Collectivism is the root of all evil

We are lead to believe that Nazism and Communism are bitter idealogical enemies. Communism is a utopian left wing ideal and Nazism is a right wing nightmare.

However Communism and Nazism are on closer inspection almost the same. Their underlying morality is that of collectivism. They both want what is a good for the greatest number. They are both developed around the intellectual cornerstone of Socialism. Communists want global socialism and Nazi's want national socialism. The Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the Nationalist Socialist party.

Communist promote class hatred. They make the bourgeois their enemy. The very people who serve society the most paradoxically are their enemy. Nazi's promote racial hatred. This is obviously the persecution of the jews. Who incidently were in many cases the bourgeois. Ultimately both ideals look at humans and ascribe them a status. They place them in a group and treat them accordingly. Rather than treating people as individuals.

The communists used class conflict as a methodology to achieve their aims. Whilst Nazi's used race conflict to unite people. Ultimately both made enemies for themselves. Then convinced people that sacraficing themselves to defeat the common enemy would serve the common good. Both used the ideas a sacraficial altruism.

Nazism and Communism are both the expression of collectivism. Just with a different arbitrary methodologies.

The ideas a collectivism have in the past been the scourge of humanity. And they continue to do so today. Look at any conflict and you will see collectivism time and time again.

When people ask 'How can you justify your morality?' it is not particuarlly for me. All you need to do is look at the evidence. Empiricism and the rational mind are all we have to guide us. And these two implements make it blindingly obvious to me. Collectivism is evil, through and through. Individualism is the only sound morality.

I can find thousands and thousands of evil men who preached collectivism (even Jesus). Yet you can not point to one real individualist man and for him to be unilaterally declared to be evil. And there is a very good reason for that :wink:

Reply 1

obstupefacere

13

You conflate status-ascription to collectivism, and individualism as the treating of folk as individual.

But you do not define evil in any real sense.... So it is quite a meaningless post, simply two definitions and an arbitrary moral declaration.

Say again... Why?

Reply 2

turn and fall

OP

12

You conflate status-ascription to collectivism

Collectivism is about promoting the interests of groups. Whether is be a racial group. A sex. Or a nationality. That is how collectivism expresses itself.

individualism as the treating of folk as individual.

Which true. Which is the opposite of ascribing somebody to a group. Which is what collectivists do.

But you do not define evil in any real sense.... So it is quite a meaningless post, simply two definitions and an arbitrary moral declaration.

Sorry - I didnt think I had to remind you of all the killing that happened because of Communism and Nazism. The numbers are quite astonishing. I think it was all fairly immoral, and all justified due to collectivism.

'Its for the greater good'

Reply 3

Nightstar-27

12

Hasn't collectivism also produced good things? When people come together to make something better?

Individualism can also be bad. It encourages people to only think of themselves and not help others at all.

Collectivism and individualism are going to be permanent I'm afraid, we're group animals by nature and we can also be very self absorbed. Neither are totally good or bad.

Reply 4

Genocidal

19

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that man is the root of all evil? Also good and evil are just opinions that humans made up, therefore the definitions of good and evil will differ between peoples, as it has throughout the ages.

Reply 5

obstupefacere

13

Original post by turn and fall

Sorry - I didnt think I had to remind you of all the killing that happened because of Communism and Nazism. The numbers are quite astonishing. I think it was all fairly immoral, and all justified due to collectivism.

'Its for the greater good'

The scales are going to be bigger in communal structures, it does not mean the structures are immoral by necessity.

I dare say many individualistic people have killed too. However, we have never had a fully individualistic state so it is an odd point to make comparison.

No it seems to me you are saying that collectives are bad; as other posters have said, collectives can come together for good. It is just the case that as with any intention, be it individual or collective, there are often consequences. This, coupled with the fact there have been collective states, has lead to killing.

Whereas, en masse, there have never been individualist states, so we can't really compare. But I dare say, people will be just as selfish, if not more so, as there is no 'norm' to conform to.

I am not advocating an extreme collective, simply I feel we need to have a compromise, collective structures which allow flexibility for individuals.

Reply 6

Aj12

18

Would't really say communism and Nazism are the same. There has never been a communist state only Socialist/Maoist/Leninist/Stalinist.

Reply 7

AnarchistNutter

1

Original post by turn and fall

When people ask 'How can you justify your morality?' it is not particuarlly for me. All you need to do is look at the evidence.

But TnF, that is the naturalist fallacy; you cannot derive a value judgement from empiricism or factual data! At least a second statement (that empiricism is 'good'/'true'/'moral') is necessary to complete the syllogism (and then you have to explain what is so inherently good or true about empiricism).

Original post by obstupefacere

However, we have never had a fully individualistic state so it is an odd point to make comparison.

The Jeffersonian government, perhaps?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 8

Ocassus

12

Original post by Nightstar-27

Hasn't collectivism also produced good things? When people come together to make something better?

Generally under the direction of one person.

Individualism can also be bad. It encourages people to only think of themselves and not help others at all.

There should be no force in charity. The good samaritan loses its moral edge when a gun is put to its head...

Collectivism and individualism are going to be permanent I'm afraid, we're group animals by nature and we can also be very self absorbed. Neither are totally good or bad.

Troosay.

Reply 9

Ocassus

12

Original post by Aj12

Would't really say communism and Nazism are the same. There has never been a communist state only Socialist/Maoist/Leninist/Stalinist.

The notion of a Communist stage is fallacious, because the ultimate end result of Communism is to have no state at all.

One can argue that this goal was what the examples you have listed actually started out with the intention of doing, but were unable to, and were stuck in a Socialist dictatorship.

Reply 10

Aj12

18

Original post by Ocassus

The notion of a Communist stage is fallacious, because the ultimate end result of Communism is to have no state at all.

One can argue that this goal was what the examples you have listed actually started out with the intention of doing, but were unable to, and were stuck in a Socialist dictatorship.

I know I was going to add that bit cba.

I wonder if the intent was ever there tbh. Looking at the history of the USSR the main intent seemed to always be to entrench the state. I don't think they ever attempted to roll it back.

Reply 11

Ocassus

12

Original post by Aj12

I know I was going to add that bit cba.

I wonder if the intent was ever there tbh. Looking at the history of the USSR the main intent seemed to always be to entrench the state. I don't think they ever attempted to roll it back.

Marx was dubious as to whether the state would be conscientiously 'rolled back' or whether it would simply wither away as people no longer saw need of it. The former was not going to happen in the Soviet Union and neither was the latter...

Reply 12

Aj12

18

Original post by Ocassus

Marx was dubious as to whether the state would be conscientiously 'rolled back' or whether it would simply wither away as people no longer saw need of it. The former was not going to happen in the Soviet Union and neither was the latter...

Can't believe anyone ever tried to build a state on Marx tbh. I think it should be taken as critique of capitalism not a blue print for a state like the republic

Reply 13

Aphotic Cosmos

17

I disagree that collectivism is the root of all evil. Collectivism and individualism can both be purposed for acts of great evil against, or tremendous benefit to, humanity as a whole. A healthy society must maintain an awareness of the importance of the individual and yet also try to encourage co-operation between individuals to accomplish things that the individual cannot. It's a hard balance to strike but it's possible.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 14

JacobW

7

Collectivism can also do great things; look at Britain in the 1940s and 50s. Most of the 'evil' of communism and fascism comes from the idea of remaking the world on the basis of first principles, not from wanting people to work together and valuing altruism and self-sacrifice. Admittedly the disaster that was the command economy played a part in some of the failings of communism.

Don't conflate wanting 'the greatest good with the greatest number' with collectivism--Mill was hardly a socialist.

Reply 15

turn and fall

OP

12

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

I disagree that collectivism is the root of all evil. Collectivism and individualism can both be purposed for acts of great evil against, or tremendous benefit to, humanity as a whole. A healthy society must maintain an awareness of the importance of the individual and yet also try to encourage co-operation between individuals to accomplish things that the individual cannot. It's a hard balance to strike but it's possible.

Individualism can be summed up as meaning that only individuals have rights. And thus only individuals have responsibility. If you have the right to propety then it is your responsibility to gain property. Rights and responsibilities are different sides of the same coin.

Collectivism assumes that individuals do not have rights. But groups have rights. Like the right take away somebodies freedom of speech to apease the group.

Your point of cooperation is precisely what I mean. Individualism does not mean we are alone. It means that we can work together but we may not force each other. Suppose a Piano needs to be moved. the Individualist assumes responsibility to move the Piano. He can pay people to help him. Or ask nicely. He may not force others. A collectivist assumes that the group is responsible for moving the Piano and in many cases should be forced.

The Piano can be used as a metaphor for may things. Healthcare? Education? Jobs?

Are these your responsiblies and thus your rights or are they responsibility of others or the group?

Reply 16

adam_zed

16

Original post by turn and fall

Collectivism is about promoting the interests of groups. Whether is be a racial group. A sex. Or a nationality. That is how collectivism expresses itself.

Which true. Which is the opposite of ascribing somebody to a group. Which is what collectivists do.

Sorry - I didnt think I had to remind you of all the killing that happened because of Communism and Nazism. The numbers are quite astonishing. I think it was all fairly immoral, and all justified due to collectivism.

'Its for the greater good'

What about the hundreds of thousands killed in wars orchestrated in some way by individualist countries in the 1970s and 80s in order to reverse a sovreign nation's decision to nationalize?

Reply 17

RedRevolver

15

Original post by turn and fall

Sorry - I didnt think I had to remind you of all the killing that happened because of Communism and Nazism. The numbers are quite astonishing. I think it was all fairly immoral, and all justified due to collectivism.

And people do not die because of individualist ideologies?

Just because those regimes (USSR, China, Cuba - never communist) and various fascist ideologies have used collectivism to engender barbaric practices fairly openly, does not mean liberal values have not been to the detriment of others.

Furthermore, I find your use of the piano metaphor interesting. America, the UK, and many European countries are constantly coercing other countries, and indeed the individuals that reside in those countries, for their own benefit. And by coerce, I mean, leave very little option than to do what they want...

Regardless, I've always interpreted communist writings - and I mean not necessarily Marx, but Gramsci and others - to have believed that collectivism would give rise to the individual; where people value each other as equals, we value individual qualities. In a collectivist state, everyone has an individual role.

Humour me, have you ever visited or lived amongst a commune or collectivist society?

Reply 18

turn and fall

OP

12

And people do not die because of individualist ideologies?

I can find no evidence to show that individualistic people kill on mass (I am sure there are random murders). And there is a logical reason. Individualistic people value every human life equally. i.e. all men are created equal

Just because those regimes (USSR, China, Cuba - never communist) and various fascist ideologies have used collectivism to engender barbaric practices fairly openly, does not mean liberal values have not been to the detriment of others.

Depends what you mean by liberal values. If you mean classsical liberalism I completely disagree. Those have been the great achievements of man in my opinion.

Furthermore, I find your use of the piano metaphor interesting. America, the UK, and many European countries are constantly coercing other countries, and indeed the individuals that reside in those countries, for their own benefit. And by coerce, I mean, leave very little option than to do what they want...

I completely agree. It is absolutely awful. The underlying principle is that of collectivism that justifies wars.

Regardless, I've always interpreted communist writings - and I mean not necessarily Marx, but Gramsci and others - to have believed that collectivism would give rise to the individual; where people value each other as equals, we value individual qualities. In a collectivist state, everyone has an individual role.

This is rather disingenous. Ultimately collectivists put the interests of the group ahead of the individual. They argue this will lead to the best interests of the individual.

Individidualism argues that putting the interests of the individual first will lead to the benefit of the group.

Individual ambition frequently serves the common good

Adam Smith

Notice how the individual is put first. Not the common good. The only war to serve the common good is to allow individuals to be free. All other methods have massive trade offs.

Humour me, have you ever visited or lived amongst a commune or collectivist society?

I live in the UK. I would argue that all 'democratic' societies are collectivist. Majority rule is collectivism.

Reply 19

merlil2

1

The bourgeois ARE the enemy. They are the eletists, the rich, the eugenicists, the collectivists, the pro-authority, the ruling class. They are evil. The only good people on Earth are heterosexual, non-pacifist, individualist, anarchists. Kill everyone else. Plan and simple. Everyone else is evil. Anyone who debates this is evil. Kill them. And now I must give the evil bourgeois my information to post the comment so they can track the good people like me.

Collectivism is the root of all evil

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you