In the current discourse, a term echoing through the corridors of discussion is the ever-elusive “Collectivism.” But is it truly a new concept, or are we simply grappling with the challenge of affixing an appropriate label to our disquiet and chaos in the Western world? The lack of a concrete definition leaves us groping in the dark, even as people begin to awaken to the subtleties of our changing societal landscape.

Unfortunately, human nature craves clarity and simplicity. We’ve become creatures accustomed to explicit instructions on how to live, think, and react, spoon-fed in a manner that caters to a populace that has all but relinquished its autonomy. To manage a population incapable of independent thought, governments find a rationalization in the amalgamation of ideologies, all in the name of keeping us “safe.”

However, for those who still possess the capacity for critical thinking, something feels awry. So, with this in mind, it’s important to unravel the intricacies of the word games being played and the semantic shifts currently underway.

WELCOME TO COLLECTIVISM

The term ‘collectivism‘ has been bantered about recently. Collectivism can manifest diversely, from government-owned utilities to citizens’ communal ownership of farmland, or in the realm of cultural and social ideologies that prioritize the majority over individual freedoms, you can cue Mr. 19’s lockdowns and mandates. In the context of political spectrums, it can be found on both sides of the fence but is often more pronounced in left-wing, tree-hugging ideologies and emphasizes the following:

• Communal interests over individual interests: The needs and goals of the group take precedence.
• Reorganization of Traditional Structures: It focuses on reorganizing the social and economic spheres.
• Shared Ownership: This can take the form of state ownership, communal ownership, or cooperative structures.
• Equality and Social Justice: There is a belief in the importance of reducing disparities and ensuring a fair distribution of resources.
• Group Decision-Making: Reserved, it seems, for those in Davos.
• Role of the State: Collectivist ideologies may involve a strong role for the state in planning and managing the economy, ensuring social welfare, and implementing policies that promote collective well-being.
• Limited Emphasis on Individual Rights: While individual rights are recognized in collectivist societies, they may be subordinated to the collective good. The emphasis is on balancing individual freedoms with the needs of the community.

ENTER NEO-COMMUNISM (OR COMMUNISM 2.0)

With a comparison of Collectivism available to us, it’s important to juxtapose Neo-Communism, a contemporary twist on the communism we encountered in high school history lessons. It disavows the authoritarianism of its Soviet predecessors, claiming lessons learned from past mistakes and absolving itself from its cousin’s atrocities. Its utopian grandeur and vision involve creating a classless, raceless, and stateless society, akin to what we’re seeing today with social/minority equity, mass immigration, and where everyone owns nothing but purportedly lives happily ever after. Don’t believe me? Just look at the USA’s Southern border crisis or Australia’s decision to bring in more people despite no housing availability.

Neo-Communisim in a nutshell is:

• Adaptation to Global Capitalism: Neo-communism generally acknowledges the existence and influence of global capitalism, seeking ways to address or incorporate it rather than strictly advocating for its overthrow.
• Emphasis on Social Equality: Like traditional communism, neo-communism might prioritize social equality and the reduction of economic disparities.
• Democratic Socialism: Some interpretations of neo-communism may align with democratic socialist principles, emphasizing the importance of democratic governance and political pluralism alongside socialist economic policies.
• Recognition of Individual Rights: placing a greater emphasis on protecting individual rights and freedoms compared to collectivism, it may seek a balance between collective interests and individual autonomy. (to placate the dissidents)
• Environmental Concerns: The incorporation of environmental sustainability as a key consideration, recognizing the need for ecological responsibility in economic planning.
• Cultural and Social Pluralism: Neo-communism may embrace cultural and social pluralism, recognizing the diversity of identities and beliefs within society.

Neo-Communism, which is a form of Collectivism, adapts traditional communist ideas, incorporating democratic elements as a means to escape the authoritarian label. Rooted in collectivist principles, it advocates for shared ownership and control of production and resources.

However, the lines blur between Collectivism and Neo-Communism. Both prioritize communal interests over individual ones, leaving the autonomous citizen in limbo, focusing on social and economic restructuring despite merit, and advocating for shared ownership, such as several families in one house. The state plays a significant role in both, too, potentially overshadowing individual rights in the pursuit of the ‘collective good’.

But the fusion and confusion doesn’t stop with the above definitions.

“Corporate Communism,” a term less recognized but existing in the form of the more familiar Crony Capitalism or Corporatism (on steroids in the 21st century), is hybridizing itself with the above form of Collectivism (Communism) Here, powerful corporations amass control over land (BlackRock), influence government policies (WEF), and engage in self-serving development projects (substitute any acronym or VanGuard), aligning with goals traditionally associated with leftist ideologies.

Attributes of Corporate Communism:

• Corporate Influence: The scenario you describe involves a high level of influence by a corporation over both land ownership and government policies. This concentration of power may lead to an unequal distribution of resources and opportunities.
• Lobbying and Agenda Setting: If the corporation is actively lobbying governments to support its development agendas, it aligns with practices commonly associated with corporate lobbying and influence in politics.
• Private Interests Over Public Welfare: The focus on developing land for the benefit of the corporation, with potential disregard for broader public welfare, could be seen as prioritizing private interests over the common good.
• Potential for Inequality: The concentration of land ownership and the ability to shape government policies may contribute to economic and social inequalities, as those with significant corporate power can potentially exploit their position for personal gain.
• Crony Capitalism: This term refers to a situation where businesses seek to influence government policies for their own benefit, often through close relationships with government officials.
• Corporatism: In a corporatist system, large corporations may have a significant role in shaping and influencing government policies, and the interests of corporations are closely tied to the functions of the state.

(And here lies the difficulty in waking people up: The hybridization of ideologies is just too difficult to grasp – and those in control know it.)

The complexity arises when these ideologies converge, making it challenging for people to acknowledge their existence. Cognitive dissonance, lack of familiarity, information overload, and media manipulation all contribute to the skepticism surrounding such a hybrid ideology, making it a tough concept to swallow. What’s more, acknowledging that it was the citizenry’s laziness that allowed this to take place in the first instance is the toughest pill to swallow. We’re a stubborn breed who detest taking responsibility for our mistakes.

Yet, there’s hope. Historical instances demonstrate that civil society, through mass mobilization and resistance, can challenge and overthrow corrupt or oppressive regimes. The power of the people, as seen in the People Power Revolution, Carnation Revolution, Velvet Revolution, Rose Revolution, and Orange Revolution, stands as a testament to the potential for positive change. While the scenario may be intricate and challenging to accept, the historical resilience of collective action remains a beacon of optimism and hope yet is most definitely not lost.