Is some sort of truce or coalition between communists; anarchists; and turd positionists...

I'm going to assume you're an ancom or libsoc of some sort. Are you really going to draw the line at a binary so vague such as individualism and collectivism? These categories are so flexible that people who agree on everything with each other could choose to call themselves either or.

I don't really think Climate Change is that critical of an issue, most liberal democratic countries are already working towards preventing it besides the United States.
I would have a more direct answer to your question if you had some other idea of critical issue, such as neoliberalism and worker's rights.

Fascists and Third P.ositionists need wiped off the face of the Earth.

Nazis and fascists genuinely think the collective is more important that the individual. That's plainly evil as far as I'm concerned. It would surprise me if any socialist disagreed with that.

It is more important
Lol

lol, if you're looking for ebin idealistic hot takes you can go back to whatever hole you crawled out of. That you think that political ideologies which base themselves on deepthroating corporations would ever lift a finger to take action to prevent climate change is sufficient evidence that you're entirely detached from reality.
I have no clue why Zig Forumsyps remain convinced communists will want to """join forces""" with them on anything. pathetic larpers.

study Hegel you brainlet.

we shall never allow the boons to society to roam free. leftists want the boons to society to roam free. we want baboon in zoos. therefore there will be no cooperation. give me zoos or give me death.

The fascist solution to climate change is genocide (tbf its their solution to most problems), so no, I don't think there's any use in a truce with them.

Philosophy isn't arguing about your general vague feeling about confused concepts.

totalitarianism comes from excessive idealism, not from “favoring the collective”. fucking lmao.

Worker's rights are important too. I would most certainly team up with a communist if it meant improving the quality of life of the working class. The class which owns the means of production is clearly abusive and is clearly leeching off of the worker's labor.
You can't ignore that this same bourgeois class is also obtaining worth at the expense of the environment too. The lobbyists and the corporations will find loopholes in environmental regulations.

A collective is a group of individuals. What happened to the idea of the greater good that communists follow?

Best idea is to have an ethnopluralist society. They'll be free to do whatever they want in their own countries in Africa, and out of our sight as well.

I don't want to live in a spooked society, sorry. Under socialism people should be expected to pursue what they find important in life, not subjugate themselves to the common interests. Ideally the two will coincide, although some struggle will always keep things interesting.

Hegel would never place the collective over the individual. Instead he'd speak of the two being interdependent, something I have no problem with.

People shouldn't be expected to hold a greater good over what they personally feel to be important in life. What's unclear about that?

I will only hold to this greater good in as far as it pleases me. Which is rather a lot mind you. There would be little interesting going on in life if we weren't part of a political body.

As if favoring the collective isn't necessarily excessive idealism. I'm not even against favoring the collective in your political struggles. The problem is merely when people grow complacent with the idea that the individual should subjugate himself. No. That's not the society we have to create. If someone is expected to do something, it should be out of his own perceived material interests. He should be entirely free to determine these however he likes.
Usually it will involve some feeling of empathy to others, or a wish to make an economic contribution, but these are important only in so far as they please the individual.

he's an anarcho-child. ignore him. we don't take those people seriously on this board.
I'm glad we can agree on the basic issues. Yeah the problem is a lot of fascist parties would subvert these principles in day-to-day life. What a lot of the Nazis and Italian Fascists ended up doing was favor the bureaucrats over the unions. In Nazi Germany especially they would arrest a lot of the more radical trade unionists for being "too Marxists" (the U.S. did this too under McCarthyism) so you had a lot of weak, unled trade unions floating around in a neoliberal state. You'll notice that States in Scandinavia don't have this issue because they didn't exercise any sort of radical anti-Marxist McCarthy-like programs, so the unions are stronger.
That's Zig Forums's qualm with Fascism, not that it's "too racist" or "too homophobic", just that they have a historic tendency to be pro-worker in advertising, anti-worker in practice.

Oh no, it's a Stirnerist we're dealing with here, folks.
A spook is a social construct. Anything could be called a spook, in fact, as all words we speak are socially constructed. All categories and wordly organizations were invented. Human society advances with such constructs and ideas.
By all means, be an anarcho-primitivist if that suits you. Unabomber was based. But at least try to be consistent.
That's exactly what you need to know.
This is the entire ideology of capitalism and of what the Americans call Republicanism. People just don't care about your ideology, passing policies to support the working class, the environment, or the rights of minorities they don't belong to. What do you say to someone who personally values his wealth and uses it to abuse workers and the so-called marginalized groups? What do you say to someone who doesn't practice safe sex because he values bodily pleasure over everyone else, and so dies of an STD?

this idea you have about "subjugation" is meaningless. there is no point in history where a man did not have to subjugate himself for the sake of a greater abstraction.
this is not how normal human beings operate. in paleolithic societies you'll notice people are constantly willing to make sacrifices because they know what's good for their survival. if humans were organically excessive hedonists we literally would have gotten nowhere.

Unfortunately we'll never get anywhere if we don't momentarily sacrifice what is ideal. All of these supposedly anti-worker policies were pragmatic policies. Unlike what Marxist philosophers suggest, socialism won't happen overnight.

that is literally the exact opposite of Marxist philosophy. you're confusing Anarkiddies with Marxists.
Socialism as an idea already existed before Marx's time (see Proudhon), his philosophies of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism absolutely reject the idea that Socialism can happen overnight.
supporting Fascism is the opposite of "getting anywhere". Fascism historically only exists as an ideology to counter Marxism with, they always received support from the upper class in societies where the working class was especially revolutionary.

I will never ally with fascists

What is this supposed to prove? Yes they are abstractions. The individual is an abstraction.
Well, I know it. You as an individual are dependent on the society you live in. Your society is really an extension of yourself. As such, it is in your interests to maintain this society and shape it to improve you as a person.
That they're idiots with no grasp of what's important in their lives. Also that I want to see others fuck them over in return.

So? He's free to determine these abstractions as he likes.
I'm not suggesting anyone to be a Hedonist. My point is that people should set their priorities in life as they themselves perceive them, not in the way other people expect of him. In fact, I'd prefer if they'd constantly try to innovate in that department, set goals no one has ever set before.
Doing what pleases you isn't the same as hedonism by a long shot. Sometimes the outcomes that please me involve significant unhappiness for me, yet I do it because I like the results.

It sounds to me like you're just misinterpreting the individualist/collectivist dichotomy with Hegel's abstract-universal vs. concrete-universal. Usually "favoring the collective" in most cases means catering to everyone's individual needs and abilities, there is no actual dichotomy between the two.
you'd be a lot less confusing if you studied a little bit more humanities than Ayn Rand.

I believe there's a dichotomy, in this particular context, between individualism and collectivism. There's no dichotomy between the individual and the collective. In any functional society they coincide the vastest portion of the time.
Yeah. I don't think a society where everyone is constantly burdened with that is a good one. Sometimes you have to be an asshole and pursue what you find interesting personally. A good society will be organized so that this pursuit doesn't conflict with the interests of anyone else, and in fact bolster them if possible.

Of course I don't mean communism itself, but the socialist epoch in between capitalism and communism. Any attempt to establish socialism while working with the rest of the capitalist world is completely futile.
Capitalists have a short vision that only pertains to their own individuals' futures. They don't care if in 100 years their grandchildren aren't going to be fancy pants upper class leeches. Of course an individual capitalist will support a system that doesn't personally attack him but will in the distant future rid of the system he's benefited off of.

You seem to be suggesting you want a society without any spooks. Such is not possible as society itself is a spook by its very definition. Stirnerist ideology, especially how anarcho-communists put it, is extremely self-contradictory.
We've established, then, that the individual is not the ultimate determiner of what is important in his own life. Who is?

Also,
How am I confusing? Fascists and Nazis don't believe in this Hegelian notion of the collective. They think there's something more there, that the nation or race really is something worthwhile in itself, that people pursuing their own interests above it is bad. For them, individuals are worthwhile because they are part of the nation, not in and of themselves. That's a constitutive part of their ideology, and the fundamental reason I can't stand them. If I say that I don't like them for being collectivist, how is it not immediately clear that this is what I mean, aside from you associating the word with idiotic libertarians?

I mean you talk about climate change, but honestly, if temporarily working with nazis/fascists against the status-quo neolibs would be the only way to establish socialism, I would be willing to do it.

and that isn't what Marx suggested. the only way to have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is by having a state established by the working class, for the working class, outside of the Capitalist state. the only way to sustain such a state would be to seize the means of production that of any post-scarcity society. Working with Fascist parties, unless they are openly advocating for Syndicalism above all else, does nothing towards doing this.

How is "society" a spook? Don't we actually live in a system of multiple individuals interacting with each other? Isn't that a perfectly rational and self-serving category for me to use?
It is the ultimate determiner. I'm accusing the assholes in the examples of being inauthentic to themselves.