of the power dynamic that Se types enjoy. Watch the video I linked. That's how aristocracy looks like in the beta quadra, especially in the EIE. 

SoM also always came across as a gamma to me and I gave him a lot of reasons in the past as to why he's a gamma SF.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Horizontal Individualist LSI~.

Take that Vertical Collectivist Betas.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I don't quite get what you mean. could you rephrase that XD


I think your socionics type is EIE not SEE. An EIE is Beta which is an aristocratic quadra but not necessarily collectivist in the socio-political sense. Betas tend to be about group identification and how the qualities of the group can be a pretty good indication of the person's view on particular topics. Think high school social groups.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

MNiS said:


> I think your socionics type is EIE not SEE. An EIE is Beta which is an aristocratic quadra but not necessarily collectivist in the socio-political sense.


ok, that's what I was looking for



> Betas tend to be about group identification and how the qualities of the group can be a pretty good indication of the person's view on particular topics. Think high school social groups.


this doesn't sound like me.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> and yet you think I'm a Beta? that doesn't sound like me at all XD


Butthurt?



ephemereality said:


> This is like beta in a nutshell lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LIE from the video?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Inguz said:


> Butthurt?


not really, it just doesn't sound like me


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm going to correlate this (very loosely) with Enneagram and Instincts just for fun XD

Horizontal Individualism: 7, 4
Horizontal Collectivism: 2, 9
Vertical Individualism: 3, 8
Vertical Collectivism: 1

Horizontal Individualism: Sx/Sp
Horizontal Collectivism: So/Sx, Sx/So
Vertical Individualism: So/Sp, Sp/Sx
Vertical Collectivism: Sp/So


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> Butthurt?
> 
> 
> 
> LIE from the video?


There is no lie in that video. Can't you even recognize the difference between te and fe base? Nothing te about shido. Just compare to takagi. Now she's te base (lse).

If you want an extremely archetype lie example there's the architect from the matrix.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> There is no lie in that video. Can't you even recognize the difference between te and fe base? Nothing te about shido. Just compare to takagi. Now she's te base (lse).
> 
> If you want an extremely archetype lie example there's the architect from the matrix.


I have never seen whatever show that was except from that short clip you posted.

One anime LIE that I know of is Giovanni in Pokémon. That's about as far as my anime knowledge goes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> I have never seen whatever show that was except from that short clip you posted.
> 
> One anime LIE that I know of is Giovanni in Pokémon. That's about as far as my anime knowledge goes.


The point of the clip was to highlight what happens when beta aristocracy is taken to its (fictive) extreme.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm going to correlate this (very loosely) with Enneagram and Instincts just for fun XD
> 
> Horizontal Individualism: 7, 4
> Horizontal Collectivism: 2, 9
> ...


Enneagram 5w6 so/sp Horizontal Individualist here.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

It's interesting, but as an EII I'm a Horizontal Individualist. 

All societies are basically Collectivist and all authoritarian societies are Vertical Collectivist.

Collectivism and individualism is a kind of false dichotomy I think. There is always a connection between the individual and the community, so pure autonomy is impossible. No man is an island. It's possible for Individualism to come out of Collectivism, but not the other way around.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Vertical Individualism all the way.



babblingbrook said:


> It's interesting, but as an EII I'm a Horizontal Individualist.
> 
> All societies are basically Collectivist and all authoritarian societies are Vertical Collectivist.
> 
> Collectivism and individualism is a kind of false dichotomy I think. There is always a connection between the individual and the community, so pure autonomy is impossible. No man is an island. It's possible for Individualism to come out of Collectivism, but not the other way around.


I wouldn't say that collectivism vs. individualism is a false dichotomy. The existence of communities is kind of a moot point if anything. Collectivism vs. individualism is kind of a macro vs. micro perspective-- one focuses on the group at large while the other is more focused on the parts in the whole group at large (the whole or the parts, basically).


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

Helios said:


> Vertical Individualism all the way.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that collectivism vs. individualism is a false dichotomy. The existence of communities is kind of a moot point if anything. Collectivism vs. individualism is kind of a macro vs. micro perspective-- one focuses on the group at large while the other is more focused on the parts in the whole group at large (the whole or the parts, basically).


Whether one focuses on the group at large or on parts of the group is both Collectivism, I think. Both concern the group, not the individual.

With my previous post I was asserting that classical liberalism is kind of incoherent, since it construes communities as if they originate from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals. So I was trying to emphasize the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals, even though I relate more to individualism.



Wiki said:


> *Individualism* is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[SUP][3][/SUP] and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,[SUP][3][/SUP] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[SUP][3][/SUP]
> 
> Individualism makes the individual its focus[SUP][1][/SUP] and so starts "with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation."[SUP][4][/SUP] Liberalism, existentialism and anarchism are examples of movements that take the human individual as a central unit of analysis.[SUP][4][/SUP] Individualism thus involves "the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization".[SUP][5][/SUP]
> It has also been used as a term denoting "The quality of being an individual; individuality"[SUP][3][/SUP] related to possessing "An individual characteristic; a quirk."[SUP][3][/SUP] Individualism is thus also associated with artistic and bohemian interests and lifestyles where there is a tendency towards self-creation and experimentation as opposed to tradition or popular mass opinions and behaviors[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] as so also with humanist philosophical positions and ethics.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8]
> [/SUP]


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> makes sense. I don't think America is as individualist as it is claimed to be
> 
> 
> culture


Japan - their older generations are definitely vertical collectivist, but the younger are comically horizontal individualists, from what I understand.

I can't comment much on the culture of the U.K and western Europe, but I am interested in why you think they are horizontal. 



MNiS said:


> You may have a point for American corporate culture but outside of corporate America stressing individualism is pretty much the norm.
> 
> Also, I really doubt SEE for you. EIE makes much more sense.


I fail to see how individualism is the norm in any pseudo-democracy or any place for that matter where people say a small group of people can initiate the use of force against me because the majority of "the people" supposedly voted for them to be able to.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

babblingbrook said:


> It's interesting, but as an EII I'm a Horizontal Individualist.
> 
> All societies are basically Collectivist and all authoritarian societies are Vertical Collectivist.
> 
> Collectivism and individualism is a kind of false dichotomy I think. There is always a connection between the individual and the community, so pure autonomy is impossible. No man is an island. It's possible for Individualism to come out of Collectivism, but not the other way around.


You're making up your own definitions for individualism and collectivism. I think it's always been well established that humans are not hermits. That's not what individualism means.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

Which would be more common? If it's all about pure desire, definitely horizontal individualist.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You're making up your own definitions for individualism and collectivism. I think it's always been well established that humans are not hermits. That's not what individualism means.


So, what do they mean, according to you? 

I don't think I'm making up my own definitions here. Collectivism emphasizes the interdependence of every human being, which I think is quite an accurate statement. But even though I'm aware of this fact, I believe it to be a good thing to exercise and develop your own goals, talents, desires.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I fail to see how individualism is the norm in any pseudo-democracy or any place for that matter where people say a small group of people can initiate the use of force against me because the majority of "the people" supposedly voted for them to be able to.


None of which you've stated would suggest that what I wrote isn't true. 

If you think that the typical American is collectivist by any means then you need a reality check. The system of government by no means is indicative of the typical American, especially considering the disenfranchisement in the US is nearly 70% of the total population. 

Individualism or collectivism is prevalent in a society based on the prevailing norms of the society. Semantics aside, contrast a communist and statist society like China to a capitalistic and democratic one like the US. Aside from war, when was the last time Americans were asked to collectively address a common problem like say by building a wall or asking to sacrifice so that future generations may prosper? No, what you have in the US are disparate groups all out for their benefit or to further their own agenda. Hardly anything resembling collectivism in nature and trying to argue that the US *isn't* individualist especially in relation to the rest of the world would be either disingenuous or simply fantasy.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

babblingbrook said:


> So, what do they mean, according to you?
> 
> I don't think I'm making up my own definitions here. Collectivism emphasizes the interdependence of every human being, which I think is quite an accurate statement. But even though I'm aware of this fact, I believe it to be a good thing to exercise and develop your own goals, talents, desires.


No, you're saying individualism emphasizes having virtually no interdependence or human relations at all. That is not the case. That's insane. Individualists just don't like guns pointed at them.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

MNiS said:


> None of which you've stated would suggest that what I wrote isn't true.
> 
> If you think that the typical American is collectivist by any means then you need a reality check. The system of government by no means is indicative of the typical American, especially considering the disenfranchisement in the US is nearly 70% of the total population.
> 
> Individualism or collectivism is prevalent in a society based on the prevailing norms of the society. Semantics aside, contrast a communist and statist society like China to a capitalistic and democratic one like the US. Aside from war, when was the last time Americans were asked to collectively address a common problem like say by building a wall or asking to sacrifice so that future generations may prosper? No, what you have in the US are disparate groups all out for their benefit or to further their own agenda. Hardly anything resembling collectivism in nature and trying to argue that the US *isn't* individualist especially in relation to the rest of the world would be either disingenuous or simply fantasy.


I'd really appreciate it if you tried to make an argument without saying mine is delusional _several _times. It's not an argument.

The U.S isn't as collectivist as other nations, but I would still consider it collectivist by nature due to people being a'okay with that system of government. But, I suppose that's due to the self-interest of the parasites at the top, which could be considered individualism. It's semantics.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the wall was built with slaves. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> The U.S isn't as collectivist as other nations, but I would still consider it collectivist by nature due to people being a'okay with that system of government. But, I suppose that's due to the self-interest of the parasites at the top, which could be considered individualism. It's semantics.


So you're saying because a person isn't opposed to the government then they must be in support of it? That's the opposite of what occurs in non-compulsory democratic nations. A minority are active supporters, a smaller minority support overthrowing their government and the majority are ambivalent and/or disenfranchised and I don't agree that one is either for or against something. An us versus them mentality is rather counter-productive. At any rate, Greek democracy eventually led to extreme apathy and while the US isn't quite there yet it seems to be on its way.

I think saying US citizens = part of the US government isn't a well grounded argument. Do you necessarily agree with everything your government does? Do you believe that when you travel overseas that you're a representative for the US government? I think it's silly to say the people of a country are defined by their government. The US' system of government was designed to be horizontal but US society itself is vertical and that's clearly where the disconnect between government and society lies. Then again I'd argue that overall, US society is Gamma in nature. From inception to today. Not Beta or Delta.



> Plus, I'm pretty sure the wall was built with slaves. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Well, middle school history books called them the military but I guess that depends on what you'd consider a person forced to serve in the military to be.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> No, you're saying individualism emphasizes having virtually no interdependence or human relations at all. That is not the case. That's insane. Individualists just don't like guns pointed at them.


Exactly. This is why I was saying individualism comes out of collectivism or: independence comes out of interdependence, not the other way around. That's why it seems to be a false dichotomy. There has to be a community first, only then is it possible to emphasize the importance of the individual. I don't believe in pre-community individuals, because I think the individual is dependent on the community.

So this kind of sums up individualism for me:



James Joyce - Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man said:


> *“When a man is born...there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets.” *


Community = nets. Nets are first. Individualists try to fly by those nets, and find their own way. Or:



Thoreau said:


> *If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.*


Community = companions. Companions are first. Individualists try to step to the music they hear.
​


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

If you think in extremes, in this case political and economic ideologies, perhaps there could be a correlation between the two:

HI = Anarchism or Libertarian Socialism
VI = Laissez faire Capitalism or Anarcho Capitalism
HC = Communism, Marxism-Leninism
VC = Fascism, Totalitarianism


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

babblingbrook said:


> HC = Communism, Marxism-Leninism


Stalin



babblingbrook said:


> Exactly. This is why I was saying individualism comes out of collectivism or: independence comes out of interdependence, not the other way around. That's why it seems to be a false dichotomy. There has to be a community first, only then is it possible to emphasize the importance of the individual. I don't believe in pre-community individuals, because I think the individual is dependent on the community.
> 
> So this kind of sums up individualism for me:
> 
> ...


Okay sure, just don't point guns at individualists.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

MNiS said:


> So you're saying because a person isn't opposed to the government then they must be in support of it? That's the opposite of what occurs in non-compulsory democratic nations. A minority are active supporters, a smaller minority support overthrowing their government and the majority are ambivalent and/or disenfranchised and I don't agree that one is either for or against something. An us versus them mentality is rather counter-productive. At any rate, Greek democracy eventually led to extreme apathy and while the US isn't quite there yet it seems to be on its way.


Wasn't trying to create an us vs. them dichotomy. I agree.



MNiS said:


> I think saying US citizens = part of the US government isn't a well grounded argument.


Indeed. I didn't make that argument.


----------



## babblingbrook (Aug 10, 2009)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Stalin


Stalinism is VC in my opinion: highly hierarchical, authoritarian and a complete rejection of Marxism. Stalinism is a form of totalitarianism, mirroring fascism.


----------

