Collectivism Or Individualism

I was on a discussion forum recently and one of the posters claimed that collectivism was a crime against humanity. Well, I just had to write a reply, but before I could finish it, the poster was outed as a racist, white supremist with the IQ of a rock. The thread degraded into talking about people who disagreed with them as having a small penis. I was so looking forward to having a rational exchange, but I was mistaken.

I decided not to waste my effort and I will post it here.

COLLECTIVISM

First of all, may I suggest to the Admin that this be moved to the Poli Sci section, I think it is more appropriate there.

Secondly, this could be a helluva thread and a purely theoretical discussion.

I have read the posts several times just to be sure that I understand where all are coming from, before I posted a reply. This here is my take on the whole thing and I hope it added something to the discussion.

So if people come together as a society, it is somehow a crime against humanity, is that about it?

First of all, democracy as mob rule. I cannot dispute that. I will add what Plato had to say about democracy, "democracy is by the stupid, who make unrealizable promises to the ignorant, and it almost always leads to disaster". For the most part, I tend to agree with Plato.

Now on to collectivism and it has a definition thusly, "relations between people based on the community of their vital interests and a corresponding social consciousness expressed in people's devotion to a common cause, in a lofty sense of responsibility before a collective."

But, the thing about individual rights, I can see where the point is going but then no one is an individual in a society. Yes, I know, but society is basically an agreement between people who give up certain rights to be guaranteed others. As a theory it is lofty, but as a reality I do not think it is all that. If individuals work at agreements with other individuals as a form of society, then I could foresee some form of collective egoism taking place. That is, they would have a tendency to view themselves as not different from other groups but somehow better. The problem is, IMO, the group would then identify itself with others included and against those that were excluded. With that would come the inevitability of social conflict. That would then bring us back to the pack mentality. Yes, I see the problems with collectivism, but I can also see why its necessary.

You are correct, IMO, that there is no justification for democracy, but humans are pack animals and as such have a need for a societal entity. Humans are inherently fearful, as such they will always seek the protection of a pack (society). Individualism is a perception not a reality. People like to think of themselves as individuals, but in reality they will always be part of a pack. Fear of the unknown prevents the individual from acting as a solitary being, the pack offers some security.

I guess I need to ask, what form of society would be out there without the collective? (gee this sounds like something the Borg would say) I can see chaos, not harmony. But I realize that few will concur with my assessment.

CHUQ

01 Nov 07