Without agreeing with Kropotkin or admitting the communal-property ideal, I do recognize that society is necessary as you describe.

What I hold to be collectivism is a moral outlook which subordinates the individual to the group. I hold the liberty of the individual as the greater value.

if by “collectivism” you mean the recognition of the fact that no human being can own the earth – or any part of it – because none of us created it and that the common heritage of humanity (as kropotkin put it) belongs to all of humanity, then damn you for rejecting collectivism.

and if you’re using “collectivism” as a catch-all term for authoritarianism then damn you for your sloppy and misleading definitions.

we are social beings, just as the group (collective) is nothing without individual self-actualization, individuals are incapable of self-actualizing in isolation. Collectivism and individualism are not opposed, they are two halves of the same process.

otherwise, I’m with you.