[l-_l-_l-_lo_ol]

"Stalin : There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective."

Horrifying.

[VictorPath]

There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the family, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the family. There should be no such contrast, because family, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the family."

Horrifying.

Not really. In a well-functioning family individual and family interests are in tune (of course there are not well functioning families where, say, step-parents and stepchildren get into physical altercations.

Contrast to Georgia in 1860, where an individual slave had interests contrast to that of the plantation.

Odd a worker in tune with his fellow workers is horrifying. What then is a wage slave grinding it out in some Amazon warehouse to enrich Bezos and his investors?

[yazantapuz]

> In a well-functioning family individual and family interests are in tune

In a family, yes, it is possible. With millions of individiuals? Hardly.

Also, you can leave your family. Good look leaving a proletarian dictatorship.

[re6fae5Wied5tha]

Good luck leaving just about any country when virtually the entire world wipes bum with the UN Charter on Human Rights and restricts freedom of movement in violation of Article 13.

[yazantapuz]

Are you really comparing a slave in the 1800 to a amazon worker?

[assbuttbuttass]

This is standard Marxism. For example, from the Communist Manifesto:

> From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

> You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

> Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.