Peikoff on Hispanics


9thdoctor

Recommended Posts

Also, juat a quibble , bur there is nothing inherent in racism that implies a belief in determinism.

If one takes the everyday, emotionally-loaded sense, racism - involving fear, hatred and, like you say, bigotry - of persons differing from you or I, in appearance, culture etc., you have a point.

Then again, that's unconscious 'animal-primitive', lower even than Rand's use of "primitive", I think.

Above that level, and as irrational, is the subjective belief that a man is defined- and thinks and acts- according to his race (or group, or tribe) without exception. Therefore, lacks the volition to ever be an independent individual, and so is deterministic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's what one gets with the highest abstractions which umbrella a large array and deep hierarchy of lesser concepts and percepts: sometimes ambiguity, contradiction and redundancy.For each of us to handle with care, is all I can say to that. Which doesn't mean the major concept itself hasn't immense value, as a sort of cognitive shorthand - especially when posed against "individualism". Is it also the construction of the word, "collectivism" itself, that you don't like?

Ever since I read Anthem back in 10th grade this distinction between "collectivism" and "individualism" has annoyed the hell out of me for 3 years. Some of the reasons:

  • "Collectivism" as a word is too Borgish sounding.
  • It represents a hodgepodge of concepts.
  • It's largely used as a smear word.
  • There are more proper words to use. For example:

    • Are Islamic regimes like Iran "collectivist"? No, they are theocratic.
    • Is an Asian country like Japan "collectivist"? No, it's a traditionalist culture marked by rigid social mores and emphasis on interpersonal relations.
    • Is North Korea "collectivist"? Well, it's a totalitarian state and it's more like a religious cult than a communist nation. Dumbest official name ever, too.
  • All "collectivism" as I've seen it described involves only interactions between people. When you realize this, this whole notion of "collectivity" dissolves.
  • It comes off as incoherent and any one-to-one correspondence it has with "individualism" is dubious, in my opinion.
  • It feels too much like a manufactured term.
  • The idea of an individualism-collectivism scale doesn't seem appropriate and I feel like it conflates too many things.
It's not about "individualism" versus "collectivism". It's about freedom versus control, using people as tools versus treating them as ends in themselves (à la Kant). Is your life your own or does it belong to someone else (no groupiness involved)?

Also, juat a quibble , bur there is nothing inherent in racism that implies a belief in determinism.

If one takes the everyday, emotionally-loaded sense - racism, involving fear, hatred and, like you say, bigotry, of persons differing from you or I, in appearance, culture etc. - you have a point.Then again, that's unconscious 'animal-primitive', lower even than Rand's use of "primitive", I think.Above that level, and as irrational, is the subjective belief that a man is defined, thinks and acts- according to his race (or group, or tribe) without exception. Therefore, lacks the volition to ever be an independent individual, and so is deterministic.
Your last sentence does not follow from your second-to-last sentence. At all. Determinism has nothing to with racism which has nothing to do with "collectivism" which has nothing to do with determinism. Racism is simply bigotry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh-uh. Your purview appears less philosophical, a little more sociological.

Not that I have any strong opinions about sociology, either way..

To mis-identify racism, one lets racists off too easily.

You regard man as a conceptual being, am I correct?

The conceptual hierarchy (imo) is: determinism-collectivism-racism-bigotry.

What does a bigot see, and how does he see it? Certainly, he sees a human being in some different form to himself - as a wild animal sees another type of animal and identifies food or threat. IOW, he's a pre-conceptual man who can only identify another man by his 'type'. A 'type' he has a pre-set, instinctual notion about. And, after all, a type which was *determined* by the vagary of his birth: which is a metaphysical given. When he goes on to self-justify his bigotry - explicitly - he becomes a full-blown racist/collectivist.(imo)

Racism is immoral, primarily because it is irrational for the racist-himself. Then secondly, if acted upon, because he commits an injustice-in-reality to the targeted person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do groups vote? What's the effect of allowing certain groups of people into a country?

I don't think the term "collectivism" is particularly useful here.

Neil, I'm starting to think you may be right in this case. There is a distinction I'm trying to ascertain between premeditated collectivism/groupism, and assessing-measuring those after the fact.

Politically, I am more certain: that governments should be ethnically blind when it comes to admittance

of immigrants, and hang the possible consequences. One person at a time on merit, and let the chips fall as they may.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politically, I am more certain: that governments should be ethnically blind when it comes to admittance

of immigrants, and hang the possible consequences. One person at a time on merit, and let the chips fall as they may.

Call me an intrinsicist if you want, but I think there would be something sad about Greece coming to an end after the borders are open and Moslems overwhelm it "one person at a time."

(I'm not sure that you accept Open Immigration, but the Objectivists who do are quite clear that they accept this as a consequence.)

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a bit surprised this has turned into a discussion of the nature of collectivism. Sometimes as a writer you just take certain things for granted, and I thought I could assume it as something obvious on an Objectivist site. Even if we disagree about the validity of basic Objectivist principles, we at least ought to have a common vocabulary here, and (dare I say) Peikoff’s position is a textbook case of collectivism, specifically of the racist variety.

But anyway, the direction I thought the conversation would go was towards ‘societal’ or political emergencies; whether we’re really in one right now, and if/when we are, how to adapt our common (libertarian) principles to the situation. We don’t have martial law, there isn’t rioting in the streets, the present administration isn’t worse (I think) than Nixon’s; I think Peikoff has a dreadful history of channeling Chicken Little. The Ground Zero Mosque and the 2006 ‘thou shalt vote Democratic’ to head off imminent theocratic takeover case are just two examples.

I’m trying to think of a good example to explore the gray area, like maybe interning the Japanese during WWII, but I’m drawing a blank. It shouldn’t be a wartime example. Does anyone have some input?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Do you consider Greece and Israel racist for adopting immigration policies that prevent them from becoming Islamic?

-Neil Parille

Those sound like racist policies to me, yes. I'm not familiar with the specifics in either case you mention, and prefer to avoid commenting on the policies of other countries. Israel in particular is always a complicated case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow Peikoff has managed, in his latest podcast, to stir some feelings of anger in your faithful Time Lord. I thought I was past getting riled up by anything he might say. This time it's about Hispanic immigration. He says he opposes the 'immigration bill' for 'one simple reason', the reason being that 80% of Hispanics reliably vote Democratic. There is 'no theory now, we're on the end'[sic].

Start at 22:20. You'll probably want to download it, zapping that far ahead is a pain if you try to do it from the website.

http://www.peikoff.com/2013/08/26/an-interview-with-amy-peikoff-on-the-nsa-programs-a-follow-up-to-dr-peikoffs-previous-podcast/

I'm not even going to write out any criticisms at this point. He sounds weird BTW, like he just had some dental work done or something.

It doesn't matter who you vote for. If you vote for one of the two major parties, you vote for tyranny. If you vote for anything else, it's a wasted vote.

The only way voting matters is to trick you into thinking you have a choice. You have a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, or between a rock and a hard place. That's not what I call a choice.

When voting doesn't matter, it means you don't have real democracy. And it means polly tishuns don't give a rat's ass what voters want. That's why the USA is going to attack Syria when most people in the USA are against attacking Syria.

The left and the right are the 2 boots stomping on freedom.

They are the 2 wings of the same predatory bird.

They are the 2 lies; people are arguing which one is true.

They are the 2 pillars of tyranny, each supporting the other.

They are the 2 bullies tossing the football of freedom between them.

Pea Cough is ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politically, I am more certain: that governments should be ethnically blind when it comes to admittance

of immigrants, and hang the possible consequences. One person at a time on merit, and let the chips fall as they may.

Call me an intrinsicist if you want, but I think there would be something sad about Greece coming to an end after the borders are open and Moslems overwhelm it "one person at a time."

(I'm not sure that you accept Open Immigration, but the Objectivists who do are quite clear that they accept this as a consequence.)

-Neil Parille

I am not well up on this, but I think government has the right and obligation to protect the well-being of its citizens: so, has the right to limit immigration, numerically- for starters. I think there may just be a false dichotomy between 'open' and 'closed' ... what about 'limited'? There surely have to be several objective criteria (after this quota policy) to assess potential immigrants. Well before we arrive at ethnic or cultural concerns.

Anything - but fall into the fatal collectivist and - as I'm beginning to think about this Hispanic/Peikoff situation - utilitarian, trap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While you debate the nature of collectivism (btw ND is right) let us consider the comparatively short history of America (and yes, Canada) into which immigrants have poured or trickled as they have been allowed, been discriminated against by the earlier immigrants, and begotten children who within one or two generations absorbed the surrounding culture in their own individual ways, became Americans, and changed America less than America changed them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politically, I am more certain: that governments should be ethnically blind when it comes to admittance

of immigrants, and hang the possible consequences. One person at a time on merit, and let the chips fall as they may.

Call me an intrinsicist if you want, but I think there would be something sad about Greece coming to an end after the borders are open and Moslems overwhelm it "one person at a time."

(I'm not sure that you accept Open Immigration, but the Objectivists who do are quite clear that they accept this as a consequence.)

-Neil Parille

I think it's too easy to get caught in the cusp between what is, and what should be. In the confusion, I have momentarily lost sight of the fact that immigration can only become a serious problem precisely *because of* Statist-collectivist intervention. Collectivism breeds its own terrible wrongs.

As a free nation's wealth would flow unimpeded, so should people. My earlier pragmatic position of 'limited' immigration still makes sense to me - only under any degree of Statism. NOT in a free country.

To use your example, what if a future Israel (at peace with its neighbours) ever completely adopted individual rights? The question of numerical minority of the Jewish population would be moot. Arab Israeli and Jew would have not a single advantage over each other, nor want to, but be equal citizens before the law. It sounds startling even to me, what individual liberty brings with it. Unforseen and perhaps uncomfortable changes, but only when seen from our perspective, here and now. Any attempt at omniscience is indeed a form of intrinsicism, I think. (Seeing you brought it up :smile:)

(From this and past issues, I believe Peikoff should avoid these real world applications. It isn't his strong suit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh-uh. Your purview appears less philosophical, a little more sociological.

Not that I have any strong opinions about sociology, either way..

To mis-identify racism, one lets racists off too easily.

See, I don't think misidentifying racism or letting it off the hook.

You regard man as a conceptual being, am I correct?

I'm afraid I don't follow.

The conceptual hierarchy (imo) is: determinism-collectivism-racism-bigotry.

i have my doubts about this.

What does a bigot see, and how does he see it? Certainly, he sees a human being in some different form to himself - as a wild animal sees another type of animal and identifies food or threat. IOW, he's a pre-conceptual man who can only identify another man by his 'type'. A 'type' he has a pre-set, instinctual notion about. And, after all, a type which was *determined* by the vagary of his birth: which is a metaphysical given. When he goes on to self-justify his bigotry - explicitly - he becomes a full-blown racist/collectivist.(imo)

Well, you first need to identify their 'type' as human.

Racism is immoral, primarily because it is irrational for the racist-himself. Then secondly, if acted upon, because he commits an injustice-in-reality to the targeted person.

Well, I'd say it's immoral because it involves treating other people like dirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony,

See this paper to get a partial feel for what I'm talking about.

My position is that I see no usefulness to the individualism-collectivism distinction or, at least, I don't see it as being applicable to as nearly as wide a variety of topics as Objectivism does.

In my opinion, the word has no use beyond being a smear or an imaginary bogeyman.

Samson Corwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samson, You're too bright to put trust in a random socio-cultural study; or else to specifically relate it in any but the most superficial way, to the Objectivist concepts of collectivism and individualism.

i.e."Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only."[Voronov and Singer]

In your reading of VoS and other Rand, have you seen anything even closely related to that shallow statement?

I tried to give it a fair reading, but lost heart wading through reams on society in Japan and China.

Sociologists get paid for this!?

Y'know, if you had voiced a firm position pro-collectivism or against egoism, I could have something to go on.

You do not acknowledge any importance in either of them. Or much important distinction.

This skepticism is sorta new for me. ;)

Individualism-collectivism (psychologically, epistemically, ethically, socially and politically) exist conceptually (up to a high level of abstraction) and are observable, introspectible and expandable.

If you "see no usefulness" in the concepts, you must admit that that is no evidence of their non-existence, their differentia or their applicability to man's mind and life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samson, You're too bright to put trust in a random socio-cultural study; or else to specifically relate it in any but the most superficial way, to the Objectivist concepts of collectivism and individualism.

i.e."Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only."[Voronov and Singer]

And it's the Objectivist use of the two terms that I have problems with.

In your reading of VoS and other Rand, have you seen anything even closely related to that shallow statement?

I tried to give it a fair reading, but lost heart wading through reams on society in Japan and China.

Sociologists get paid for this!?

It's an academic paper. There always bland. What else did you expect?

Y'know, if you had voiced a firm position pro-collectivism or against egoism, I could have something to go on.

You do not acknowledge any importance in either of them. Or much important distinction.

This skepticism is sorta new for me. ;)

Individualism-collectivism (psychologically, epistemically, ethically, socially and politically) exist conceptually (up to a high level of abstraction) and are observable, introspectible and expandable.

If you "see no usefulness" in the concepts, you must admit that that is no evidence of their non-existence, their differentia or their applicability to man's mind and life.

My point is that I find the word to be vacuous and its given meaning to be rather vague and uninformative. I suppose it might be skepticism, depending on what you mean by that word (i.e., philosophical skepticism, simple doubt, etc.). I don't consider myself to be an altruist or an egoist--there are more outlooks than those two--and to me, it seems like they shouldn't be conflated with the individualism-collectivism axis, however incoherent it might be. A dictator may appeal to what you may call "collectivist" rhetoric, but I it hardly qualifies labeling them as such. They're a dictator and that's what matters.

I think in political terminology, so I may just be using a different vocabulary than you. Still, I fail to see how the groupiness of a system is the fundamental factor. Hell, few people even think in such terms when they discuss totalitarianism. Maybe I don't think it needs a name or maybe it's the word itself that annoys me. It sounds like it implies wonky ontological views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those 80% of Hispanics have been heeding Peikoff's advice/threats to vote Democratic?

J

That made me laugh. I don't know of any hispanic person I've met who knows who Leonard Peikoff is, and I am from Arizona. I know at least fifteen or twenty hispanic libertarians, not one of them has ever mentioned Peacock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samson, You're too bright to put trust in a random socio-cultural study; or else to specifically relate it in any but the most superficial way, to the Objectivist concepts of collectivism and individualism.

i.e."Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only."[Voronov and Singer]

And it's the Objectivist use of the two terms that I have problems with.

In your reading of VoS and other Rand, have you seen anything even closely related to that shallow statement?

I tried to give it a fair reading, but lost heart wading through reams on society in Japan and China.

Sociologists get paid for this!?

It's an academic paper. There always bland. What else did you expect?

Y'know, if you had voiced a firm position pro-collectivism or against egoism, I could have something to go on.

You do not acknowledge any importance in either of them. Or much important distinction.

This skepticism is sorta new for me. ;)

Individualism-collectivism (psychologically, epistemically, ethically, socially and politically) exist conceptually (up to a high level of abstraction) and are observable, introspectible and expandable.

If you "see no usefulness" in the concepts, you must admit that that is no evidence of their non-existence, their differentia or their applicability to man's mind and life.

My point is that I find the word to be vacuous and its given meaning to be rather vague and uninformative. I suppose it might be skepticism, depending on what you mean by that word (i.e., philosophical skepticism, simple doubt, etc.). I don't consider myself to be an altruist or an egoist--there are more outlooks than those two--and to me, it seems like they shouldn't be conflated with the individualism-collectivism axis, however incoherent it might be. A dictator may appeal to what you may call "collectivist" rhetoric, but I it hardly qualifies labeling them as such. They're a dictator and that's what matters.

I think in political terminology, so I may just be using a different vocabulary than you. Still, I fail to see how the groupiness of a system is the fundamental factor. Hell, few people even think in such terms when they discuss totalitarianism. Maybe I don't think it needs a name or maybe it's the word itself that annoys me. It sounds like it implies wonky ontological views.

Aren't you rather more critical of Objectivists' apparently falling back upon "collectivist"-or- "individualist", at every turn? iow, is it the judgmentalism they pass that bothers you most?

While I've allowed that these are all-consuming concepts which can also be over-applied without nuance, observation of their cause and effects in reality cannot be escaped.

Why does Objectivism place such emphasis on this 'axis'?

Take these scenarios: John has often heard it said that Scotsmen are tight with a buck. He meets Jock who is a Scot. John deduces from the proposition - without evidence -that Jock is a penny-pincher.

Or, John meets a Scot for the first time. Jock doesn't buy a round of drinks all night.

John induces that all Scotsmen are cheap.

OK, simple stuff, and you're likely to agree that John is illogical.

Objectively speaking it goes much further. John has made a metaphysical error (that man is not autonomous) a determinist error (that man hasn't volitional consciousness, and is predetermined in action and character by his race or nationality) epistemic errors (the illogic above) and the moral error (in that his conclusion does not pertain to reality, is therefore irrational - i.e. he's accepted an assault on his own mind.)

And all that, over and above the fact he has committed an injustice on poor Jock or all Scots everywhere.

Collectivism, in a nutshell. Whatever you wish to call it, it's the same concept.

You must be aware of the extrapolation of the individual example above, into the political sphere.

Are you a proponent of group and minority rights? or individual rights?

How do you think a dictator gets into power in the first place - and gets to keep it?

Not wherever individual rights are implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what one gets with the highest abstractions which umbrella a large array and deep hierarchy of lesser concepts and percepts: sometimes ambiguity, contradiction and redundancy.For each of us to handle with care, is all I can say to that. Which doesn't mean the major concept itself hasn't immense value, as a sort of cognitive shorthand - especially when posed against "individualism". Is it also the construction of the word, "collectivism" itself, that you don't like?

Ever since I read Anthem back in 10th grade this distinction between "collectivism" and "individualism" has annoyed the hell out of me for 3 years. Some of the reasons:

  • "Collectivism" as a word is too Borgish sounding.
  • It represents a hodgepodge of concepts.
  • It's largely used as a smear word.
  • There are more proper words to use. For example:
    • Are Islamic regimes like Iran "collectivist"? No, they are theocratic.
    • Is an Asian country like Japan "collectivist"? No, it's a traditionalist culture marked by rigid social mores and emphasis on interpersonal relations.
    • Is North Korea "collectivist"? Well, it's a totalitarian state and it's more like a religious cult than a communist nation. Dumbest official name ever, too.
  • All "collectivism" as I've seen it described involves only interactions between people. When you realize this, this whole notion of "collectivity" dissolves.
  • It comes off as incoherent and any one-to-one correspondence it has with "individualism" is dubious, in my opinion.
  • It feels too much like a manufactured term.
  • The idea of an individualism-collectivism scale doesn't seem appropriate and I feel like it conflates too many things.
It's not about "individualism" versus "collectivism". It's about freedom versus control, using people as tools versus treating them as ends in themselves (à la Kant). Is your life your own or does it belong to someone else (no groupiness involved)?

Hi Samson,

In order to understand collectivism, it might be useful to start with some definitions. Since we're discussing the Objectivist view of collectivism, let's start with some Objectivist definitions. According to Ayn Rand,

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

Also,

Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.

An ethical/political system either explicitly or implicitly defines "the good" --- what it considers to be its standard of value. Any ethical/political system that defines the good to be the good of society is a collectivist system. In a collectivist system, if the good of an individual conflicts with the good of society (or the group), then the individual must give way to or be sacrificed for the good of the whole.

Different collectivist systems differ in how they define the collective. Communist or socialist systems define the collective to be a society living within a particular geographic region --- though they might like to expand to the entire earth. Nationalists or Nazis define the collective to be a racial or ethnic group. Racism, per se, may not be collectivist, but if it is part of a political movement whose purpose is to elevate the needs or the good of the race, then it is.

The purpose of the term "collectivist" is to have a label for all groups that place the good of the group above the good of the individual. That is a perfectly valid reason to create a new term. It would be cumbersome to list every collectivist ideology every time one wanted to refer to the concept of an ideology that places the good of the group ahead of the good of the individual. It would also be cumbersome to spout off the definition each time that one wanted to discuss a collectivist ideology.

Are Islamic regimes like Iran "collectivist"? In Islam, people are told to sacrifice for the good of the Ummah which is an Arabic word referring to society or the nation of Muslim believers. So, there are definitely collectivist strains in Islam. However, strictly speaking, Muslims are supposed to act in certain ways because it is commanded by Allah and every Muslim is to submit to Allah. Islam means submission --- submission to Allah. That is the ultimate standard underpinning Islam. Muslim's ultimate standard is not the good of society, it is submission to Allah. Therefore, strictly speaking, Islam is not a collectivist ethical/political system, although, in practice it basically is.

Is Japan collectivist? Japan is basically a free and capitalist country with some traditionalist influences. So no, I would not call is collectivist. However, in the period before and during the WWII era it was. Japanese were exhorted to sacrifice for the empire. Any ethical/political system that calls upon its denizens to sacrifice themselves for the greater good is a collectivist system (or aspires to be one).

Is North Korea collectivist? Absolutely. It is a Communist state whose reason for being is the good of society. It might have turned into something of a personality cult, but it certainly had its origins in Communist ideology.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't you rather more critical of Objectivists' apparently falling back upon "collectivist"-or- "individualist", at every turn? iow, is it the judgmentalism they pass that bothers you most?

While I've allowed that these are all-consuming concepts which can also be over-applied without nuance, observation of their cause and effects in reality cannot be escaped.

Why does Objectivism place such emphasis on this 'axis'?

I've drilled the Nolan Chart into my head, so I see things represented as axes. Just like how the Nolan Chart broke down the left-right spectrum, I suspect that the individualism-collectivism axis is itself a synthesis of several other orthogonal spectrums. Or it might not even be a valid spectrum at all, in which case we'd be dealing with positions that differ qualitatively rather than quantitavely, something like third ways that trascend it. The word "collectivist" in particular annoys me. Could be judgementalism, too, but I doubt that is the case.

Take these scenarios: John has often heard it said that Scotsmen are tight with a buck. He meets Jock who is a Scot. John deduces from the proposition - without evidence -that Jock is a penny-pincher.

Or, John meets a Scot for the first time. Jock doesn't buy a round of drinks all night.

John induces that all Scotsmen are cheap.

OK, simple stuff, and you're likely to agree that John is illogical.

Objectively speaking it goes much further. John has made a metaphysical error (that man is not autonomous) a determinist error (that man hasn't volitional consciousness, and is predetermined in action and character by his race or nationality) epistemic errors (the illogic above) and the moral error (in that his conclusion does not pertain to reality, is therefore irrational - i.e. he's accepted an assault on his own mind.)

And all that, over and above the fact he has committed an injustice on poor Jock or all Scots everywhere.

How is John's assumption in any way determinist? Christ, I don't even see how the free will debate plays into this.

Collectivism, in a nutshell. Whatever you wish to call it, it's the same concept.

See, I suspect that there is more to it than that.

You must be aware of the extrapolation of the individual example above, into the political sphere.

Er, not like that, I don't think.

Are you a proponent of group and minority rights? or individual rights?

This needs to be thoroughly fleshed out. What would it mean for a group to have rights? That it's a superperson? Are you speaking of organicist views of groups? This seems to be speaking of some sort of Rousseauian view of groups having a volonté générale (which is utter crap to begin with).

I prefer constitutional republican democracies.

How do you think a dictator gets into power in the first place - and gets to keep it?

By manipulating the masses. By playing messiah. With fear. With hate. Through a coup d'état. Through support from foreign governments. By appealing to his or her constituents' false needs. By declaring a state of emergency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Samson,

In order to understand collectivism, it might be useful to start with some definitions. Since we're discussing the Objectivist view of collectivism, let's start with some Objectivist definitions. According to Ayn Rand,

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

Strange. I don't see "the state" as a group. I still think this definition is a little shoddy.

Also,

Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.

This one is even worse. Unit of reality? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

An ethical/political system either explicitly or implicitly defines "the good" --- what it considers to be its standard of value. Any ethical/political system that defines the good to be the good of society is a collectivist system. In a collectivist system, if the good of an individual conflicts with the good of society (or the group), then the individual must give way to or be sacrificed for the good of the whole.

Implicitly, an conflict of one person with the group they are a part of is really a conflict between said person and the rest of the people in the group.

Different collectivist systems differ in how they define the collective. Communist or socialist systems define the collective to be a society living within a particular geographic region --- though they might like to expand to the entire earth. Nationalists or Nazis define the collective to be a racial or ethnic group. Racism, per se, may not be collectivist, but if it is part of a political movement whose purpose is to elevate the needs or the good of the race, then it is.

The purpose of the term "collectivist" is to have a label for all groups that place the good of the group above the good of the individual. That is a perfectly valid reason to create a new term. It would be cumbersome to list every collectivist ideology every time one wanted to refer to the concept of an ideology that places the good of the group ahead of the good of the individual. It would also be cumbersome to spout off the definition each time that one wanted to discuss a collectivist ideology.

What I've been trying to say that is that I believe the structure of the concept is incoherent.

Are Islamic regimes like Iran "collectivist"? In Islam, people are told to sacrifice for the good of the Ummah which is an Arabic word referring to society or the nation of Muslim believers. So, there are definitely collectivist strains in Islam. However, strictly speaking, Muslims are supposed to act in certain ways because it is commanded by Allah and every Muslim is to submit to Allah. Islam means submission --- submission to Allah. That is the ultimate standard underpinning Islam. Muslim's ultimate standard is not the good of society, it is submission to Allah. Therefore, strictly speaking, Islam is not a collectivist ethical/political system, although, in practice it basically is.

No doubt it demands conformity, but this has nothing to do with any groupiness.

Is Japan collectivist? Japan is basically a free and capitalist country with some traditionalist influences. So no, I would not call is collectivist. However, in the period before and during the WWII era it was. Japanese were exhorted to sacrifice for the empire. Any ethical/political system that calls upon its denizens to sacrifice themselves for the greater good is a collectivist system (or aspires to be one).

Is North Korea collectivist? Absolutely. It is a Communist state whose reason for being is the good of society. It might have turned into something of a personality cult, but it certainly had its origins in Communist ideology.

Hmm. It seems we have different ways of looking at these topics, Darrell. Furthermore, it appears to me that it might be the definition that is bugging me; i.e., "the good of the group above the good of the individual". My objection is that "the good of the group" can only collapse into relations between people. I am prone to view it not as "the group" per se, but rather as "the social order".

Japan's pre-WWII culture wasn't about any groupiness. It centered around honor, pride, and the life of the worry. I also believe that what you say about NorKor is a little incorrect. I have no doubt that the locals indoctrinated with that caca believe that a good society is good for themselves as well.

I see "society" as different from "the group" and I believe the model of individualism versus collectivism has something faulty to it, at least in how it is explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell: A pretty good top-down, explicit assessment which also had to be said.

Not to neglect though, that collectivism 'starts at home', from each individual who renounces his independence of mind in favour of the greater number and 'good' (of one type or other, and to one degree, or other). As such, the complete "labelling" of the axis is really 'altruism-collectivism'.

Rand: "We[the USA]have functioned, in economics, on the principle of individualism--and achieved miracles. We have held, in spirit, a collectivist ideal--and achieved world disaster. Altruism is collectivism by definition. (You must live for others. Others are the State, the class, the race or whatever. You must live for the collective...)"[Letters, p.88]

Therefore, to add to your appraisal, collectivism begins bottom up - from enough individuals when they renege their self-authority (as I think of it). In an unholy alliance with the State, control and force, it only then moves into politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darrell: A pretty good top-down, explicit assessment which also had to be said.Not to neglect though, that collectivism 'starts at home', from each individual who renounces his independence of mind in favour of the greater number and 'good' (of one type or other, and to one degree, or other). As such, the complete "labelling" of the axis is really 'altruism-collectivism'.

Rand: "We[the USA]have functioned, in economics, on the principle of individualism--and achieved miracles. We have held, in spirit, a collectivist ideal--and achieved world disaster. Altruism is collectivism by definition. (You must live for others. Others are the State, the class, the race or whatever. You must live for the collective...)"[Letters, p.88]

Therefore, to add to your appraisal, collectivism begins bottom up - from enough individuals when they renege their self-authority (as I think of it). In an unholy alliance with the State, control and force, it only then moves into politics.

America's held "a collectivist ideal"? I wonder what she is talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. It seems we have different ways of looking at these topics, Darrell. Furthermore, it appears to me that it might be the definition that is bugging me; i.e., "the good of the group above the good of the individual". My objection is that "the good of the group" can only collapse into relations between people. I am prone to view it not as "the group" per se, but rather as "the social order".

It appears that your problem is not with "collectivism" so much as it is a problem with its referents, e.g., communism, socialist, Nazism, etc.

You might have more in common with Rand than you think. She states:

Any group or “collective,” large or small, is only a number of individuals.

Communism, itself, for example, is an incoherent, ill-defined term. That's because the notion of the "good of society" is an ill defined term. Communists take it to mean that all people should have equal access to material wealth, regardless of whether they have earned it or not. Hence, Marx's famous slogan from the Communist Manifesto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Clearly, any attempt to enforce such a credo will conflict with the interests of numerous individuals who would be better off earning and keeping their own wealth. But, the interests of such individuals are to be sacrificed to the (supposedly) greater good.

Clearly, an objection to the communist creed would be that following it isn't really good for the group (or society). But, what system that puts the good of society ahead of the rights of the individual is good for society in any meaningful sense? What is good for society? What is society?

The incoherency is not a function of the word "collectivism", per se. It is a function of all of the misguided creeds to which it refers. Yet, such creeds exist and some word is required to label them and thereby to refer to them.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now