What is a "collectivist"?

[Dunedain]

I've seen this word used as an insult by the liberty movement. O-bots are such collectivists, "racists" are collectivists, neo-cons are collectivists, nazis are collectivists. My question is what does all that mean? It's seems to be a kind of bunk word that doesn't really mean much other then the user of the word disagrees with the "collectivists" idealogy. Families are collectivist after all. Are families bad? Does anyone have a good definition of this word in terms of the liberty movement.

[Kludge]

It would be collectivism to call "O-bots", racists, or Neocons collectivists as a group. Collectivism is grouping people by a commonly-held characteristic and then assuming everyone of that group has that trait. A collectivist is someone who employs the "guilt by association" fallacy.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Libertarians are the ultimate collectivists.

[FrankRep]

What is Collectivism? G. Edward Griffin explains it quite nicely


G. Edward Griffin - Collectivism and Individualism

Edward Griffin - Collectivism and Individualism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6276223916862531753)

[Dr.3D]

A racist is somebody who likes to watch races and a collectivist is somebody who likes to look at collections.

The entire crowd at the Indy 500 are racists... and the people who like to check out coin and stamp collections are collectivists. :D



Edit: Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[Dunedain]

It would be collectivism to call "O-bots", racists, or Neocons collectivists as a group. Collectivism is grouping people by a commonly-held characteristic and then assuming everyone of that group has that trait. A collectivist is someone who employs the "guilt by association" fallacy.

I assume people who are convicted of murder are dangerous. I don't think that would entitle me to be called a bad word like collectivist. There must be something more to the definition I'm not getting.

[FrankRep]

I assume people who are convicted of murder are dangerous. I don't think that would entitle me to be called a bad word like collectivist. There must be something more to the definition I'm not getting.
Watch the video.

[youngbuck]

Also, read G. Edward Griffin's essay The Chasm available on his website. It's one of the best pieces I've ever read.

[Pod]

I've seen this word used as an insult by the liberty movement. O-bots are such collectivists, "racists" are collectivists, neo-cons are collectivists, nazis are collectivists. My question is what does all that mean? It's seems to be a kind of bunk word that doesn't really mean much other then the user of the word disagrees with the "collectivists" idealogy. Families are collectivist after all. Are families bad? Does anyone have a good definition of this word in terms of the liberty movement.

A collectivist is somebody who belives collectives themselves can have rights rather than just the induviduals forming the collective. Also tends to belive rights of collectives overrule the rights of induviduals.

[evilfunnystuff]

I assume people who are convicted of murder are dangerous. I don't think that would entitle me to be called a bad word like collectivist. There must be something more to the definition I'm not getting.

ah but your assumtion is wrong there are people who have been wrongly convicted of murder

YouTube - -DVD Version: INTRO - Individualism vs Collectivism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMYicq_SN1E)
YouTube - P1. The Nature and Origin of Human Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXOrJtn1h2M)
YouTube - P2. Group Supremacy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOUS6OalV2I)
YouTube - P3. Coercion vs Freedom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AgcVNzObWE)
YouTube - P4. Equality and Inequality under Law (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKPPe78pX5w)
YouTube - P5. Proper role of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0)

[Mini-Me]

I've seen this word used as an insult by the liberty movement. O-bots are such collectivists, "racists" are collectivists, neo-cons are collectivists, nazis are collectivists. My question is what does all that mean? It's seems to be a kind of bunk word that doesn't really mean much other then the user of the word disagrees with the "collectivists" idealogy. Families are collectivist after all. Are families bad? Does anyone have a good definition of this word in terms of the liberty movement.

Here's a good thread on it:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=170720

Not that I'm a Randian/Objectivist, but the short answer is in the Ayn Rand quote below. That quote refers to [anti-individualistic] collectivism in the political sense...which is the most common usage of the word here. The reason libertarians refer to people with other political ideologies as "collectivist" is because that's the primary difference between libertarian ideology and other ideologies: Libertarianism focuses solely on individual rights, whereas all other ideologies either deny the existence of these rights and/or are otherwise willing to sacrifice them (to varying degrees) for the supposed "greater good" of the collective...which is a Machiavellian "ends justify the means" viewpoint.

Anyway, here are my thoughts, copied and pasted from that thread:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________
Anyway, when it comes to defining collectivism, I'm going to have to dig into the Ayn Rand quote from Kade's old signature (thanks Conza ;)):

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group.
At its core, that is collectivism in its most dangerous form, and this is the form which is expressed in collectivist political ideologies. Broadening the definition very slightly, I would also argue that judging an individual based on group stereotypes or statistics is also collectivist. In fact, there's a strong link here to the strictest definition of collectivism, that which I quoted above: Collectivist statistics and stereotypes of people are exactly what government uses to justify violating the rights of everyone, even those who are exceptions to the stereotypes/statistics (and those "exceptions" usually comprise the majority of people anyway). In other words, collectivist judgments form the flimsy moral basis for tyrannical collectivist rules. By themselves, such generalizations do in way subjugate the individual to the group, because they alienate the individuals to whom the group judgment does not rightly apply, undermining their individuality for the sake of judging the group collectively.

Broadening the definition much further and depending on the circumstances, I might argue that identifying with a group of people in contrast to other supposed groups is also collectivist. That said, this makes for a much weaker argument, because defining collectivism as such presents a second definition so loosely related to the first that it waters down the meaning of collectivism in its strictest sense, conflating benign group cooperation with the subjugation of the individual to the group. Working with or even identifying with a group of people (such as other Ron Paul supporters) is not necessarily collectivist in the anti-individualistic sense of the word, because you could be identifying with a group of people in contrast to other individuals who explicitly do not identify themselves with that group, or who explicitly identify with an opposing group. In other words, by aligning themselves with an opposing political ideology, neocons for example have each voluntarily identified with an ideology that libertarian and old-school conservative Ron Paul supporters oppose. We as the aforementioned self-described Ron Paul supporters disagree with each and every neocon individually (on the subject of their neoconservatism), precisely because their neocon beliefs are by definition in conflict with our own pro-liberty beliefs.* On one hand, if a few neocons like to drink the blood of Iraqi children, it would be unfairly collectivist of us to stereotype and judge all neocons based on the behavior of a few, because we would be making presumptuous generalizations about many individuals. After all, it's almost guaranteed that at least one neocon does not like to drink the blood of Iraqi children, and we would be disenfranchising that individual by imposing a collectivist judgment on him/her. On the other hand, if the term "neocon" is defined to apply only to someone with very specific beliefs with which we (or even simply I) disagree, it is then safe to judge said individuals together as a group for the beliefs they are guaranteed to share (and if they don't share said beliefs that define neoconservatism, they're not neocons, so the judgment does not apply to them - see where I'm going with this?). In this particular case, the "collectivist" judgment used out of convenience has no ill effects, since it's really more like a whole bunch of individual judgments condensed into one package.

Bottom line: In the non-political sense, a broad definition of collectivism can include all collective or cooperative activity, such as an individual's identification with a group or even the benign formation of groups of individuals. However, this kind of "collectivism" is obviously not necessarily anti-individualistic, which is why it should not be confused with collectivism as it is used in the political sense! In the political sense, collectivism is defined in direct opposition to individualism. Collectivist ideologies are inherently anti-individualistic at their core, sacrificing the rights and dignity of the "expendable" individual for some perceived benefit to the collective. Whenever I say I oppose collectivism, this is what I am talking about.

*Note: I should mention that it's actually slightly collectivist to assume that all Ron Paul supporters take a pro-liberty stance on everything - but if I conveniently define "Ron Paul supporter" to be a very strict hardcore subset of all those who actually support Ron Paul in some capacity, I can fall back on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. ;)

[Dunedain]

ah but your assumtion is wrong there are people who have been wrongly convicted of murder

I would rather my collectivist assumption be wrong instead of risking being murdered because I didn't use caution around someone convicted of murder. I assume a rattlesnake will bite me if it slithers around my feet and would take appropriate action. I am apparently assuming things and being a collectivist because not all snakes would bite in that situation.

[Dunedain]

Watch the video.

I am almost 3/4 of the way through. I love Ed Griffin for his Fed work. I agree that collectivist groups can be a bad thing (politicians who want to enforce seat belts for example)....but the idea that "there are no groups" concept goes against reality. Yes, you can see a forest, not just trees...at 5:00 minutes in he almost states that you can't see a forest, but he corrects himself because the statement is obviously absurd).

The definition of the group having rights (collectivist) makes a little more sense. I believe that humans (as a group) have rights that non-humans do not. I suppose that means I'm a collectivist.

The subjugation of an invidual to a group definition....I hate to say it...that sounds like me at work. I'm a serf like most people who work.

The definition that says the individual needs are put before the needs of the group is collectivist. Crap...I do that everyday. I put my families needs before my own. I put the needs of the group before mine all the time.

..yesterday I gave some money to my church - and boy did I need that 10 bucks, but hey - it's for the good of the collective...
http://records.viu.ca/~soules/medi402/walker/borg1.GIF

[FrankRep]

I am almost 3/4 of the way through. I love Ed Griffin for his Fed work. I agree that collectivist groups are a bad thing (politicians who want to enforce seat belts for example)....but the idea that "there are no groups" concept goes against reality.

I agree with you and that is where the pure Libertarianism concept of Individualism kills itself. If you live in a community (you're a collectivist), if you attend church (you're a collectivist), if you're married and have a child (you're a collectivist). Some forms of collectivism are healthy while other forms of collectivism (government-sponsored usually) rob you of your uniqueness, freedom, and individuality.

[Mini-Me]

I agree with you and that is where the pure Libertarianism concept of Individualism kills itself. If you live in a community (you're a collectivist), if you attend church (you're a collectivist), if you're married and have a child (you're a collectivist). Some forms of collectivism is healthy while other forms of collectivism (government-sponsored usually) rob you of your uniqueness, freedom, and individuality.

I agree. In the behavioral sense, a distinction must be made between voluntary collective-oriented behavior and anti-individualistic (forced) collectivism. It's the anti-individualism of political collectivism that makes it dangerous [and evil IMO]. Similarly, it's the anti-individualism of collectivist judgment (e.g. racist stereotypes) that makes it unfair.

[Dunedain]

I agree with you and that is where the pure Libertarianism concept of Individualism kills itself. If you live in a community (you're a collectivist), if you attend church (you're a collectivist), if you're married and have a child (you're a collectivist). Some forms of collectivism is healthy while other forms of collectivism (government-sponsored usually) rob you of your uniqueness, freedom, and individuality.

Right...and saying "individuals have rights" is collectivism. ...and we're collectivist because we have an abstract notion of a group called "individuals" that we keep refering to. Individuals have rights! This group called individuals have rights! Other groups don't have rights...only individuals.

I've pretty much been convinced that it is a self-negating idea, although I'm still open to change my mind.

I think we need a better definition if the term is to useful (which I believe it is)...let me mull it over

[Epic]

I've seen this word used as an insult by the liberty movement. O-bots are such collectivists, "racists" are collectivists, neo-cons are collectivists, nazis are collectivists. My question is what does all that mean? It's seems to be a kind of bunk word that doesn't really mean much other then the user of the word disagrees with the "collectivists" idealogy. Families are collectivist after all. Are families bad? Does anyone have a good definition of this word in terms of the liberty movement.

Haha, well it's pretty clear you don't know what collectivist is - you didn't use it right:

"Families are collectivist after all. "

Well, making a judgemental statement about a collective is collectivist! People should be judged as individuals, not as families, black people, straight people, or left-handed people.

Another example: wealth redistribution from rich people to poor people.

The collectivist refrain would be - rich people don't need it as much/ they haven't really earned it/they just got lucky/ they don't deserve their money/ they won't miss it/ the poor people really need it... etc.

In other words, they often justify public policy that affects groups of people by making characterizations about the group that may be true, ON AVERAGE, but any such analysis should be performed at the individual level. People don't get their rights because they are members of preferred groups or unpreferred groups, every individual receives the same rights (that of an individual) regardless of what groups they just happen to be a member of.

[Epic]

Right...and saying "individuals have rights" is collectivism.

Incorrect. Analysis at the level of the individual and not the level of a group is individualist, not collectivist.

Say that one individual has rights, and another individual has rights, and then they form a group. Now, it is ok to say, "all of the members of the group have rights" because we have first performed analysis at the individual level, so we have built the individualist foundation.

[Mini-Me]

Right...and saying "individuals have rights" is collectivism. ...and we're collectivist because we have an abstract notion of a group called "individuals" that we keep refering to. Individuals have rights! This group called individuals have rights! Other groups don't have rights...only individuals.
Because the word "individuals" is a noun, of course it technically refers to a "group." This is the case with every plural noun. However, the semantics of the word "individuals" (plural) make it a term used to separately refer to each individual in a group. You could say each individual separately has rights. The words "collective" and "group" have very different semantics.



I've pretty much been convinced that it is a self-negating idea, although I'm still open to change my mind.

I think we need a better definition if the term is to useful (which I believe it is)...let me mull it over
I don't think it's the idea itself that's negating. It's just that you can do mental gymnastics around the quirks of language to make it seem that way. Since you agree that the term is useful, you are clearly able to conceptualize its intended meaning, after all.

Epic's post is correct:

Incorrect. Analysis at the level of the individual and not the level of a group is individualist, not collectivist.

Say that one individual has rights, and another individual has rights, and then they form a group. Now, it is ok to say, "all of the members of the group have rights" because we have first performed analysis at the individual level, so we have built the individualist foundation.
Making a collectivist judgment would be making a judgment about a group regardless of whether it truthfully applies to all individuals in that group, i.e. racist stereotypes. This is anti-individualistic. If you can make individual judgments and then subsequently combine them into a group, as Epic said, you can then refer to them collectively without alienating individuality.

Again though, the most important use of the word "collectivism" refers to political collectivism. I'll repost what I said above:

Not that I'm a Randian/Objectivist, but the short answer is in the Ayn Rand quote below. (Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group.) That quote refers to [anti-individualistic] collectivism in the political sense...which is the most common usage of the word here. The reason libertarians refer to people with other political ideologies as "collectivist" is because that's the primary difference between libertarian ideology and other ideologies: Libertarianism focuses solely on individual rights, whereas all other ideologies either deny the existence of these rights and/or are otherwise willing to sacrifice them (to varying degrees) for the supposed "greater good" of the collective...which is a Machiavellian "ends justify the means" viewpoint.

[Dunedain]

Well, making a judgemental statement about a collective is collectivist!

to point out that, "There are no correct generalizations, including this one" seems appropriate at this point in the debate.

[Sandman33]

Basicly any time someone doesnt like what you are telling them you are a collectivist.

[Mini-Me]

Basicly any time someone doesnt like what you are telling them you are a collectivist.

Go be sarcastic on Mars, you naked blue freak. ;)

[Dunedain]

i will refrain from criticizing nazis then for fear of being labeled a collectivist.

[Mini-Me]

i will refrain from criticizing nazis then for fear of being labeled a collectivist.

You're making a mistake here: Ideological Nazis by definition support certain things you are probably highly critical of, to put it lightly. The fascist tenets of Nazi ideology are what MAKES them Nazis; anyone who does not believe in these things is not a Nazi (but could still potentially be similar). The term defines a certain ideology, and anyone who believes in that ideology therefore believes in that ideology (by the identity property of logic). This is something I touched on in the post I wrote last year and pasted earlier in the thread.

Of course, the term has a double meaning as well, since it also refers to members of the Nazi Party...and any collectivist generalizations made about those party members, while generally accurate, do not reflect every individual member of the party...like Oskar Schindler, for instance. Still, generalizing about Nazi party members isn't going to get too many people calling you a collectivist. After all, the exceptions there are far more rare than if you were to start generalizing about Mexicans or something.

Anyway, the above identity property is why you can say that all neoconservatives support policies like the Patriot Act (such beliefs are what defines the term "neoconservative") and are therefore scumbags without being collectivist, while it would be a collectivist generalization to say that all Republicans support policies like the Patriot Act and are therefore scumbags. See the difference?

However, regardless of all of this, remember that libertarianism primarily opposes political collectivism (the subjugation of the individual to the group). That is related to collectivism in judgment, but it is still distinct.

[TastyWheat]

Collectivists see justification in violating individual/minority rights as long as it benefits a greater number. Think of collectivists as "top-down" or "big picture" kinds of people.

[AutoDas]

i will refrain from criticizing nazis then for fear of being labeled a collectivist.

ugh honestly all you needed was to read that Ayn Rand quote. Collectivism is not the same as groups of individuals.

[Dunedain]

You're making a mistake here: Ideological Nazis by definition support certain things you are probably highly critical of, to put it lightly. The fascist tenets of Nazi ideology are what MAKES them Nazis; anyone who does not believe in these things is not a Nazi (but could still potentially be similar). The term defines a certain ideology, and anyone who believes in that ideology therefore believes in that ideology (by the identity property of logic). This is something I touched on in the post I wrote last year and pasted earlier in the thread.

Of course, the term has a double meaning as well, since it also refers to members of the Nazi Party...and any collectivist generalizations made about those party members, while generally accurate, do not reflect every individual member of the party...like Oskar Schindler, for instance.

That's why you can say that all neoconservatives support policies like the Patriot Act (such beliefs are what defines the term "neoconservative") and are therefore scumbags, but it would be a collectivist generalization to say that all Republicans support policies like the Patriot Act and are therefore scumbags. See the difference?

However, regardless of all of this, remember that libertarianism primarily opposes political collectivism (the subjugation of the individual to the group). That is related to collectivism in judgment, but it is still distinct.

I think the problem is not your explaination but the term "collectivist" itself that is extermely hard to define yet people use it as a bad word. It's like the word "heretic"...it's hard to define...collectivists are the heretics of the freedom movement. It doesn't appear anyone has a good definition of a collectivist is...just look at the two prior posts above this one.

[Mini-Me]

I think the problem is not your explaination but the term "collectivist" itself that is extermely hard to define yet people use it as a bad word. It's like the word "generalist"...it's hard to define...collectivists are the heretics of the freedom movement.

It's not necessarily that hard to define; rather, it just has several distinct, but related definitions. One has to do with collectivist judgments (i.e. making generalizations), and that's the one you have been focusing on this whole time. Yes, using the word "collectivist" in this sense deals in shades of gray...but that's why it's generally only used as a slur when someone is being extraordinarily collectivist, like if someone were to say some minority group is a bunch of criminals. Basically, when it's used in this sense, the word "collectivist" is the same thing as "racist," except it applies to making generalizations about any group, not just a racial group.

However, there's a far more important definition that you seem to keep avoiding:

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group.
This refers to political collectivism, and political collectivism would certainly make you a "heretic" of the freedom movement, so to speak, because it is the complete antithesis of individual freedom. THAT is the most important definition, and it's the one that most legitimately deserves its status as a slur.

[pcosmar]

I think the problem is not your explaination but the term "collectivist" itself that is extermely hard to define yet people use it as a bad word. It's like the word "generalist"...it's hard to define...collectivists are the heretics of the freedom movement. It doesn't appear anyone has a good definition of a collectivist is...just look at the post above this one.
Not Heretics, They are the complete opposite of freedom Movement.
It has been well defined several times in this thread and the videos posted.
Perhaps it is an inability to comprehend.

[Dunedain]

However, there's a far more important definition that you seem to keep avoiding:.

I dealt with that in post #13. Subjugating of the individual the group (your super-large CAPS above). This is the employer-employee relationship. Or the wife/husband to the family. Attacking those institutions sounds a lot like communism.

[BillyDkid]

I've seen this word used as an insult by the liberty movement. O-bots are such collectivists, "racists" are collectivists, neo-cons are collectivists, nazis are collectivists. My question is what does all that mean? It's seems to be a kind of bunk word that doesn't really mean much other then the user of the word disagrees with the "collectivists" idealogy. Families are collectivist after all. Are families bad? Does anyone have a good definition of this word in terms of the liberty movement.It is the opposite of an individualist.

[Mini-Me]

I dealt with that in post #13. Subjugating of the indivdual the group. This is the employer-employee relationship.

No, it's not. Here you misunderstand the meaning of the word "subjugation," which is meant to refer to the initiation of force or coercion. Work relationships imply a voluntarily entered contract (which you and your employer presumably entered because you found it mutually beneficial), not subjugation...regardless of whether you resent the terms you individually agreed to.

That said, if you really want to be difficult on purpose and disagree about the semantics of the word "subjugation," simply replace "subjugation" with "forceful subjugation" or something else until it makes sense to you.

Keep in mind that language is merely supposed to communicate meaning. Defining words with other words will ALWAYS end up with circular arguments if you ask for recursive definitions long enough, no matter what language you're talking about. As long as you understand the concept a word is intended to represent, that's all that matters.

[Dunedain]

No, it's not. Here you misunderstand the meaning of the word "subjugation," which is meant to refer to the initiation of force or coercion. Work relationships imply a voluntarily entered contract (which you and your employer presumably entered because you found it mutually beneficial), regardless of whether you resent the terms you individually agreed to.

That's one definition. Another is to command...which many employers do. I think we're going in circles here. I think I've gotten what I was looking for. thanks for your responses.

[AutoDas]

lol wut

An employer is collectivist?

[Mini-Me]

That's one definition. Another is to command...which many employers do. I think we're going in circles here. I think I've gotten what I was looking for. thanks for your responses.

I'll repost my edits, since they seem very relevant to what you just said:
That said, if you really want to be difficult on purpose and disagree about the semantics of the word "subjugation," simply replace "subjugation" with "forceful subjugation" or something else until it makes sense to you.

Keep in mind that language is merely supposed to communicate meaning. Defining words with other words will ALWAYS end up with circular arguments if you ask for recursive definitions long enough, no matter what language you're talking about. As long as you understand the concept a word is intended to represent, that's all that matters.

[BillyDkid]

I might add, if you believe in self ownership (a fundamental tenet of libertarianism) you can not logically be a collectivist. To be a collectivist is accept the premise that you are owned to one degree or another, by other people. By the way, - I'm sorry, I forget his name - but that lawyer who is always contributing to Lew Rockwell about intellectual property has a good talk on Lew's podcast about IP. Why it's pertinent in this thread is that it explains a lot about the implications of self ownership that hadn't occurred to me before I heard it. I learned a number of things. Good talk. Check it out.

[JeNNiF00F00]

collectivists see justification in violating individual/minority rights as long as it benefits a greater number. Think of collectivists as "top-down" or "big picture" kinds of people.

this.

[Feenix566]

A collectivist is someone who is unable to distinguish between an individual and the group to which that individual belongs.