Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a consistent theme that seems to run through virtually every discussion on C-D, the individual vs society. Within that debate one of the consistent epithets that is thrown around is the term collectivist. Well, my question is what is the most basic attributes of any human organization of than collectivism, be that organization a family, a tribe of a nation in whatever form that it takes and what is the basis for setting the rules upon how that society/collection of humans is to function? So my question if collectivism, which a society is by definition, is evil, what is the alternative?
"The practise or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it" That is the definition of "collectivism". That is not the end we are trying to achieve in a free democratic system or society. Since, whether you like it or not we live in liberal democracies here and in the USA let's start with the best definition of "liberal". The best I have heard is, "toward a more just society". This end is not best achieved through collectivism but through the "Rule of law" that recognizes the supremacy of the individual and individual freedom as the highest priority. Of course there is going to be laws that are collectivist in their very nature, for example, the rules and regulations of driving a vehicle on a public road. Our societies are full of those kinds of collectivist laws but that does not make our system collectivist as a whole. The biggest challenge is to create as just as society as is possible while at the same time preserving the rights of the individual to the highest degree.
Collectivism is just another type of tyranny. It's like a wolf in sheep's clothing type of idea as it appears to be logical, fair and equitable. It almost always ends up as a dictatorship of all, by those who decide what the collective good actually is. The idea of some being more equal than others is where it will always end up.
What democracy promises is opportunity to excel in the economy and a equal vote in governing by elections. What you do with each is to you. Collective end up like welfare dependents in this country;in constant conflict to get a bigger piece of the pie rather than making the more pies.
Collectivism is just another type of tyranny. It's like a wolf in sheep's clothing type of idea as it appears to be logical, fair and equitable. It almost always ends up as a dictatorship of all, by those who decide what the collective good actually is. The idea of some being more equal than others is where it will always end up.
Perhaps you will can drop the political posturing and perhaps explain the basic structure of a family? Is that a society where the individual holds precedent over the group?
Perhaps you will can drop the political posturing and perhaps explain the basic structure of a family? Is that a society where the individual holds precedent over the group?
It's extremely naïve to think the structure of a family can be applied to an entire society. Besides that I really don't understand your point as the traditional family is not collective in the least but a classic despotism. It could be an enlightened despotism but maybe not also.
I have actually seen some collectives that worked very well. My favorite one is "The Amana colonies" in Iowa. They had a very successful society and culture based on collectivism in the material realm. The reasons it worked though are because firstly, they were all of one "Tribe". Germans who came to North America in order to freely practise their lifestyle as they saw fit. Secondly and probably more important is they were all dedicated Christians. These two factors enabled them to do something that is impossible to do in a society that is multinational and multicultural in spiritual beliefs. Even though the Amana colonies were successful for a long time they disbanded their collective around the end of WW2.
It's extremely naïve to think the structure of a family can be applied to an entire society.
Naive or more to the point, anthropologically correct because what is a family other than a microcosm of the greater society in which it exists. Parents, despotic or not, make rules for the harmony and stability of the whole, the provide protection, food, clothing and lodging and from a historical perspective children, when of age, were expected to provided labor whether it was in a primitive hunter gatherer society or agrarian (this is why we see across the board a decline birthrates commensurate with the level of development). If we can accept the collectivist nature of even the nuclear family I fail to understand why it is such a leap in logic to extrapolate the collectivist nature of larger and more complex human society.
Quote:
I have actually seen some collectives that worked very well. My favorite one is "The Amana colonies" in Iowa.
Sort of a can't see the forrest for the trees illustration. Iowa itself is a sub-set of a large collective, aptly named the United States of America, fifty states, of which Iowa is but one that have joined together to collectively form a nation whose constitutional preamble couldn't be more collectivist if it tired:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Now we can argue until the proverbial cows come home about how the collective union of citizens and their states go about providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, but the undeniable fact of the matter is that it is and has always been recognized as requiring a collective effort. So how and why the concept of collectivism became a dirty word still escapes me.
The reason is that the meaning of "collectivism " as used to describe an entire society is synonymous with communism. As in my example of the Amana colonies there is no private property or enterprise in a collective, Everything is equally shared with the "citizens " of the collective. Your examples are not collectivism at all but cooperative. If we the citizens of a society decide to share aspects of our community like schools, roads, hospitals, etc., that is not collectivism. In our society can opt out of sharing arraignments if I choose to. The Amish here in Ontario pay cash for all of their medical care, they don't accept the idea of a universal system paid for by everyone. They also don't believe in insurance and will only buy it when the law forces them to do so. Do you consider insurance which is really the undergirder of the entire Capitalist system to be collectivist?
History really serves a purpose in most of the CD debates, as we all know, man lived in collective societies for tens of thousands of years before the rise of individualism, family, tribe, region, these were the soclo/economic limits imposed upon the early day human. Today we can see that the fractured society is a perfect construct for the purpose of de-unification of a societies strength. it should be obvious from reading the posts here that most of America thinks just the opposite. propaganda has given rise to a kind of supra-individual, the Ayn Rand types, standing firm against the tyrannical forces of the collective. Of course we have yet to see how this short lived experiment will turn out.
A lot of people think that the bulk of mans troubles are relevant to their little slice of occupation here, they can't grasp the bigger picture that allows us a view of our paths to folly. Modern living is far from being anywhere near a utopian society, poverty, war, hunger, violence, homelessness, hopelessness, and sometimes what appears to be a kind of societal madness with regard to our worship of material consumption, sports, and a growing disregard for our fellow man. Collectivism was and is a long standing successful human pursuit, it can claim more success in terms of what constitutes a humane outlook as opposed to the selfish tendency of the individual. To think that Communism was ever a genuine choice for those who lived under it is part of the myth created by those who subscribe to the notion of American exceptionalism, in reality Russia was simply carrying on the tradition of minority rule and not communism. Many other nations that referred to themselves as communist were also nothing short of state socialism, or just statism period.
America is a collective, it is governed by a central power structure, representing the majority of it's citizens, and capable of presenting a united front militarily. I laugh at those who are silly enough to think that they really are living in a society of individuals, by individuals, and for individuals, these are the type of people who come here to post their usual tripe that glorifies their anti government paranoia. Time will tell if humans can survive the disintegration of their societal bonds, that glue that held them together for thousands of years, the very foundation for the fact of their presence on the planet today. It wasn't the modern society that got us this far, and it won't be the modern society that takes man into his uncertain future, my guess is that in the face of dwindling resources, man will need to once again pull together.....Collectively.
The reason is that the meaning of "collectivism " as used to describe an entire society is synonymous with communism. As in my example of the Amana colonies there is no private property or enterprise in a collective, Everything is equally shared with the "citizens " of the collective. Your examples are not collectivism at all but cooperative. If we the citizens of a society decide to share aspects of our community like schools, roads, hospitals, etc., that is not collectivism. In our society can opt out of sharing arraignments if I choose to. The Amish here in Ontario pay cash for all of their medical care, they don't accept the idea of a universal system paid for by everyone. They also don't believe in insurance and will only buy it when the law forces them to do so. Do you consider insurance which is really the undergirder of the entire Capitalist system to be collectivist?
People can actually opt out of the Canadian health care system and just pay cash? But doesn't everyone's taxes pay for it anyway, so why would you opt out and pay cash for something you already for in taxes anyway? I am completely confused by that practice.
The reason is that the meaning of "collectivism " as used to describe an entire society is synonymous with communism.
To be purposefully pedantic but the root of the word collectivism's is derived from the latin word, coligere; to gather together from which the which we derive collective; representing many individuals. Now in common usage, appallingly misapplied on these boards, it may mean communism to you, but it also can legitimately be used to represent, as you put it, cooperation. However as the Preamble and the Constitution that it introduces there is a compulsory component to that cooperation. In short we live in a collectivist nation.
Quote:
Everything is equally shared with the "citizens " of the collective.
Is our nation not equally shared amongst its citizens despite the feeling that some share more than others?
Quote:
If we the citizens of a society decide to share aspects of our community like schools, roads, hospitals, etc., that is not collectivism. In our society[i] can opt out of sharing arraignments if I choose to.
How does one opt out of paying for public schools, roads, defense, or other goods and services that the government provides? You can certainly opt out of using them, but you cannot opt-out, legally speaking, from contributing to their existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
