Collectivism | Way of the Mind

Archive for the 'collectivism' Category

Individualism and X-Men: The Last Stand

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 10, 2006

in collectivism and individualism

. 0 Comments

I’d like to draw your attention to this blog post: X-Men 3: Libertarian Masterpiece.

An excerpt:

The major development in the 3rd film is the creation of a “cure” for mutation. Any mutant exposed to it will lose his or her special powers and become a regular human. Though it is offered on a volunteer basis, the mutants are divided between those who would do anything for the chance at a “normal” life and those who would do anything to protect the mutant “identity.” It is no small irony that all of this takes place in San Francisco, of all places.

Things escalate and battle lines are drawn. What had been a completely voluntary cure becomes less so. At this point, we recognize the twin bigotries of social conservatism and identity politics. On the right, we have the populist masses and the government who are driven by fear of that which is different. On the left, we have members of minority groups who place their group identity above all else, and who are driven by fear of the loss of that identity. Any mutant desiring the cure is a traitor. Any mutant deviating from the group’s stance is a threat. Therefore the cure, and its supporters, must be eliminated.

The X-Men offer a third way, the only way not driven by bigotry: Individual choice, not decisions forcibly made by society or an identity group. One of the X-Men decides that she would rather be normal than a mutant. Instead of denying that choice or deeming her a traitor, she is told to think about what is best, personally, for herself. Individuals who mean no harm to anyone deserve the right to control their lives. This is the heart of libertarianism.

I don’t think I could have said it better.

Continue reading ‘Individualism and X-Men: The Last Stand’

Reply to hynkle: collectivism and the individual

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 31, 2006

in collectivism and individualism

. 16 Comments

In reply to this comment from hynkle:

I was also quite taken by The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I first read them. They quite literally changed my life. My worldview underwent a significant change. But as I’ve been living since then, I’ve come to realize that it seems that her philosophy misses something crucial. The individual is as sacred a thing as we can have in this natural world. If we take the individual as something of such great importance, how much more important then must the collective be?

Part of the difference, I am thinking, may be that I look at the collective as a group of precious individuals, while most simply look at the collective as a lumpy mishmash of humankind.

What do you think of my view of collectivism? Is this what it is that Rand so disliked, or am I talking about something different?

Since the question is interesting, but offtopic for that thread, I’ll reply to it here:

Her philosophy is indeed missing some important things; for instance, nature is something wonderful, and she (and her characters) had no use for it, except as resources. But, about collectivism, I think she was completely right.

And why is that? Because, unless you’re talking about the Borg, there’s no such thing as “the collective”.

“The collective”, or “the group”, is just a term which a number of less ethical individuals use when they want you to sacrifice yourself for them. There’s no such thing as “society as a whole” (whose needs, of course, are more important than individual ones); the best contribution you can give to society is to be a great, heroic, creative being - but you should be doing it for yourself, not for society. The fact that others also gain by it is just a bonus.

But if you sacrifice your own needs, hopes, dreams and happiness because of the needs of “the group”, nobody is really gaining. You’re just destroying yourself, and they will need to move on after their latest victim (you) is drained.

You may say: “but if, say, 10 individuals agree in something, shouldn’t their opinion ‘count’ 10 times as much as mine?”. No. It doesn’t work that way. They’re still individuals, and each one doesn’t “count” more than you do. And if they are so low as to use their number to convince you that their needs are more important than yours, then they should “count” even less.

I have no problem with a group whose goal is to produce, to create. But a group whose purpose is to demand from individuals only deserves contempt.

This is my opinion. If I misunderstood your meaning, please let me know.

(I know you didn’t even mention “sacrifice”, but, again, without sacrifice of the individual, “the collective” is meaningless. There’s no such thing, and nobody ever talks about “the greater needs of the group / society / humanity” without talking about individual sacrifice.)

Murderous children: innocents?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 23, 2006

in collectivism, relativism, society and violence

. 9 Comments

If you don’t speak Portuguese, you probably won’t understand this news article, but it’s like this: a group of minors, between 10 and 15 years old, have just murdered a homeless man, in Oporto, Portugal. Apparently, they stoned and kicked him to death.

Surprisingly, not much has been said yet (though I admit I don’t watch TV or listen to radio, I only read news sites), other than a couple of politicians saying “I’m shocked!”. But, having lived in Portugal all my life, I can easily see where this is going. Politicians here, who sometimes remind me of Atlas Shrugged villains, are probably going to say that the kids are minors according to the law, that they aren’t responsible for their actions, that they are the true victims, that this is all society’s fault, that they can’t possibly be seen, or treated, as criminals, that all children are innocent, that this or that is to blame, and so on. In other words, collectivism, and the denial of that bothersome thing called “personal responsibility”.

I can bet that no one among them will be punished in any way. I really, really hope I am wrong… but I’ve seen how justice works here.

Me, my belief is this: by commiting murder (and it’s murder, make no mistakes), they lost the right to be treated as “innocent” children. By acting like adults, and doing one of the worst things an adult can do (killing an innocent, just for fun), they should be treated as adults, and punished as such.

What do you people think? Should their young age make a difference here?

The Sacrificial Worker, part 2

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 7, 2006

in collectivism and work

. 2 Comments

“Ahhh, you only complain about everything, instead of actually suggesting anything constructive!”

Far from it.

Let’s try a different format for this article: a FAQ (frequently asked questions) list. They aren’t necessarily “questions”, but you get the idea.

1- “I can’t go on vacation! What would happen to the rest of the team? We’re already overworked…”

They don’t have an obligation to do your work on top of theirs. They should either do their own work, or yours, or part of each - not both. And they should learn to say “sorry, we can’t do this, we don’t have the manpower to do it, unless we stop doing something else.”

2- “But what about the other teams, which depend on our work? Do we have the right to let them be harmed?”

The answer here is the same. I’m not advocating “excuses” in the usual sense, but, just like your understaffed team has a reason not do do all the required work, so do the other teams - “the XXX team couldn’t do their part, they don’t have enough people at the moment. They say they’ve already asked their boss to hire more people…”.

3- “The boss told me to dedicate all my time to project X… but if I do so, what will happen to the company? I’d need to take time from it to do all the maintenance work I usually do! I have to stay at work until later, and do both!”

Nope. First, get your boss’s orders in writing. (if he refuses, tell him, flatly, that you won’t do it.) Then, obey them. When the rest of the company (including your boss’s boss) complains that nothing is working, tell them what happened. Simple.

4- “This work is vital! The company needs it!”

If it’s so important, why don’t they hire more people, instead of leaving it to overworked, stressed, tired employees? It’s a lot easier to make mistakes if you haven’t slept well for weeks, you know.

5- “I’m an employee of the company, they pay me, so I have to do what they tell me to do.”

Not quite. You’re an employee, not property. And if they need you to do the work of 3 men, why don’t they pay you 3 times your normal salary? They don’t? Then you should do your work - competently and professionally. No less… and no more.

6- “This is an emergency situation! It’s only temporary!”

Is it? Emergencies, by definition, are short and exceptional. How long has it been like this, now? And, what’s worse, does your boss - assuming he cares about cutting costs and having all the work done, but not about your health or well-being - have any reason to change things? Or will he be better served by delaying the hiring of any more people, knowing full well that your loyalty - and gullibility - will make the remaing few do the work of many?

7- “My efforts will eventually be recognized, and I will be promoted, if I keep doing this.”

Wrong again. To anyone above your boss, it’s he that will be seen as extremely efficient, a great leader, who is able to cut costs, and do a lot of work with such few employees. Guess who will have the promotion.

The Sacrificial Worker

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 6, 2006

in collectivism and work

. 6 Comments

Raise your hand if the following is familiar…

Once upon a time, there was a nice little company. In it, there was a nice little department, and inside it there was a nice little team.

The members of that team were competent, and there was work for everyone. They weren’t overworked - they managed to leave at 6 PM every day, with all of the day’s work behind them, and then go home to their families and forget it all until the next day. On the other hand, they weren’t idle either - if one of them got sick, or went on vacations, for instance, the others certainly “felt” the added work, had to leave a little later, and went home tired. But they managed.

One day, one of them left. Nothing special had happened - he simply got a better offer somewhere else, and in a place closer to home. The other workers were a bit troubled by it, but their worries were eased as their boss assured them that they would hire a replacement soon.

Time passed, and no replacement came. It was, in a way, as if one of the team was gone on vacations all the time. The remaining members had to work harder, more time per day, and spent less time with their families. Worse, still, was when one of them did go on vacations - that mean everyone else got really overworked, and had to spend nights at work, and sometimes go there during weekends. Luckily, that didn’t happen during most of the time.

And the boss had an idea…

Continue reading ‘The Sacrificial Worker’

Forces for good?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on January 8, 2006

in atheism, collectivism and religion

. 9 Comments

The Martian has a post on his blog called Religion: A Force For Good?. There, he questions the usual defense of “oh, religion (or Christianity, or…) would be a good thing if people actually followed its tenets, instead of using it as a cover to gain money or power”. He says that, instead, the flaw is with religion (or, in this case, Christianity and Islam) itself.

I completely agree with him - the Abrahamic religions, at least, are creeds of death - and the problem is not that people don’t follow them perfectly, but that they follow them to the logical conclusion. Please go there, and read it in full - it’s long, but worth it. But don’t forget to come back here.

Oddly, I had already read something similar, but about Communism, and collectivism in general, by Ayn Rand. According to her, when Communism in the Soviet Union make life there a living hell, the leaders would always say that the ones before weren’t really Communists, but “were out for themselves”, or that the “bourgeois” mentality of the people was preventing “true Communism”, and that, once people really adopted the ideals of Communism, life would become paradise.

And, of course, the next leaders would say that these ones weren’t really true Communists, but now, things would be different, after just a little more sacrifice, more “brotherly cooperation”, and less individualistic “selfish” ideas.

Rand argued that the problem wasn’t that people weren’t “Communist enough”, but that they were were following Communism to the logical conclusion - the “devaluation” of the individual, the irriationality of making people believe that, by wanting to improve their lives, they were “selfish monsters”, the equating of suffering and sacrifice with virtue, the idea that no individual was really important, only the “collective”…

And, again, I have to agree. Communism is a creed of death, just like any philosophy or belief that says that my life is not my own, but belongs to “God” or “the people”, or “the state”.

Individualism, collectivism and… room heat!?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 6, 2005

in collectivism, humor and individualism

. 7 Comments

Warning: this one is a bit … let’s say, for laughs. While I believe it, I’m also aware that if someone was telling it to me, I’d begin to think that he or she was going a bit too far, maybe “losing it”… So, please, don’t take it too seriously.

One of the big differences between individualism and collectivism is that the former believes in individual responsibility, where the latter doesn’t.

For instance, if a man becomes a criminal, individualism says it’s his own responsibility, while a collectivist will say it was his “environment”, his “upbringing”, his “genes”, or, in a more general way, “society’s fault”.

Conversely, if a man brilliantly succeeds in some field, a collectivist will say that he was “lucky” to have such opportunities, or such an education, or something - while the individualist position is that that man is responsible for his own achievement, and has a right to be proud. (that doesn’t mean he didn’t have help, but it would be actual help (such as the parents who took care of him as a child, the teachers who taught him, a partner who worked together with him), not “his environment”, or “his upbringing”, or some other crap.)

Now, let’s move to a completely different field: the heating in an open space office. No, really, bear with me.

Continue reading ‘Individualism, collectivism and… room heat!?’

Why collectivism doesn’t work

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on November 22, 2005

in collectivism and objectivism

. 14 Comments

When I was younger, I used to believe that communism and socialism were, in general, good ideas that had simply been poorly implemented, or abused, or used as excuses for atrocities such as those in the Soviet Union. After all, who could argue with the idea of “brotherly love”? It seemed even “logical” that everything would be better if people just stopped being so “selfish”, and cooperated, everyone working for “the group”.

Many factors changed my way of thinking as I grew older, but the one thing that made me understand what communism really was - not what implementations of it were, but what it really was, and could never be anything else, despite all the seeminly good intentions - was Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.

Especially one of my favorite sections, the one where Jeff Allen tells Dagny Taggart the sad story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company.

That story made such an impression on me that, even after I had only read the book once, I was able to tell it to people - it’s simply impossible to forget, as every part follows naturally, logically, from the one before.

Continue reading ‘Why collectivism doesn’t work’

Misguided consumer “patriotism”

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on November 16, 2005

in collectivism and individualism

. 6 Comments

A co-worker sent me, a while ago, an email with a link to a page, in Portuguese, telling people about our “duty” to our country to buy Portuguese products, in order to “support national production”, because “by buying foreign products, it forces national producers to raise their prices”. The co-worker seemed, herself, to support that point of view, and I’m sure that if I talked about it in the office, most people would agree that it was a “noble” thing to do, even if they didn’t want to inconvenience themselves by paying more than they were forced to.

And yet, I could only think about an article I read a few years ago in the Ayn Rand Institute web site, called “Buy American is UN-American“. It applies, of course, whatever your country is.

Without wanting to repeat the article’s content here, the following is a translation of my reply to my co-worker, which I wrote before re-reading the article linked above:

The consumer should always choose the best product, that with the best quality/price ratio. That’s it. If we begin to choose national products, even though they’re WORSE, we’re doing 2 things:

admitting that we’re some poor incompetent slobs who can’t do anything well;
telling national companies that they don’t need to create or manufacture quality products, because even if they’re trash we’ll still buy them out of “patriotism”.

The result of that is:

as consumers, we get worse and worse products, and worse and worse deals;
internationally, our products will come to be known as shoddy, low-quality garbage, which will mean increasingly fewer exports - if any at all.

On the other hand, if we simply buy what is best and has the best relationship between quality and price, we are “encouraging” our companies to do better, and making sure they are competitive - both nationally and internationally. Besides, we’ll have better quality at lower prices.

Believe me: if you’re buying national products even though you know they are worse and more expensive than the foreign competition, you’re not “supporting your country,” you’re harming it.

Creeds of Death

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 29, 2005

in collectivism, definitions, happiness and sadness

. 4 Comments

(once again, from my wiki, though this version is shorter…)

A “Creed of Death” (CoD) is my term for any belief (including religion), philosophy or political system which leads to death instead of life.

Note that I don’t mean “death” merely in the physical sense; in other words, I am not referring to some kind of suicidal cult, or a cabal of necromancers. I mean a “death in life”, a living death.

Continue reading ‘Creeds of Death’

The other kind of racism

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on August 17, 2005

in collectivism and racism

. 6 Comments

Racism is disgusting. I don’t hesitate when I say it - there are few things in the world that are lower, more irrational than hating an individual or a group because their skin color isn’t exactly the same as yours, or because they (or their parents, or their grandparents) were not born in your country.

But what most people don’t know is that there is another kind of racism - and that, indeed, many people attempt to fight racism with racism.

You see, the thing is, unlike what you probably believe, not all racism is about hate. Racism, in is simplest form, in the word’s original meaning, is the belief that people are defined by their “race” (ethnic group, etc.); in other words, that “race” matters. (I put the word “race” between quotes because the human race is in fact a single one - “race” only matters to racists.)

One of the best examples of racism is Affirmative Action (AA).

Continue reading ‘The other kind of racism’