>>132
No, just that it's illogical to believe it is more important or somehow supreme to individuals. Collectivity is an idea. Ideas, while they can be communicated to others, are subjective, and exist only within the individual minds which think them. I'm not saying it should be disreguarded, but that it shouldn't be shoved down people's throats at gunpoint. You can have all the collectivity you want if you can get everyone else to voluntarily participate in the collectivity. Otherwise you are forcing your fantasies down other people's throats. This requires an implicit belief that you are more important, that you know better than them, or that you are in some way superior to them, which flies in the face of any belief that people are equal, which they often say they believe.
I understand collectivism in terms of 2+2=4. This kind of collectivism is perfectly compatible with individualism. But people who say they are collectivists often say things which sound to me like 2+2=5, that the collective is greater than the sum of it's parts, and therefore it's okay for the individuals to be harmed for the collective benefit. As the "collective" and especially "collective good" are almost always arbitrarily defined and are subjective by nature, such beliefs are arbitrary themselves. If the individuals voluntarily form a collective, there's no need to use force for the collective good. If there is need to use force, then the collective is not defined by the voluntary participation of members. Such a collective is arbitrary, pretending relationships exist where they do not and do not exist where they do. At best, the belief in collective supremacy and the cognitive seperation of the collective from the individuals constituting the collective is irrational. The things collectivists often use collectivist arguements to support require those two things.