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.

The X-Men comics and movies have always been about the problem of bigotry – or, more precisely, about a group of individuals who stand between the bigoted majority, and those who believe their “minority” makes them superior.

We could replace “mutants” with “black people” or “homosexuals”, and it would be the same.

Anyone with half a mind, of course, realizes that the bigots are wrong in all those cases. But what is not immediately obvious to many is that many among the minority groups are also wrong… and exactly for the same reason.

Collectivism.

A big part of collectivism is the idea that people are defined by the “groups” they belong to – whether it’s nationality, skin color, sexuality, gender, etc..

Look at the “X-Men” example, and see if that’s not the case on both sides.

The anti-mutant bigots, obviously, are like that. Instead of seeing mutants as individuals, they see them all as the same – a threat to “normal” humans. Their different DNA makes them “evil”, and a menace. No choices are involved. The only good mutant is a dead mutant. The fact that they are mutants defines them.

Now, what about the “mutant pride” groups, like Magneto and his bunch? To them, the “normal” homo sapiens majority hates them – therefore, they must fight back. Being a mutant is a question of pride, it’s what makes them superior. And any mutant who isn’t willing to fight – and even give his life – for the group is a traitor. A traitor to his own kind. The fact that they are mutants defines them.

See how they are simply two sides of the same coin – of the same problem? While the groups are apparently opposed, and certainly hate and fight each other, they actually agree that being a mutant or not is the most important thing about someone, that one should be either condemned or hailed becuase of it.

No room for individual choices. No individualism at all.

Sure, “X-Men” is fiction. But I’m sure you can see the parallels with the real world. And I hope you’ll agree with me that things would be a lot better if more people realized that the only thing that defines us is our choices – not our genes, skin color, nationality, mutant powers, whatever.

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.)

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?

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.

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…

Sure, he did intend to hire one more worker after the other one left. But then he wondered: aren’t they really handling things well with one less? Maybe the team had been too big before, having more guys than necessary. Why not cut costs, look good in front of the top management, and keep the team as it is?

After a while, he had another idea. Sure, the guys were there more time than they used to, and they looked a little more tired – which just meant that they weren’t giving it all before, right? Why not cut more costs, and look even better, by “letting one of them go” (nobody says “firing” anymore, it’s not PC)?

And so it happened. And happened again. Soon, everyone was working more than 12 hours a day, including weekends. They almost never saw their families anymore, and when they did, they were too stressed out, and too preoccupied with work to enjoy it.

But they kept at it. The team had a great work relationship, and everyone was loyal to the team, so they sacrificed everything – their free time, their health, their social life, their families – for the company, and for their co-workers. All of them felt too guilty to ever go on vacations, now – how could they, when they knew what it meant to their colleagues? Everyone did the work of 2 or 3 people – if not more. Everyone felt that they couldn’t do any less – the company depended on them, the department depended on them, and they had to make do with what they had, instead of using excuses like “too much work” or “not enough people”.

Meanwhile, their boss got a promotion and a huge raise due to his brilliant ability to cut costs, and his amazing leadership, which made the team do the same amount of work with only half the people. He boasted to everyone that he made the team really work, instead of lazing off like they used to.

None of the remaining workers got a raise, of course. They were just doing their duty, after all.

…Anything familiar here?

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”.

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.

I work in an open space office, and it’s winter here. Lisbon, in winter, is not incredibly cold (it never snows here, for instance), but you certainly can’t go out without some layers of clothing.

Now, the office here is heated up. Commonplace, right? But it’s collectivism in action – instead of each one doing what’s required for him or her to be comfortable, “the system” does it for everyone – whether you like it or not, since anyone who ever asks to lower the heater is treated as an evil selfish monster.

Furthermore, people seem to believe that the room shouldn’t be just as warm as a warmer winter day. Oh no. They heat it so much that it’s only comfortable if you’re wearing spring, or even summer clothes. Short sleeves and such. Now, who ever leaves home wearing those… in winter?

And it’s not that way just in offices. In Portugal, any shopping center, in winter, is so freaking hot inside, that people have to leave not only coats, but wool shirts, and possibly even long-sleeved shirts in their cars. What about those who don’t come by car? Tough luck. The “people” have spoken, and the people want everything summer-hot.

Am I just weird? Or is it the world that has gone insane?

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.

So, there was a motor factory called the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which was highly successful, known as being synonymous with quality through the country. Then, the owner died, and the factory went to his three children (two men and a woman), who had big “progressive” (in that context, an euphemism for “socialist”) ideas – the main part of it being that well known communist ideal, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The six thousand workers approved, of course – since they were made to feel that anyone who didn’t agree with such “brotherly love” was an evil, selfish monster. And so, that ideal went into practice – everyone worked, supposedly as much as he or she was able to, but wasn’t paid according to time, or results – instead, all of the profits from sales were put together in a common “pool”, then divided according to need.

However, they immediately had a problem: what is really “need”, and what is but a desire? What defines “need”? There’s no absolute standard for it, since what to some is just a pleasure, to others may be a vital need, and vice-versa. And so, they voted. Yes, every 6 months or so, they had huge meetings where they all voted on each one’s need – and how did you convince others? By begging, by pleading, by convincing everyone that they were worse off than others, that they had more health problems, had more children to feed, that they suffered more, and therefore had a greater “need”. In a little time, six thousand workers had turned into six thousand beggars – because no one had any “right” to the result of their work, that line of thought was dead, by then.

Naturally, since work wasn’t tied to earnings any more, no one had any incentive to work harder, and production dropped sharply in the first year. In a meeting, then, they decided that it had happened because some workers weren’t giving their all, they weren’t using all of their ability, and therefore would have to work extra hours at night – without pay, of course – to improve the situation. Who? The most able, of course – and again, they voted on who those were. Obviously, since that day, everyone would hide the slightest sign of ability – indeed, they would compete as to who would appear more incompetent. Being incompetent meant being “needier”, and was rewarded; being competent was a curse, since it meant you “needed” less – and had to work harder, to support the “needy” ones.

For some reason (!), production dropped even more.

It got worse. It was decided that no one could have any kind of luxury until everyone’s basic needs were met – and any kind of entertainment, cultural activity or amusement were the first to go. Books? That was a luxury. Music? The same. What right had anyone to a book when there were people starving? And the standard of living – for everyone just kept going down. Lots of people turned to alcohol.

Anything that made people “needier”, such as becoming ill, or having a baby, was a reason for everyone to hate that person – since he or she would be, supposedly, “taking” more from the pool. People also began to spy on their neighbours, so that they could report on anyone who was faking his or her “needs”.

In four years, the company was bankrupt. What a surprise.

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:

1. admitting that we’re some poor incompetent slobs who can’t do anything well;
2. 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:

1. as consumers, we get worse and worse products, and worse and worse deals;
2. 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.

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.

Common characteristics of a Creed of Death:

1. a doctrine of sacrifice – for your neighbor, for a god, for the people, for the state, for the community, for your brother, for everyone but yourself
2. selfishness and self-interest are considered the worst of evils, while altruism, service and (again) sacrifice are considered good
3. the idea that life is suffering, that happiness and joy are mere illusions
4. the belief that this world is evil, that it “belongs to the devil”; “of the world” becomes another term for evil
5. since the world is evil, a desire to get away from it, at least in mind only; to achieve nothingness, to be a zero
6. believing that everything physical in this life/world is evil; anything good must be “spiritual”, in some next life to be attained if and only if you lead a life of service and sacrifice
7. the idea that man is flawed, inherently evil, with nothing good ever coming from him; that one is worthy only through (drum roll…) service and sacrifice, and otherwise should apologize for being alive
8. an obsession with humility and ordinariness: being great is evil, being a genius is evil, being rich and successful is evil, being happy is evil; only the “common people”, the “little people” are good; to be special is a thing of shame, to achieve something beyond what others can is selfish arrogance
9. the end of the concept of individual rights: “what right have you to live in confort when there are people out there starving? You are lucky to have so much, it is your duty to share with them.”
10. collectivism becomes good, individualism becomes evil
11. little or no regard for human life (after all, we’re all evil, lowly beings): think the Inquisition, concentration camps, Stalin’s purges…

Notes

• a Creed of Death is not necessarily an organized thing; many people (yes, I know some in real life) believe in all of the above by themselves, not from belonging to a church or group.
• most Believers of Death (BoDs) are usually very unhappy people, and spread unhappiness wherever they go. They do it without any evil intent, and they don’t realize they are making other people (usually the ones they care the most for) unhappy; it’s just the way they are. Or they believe that happy people are deluded, and that the BoDs are doing them a favor by shattering their “illusions” early, by teaching them about the “real world”.

Now, I ask you (yes, you ): do you know any people or groups like this? I’d like to hear your experiences / opinions…

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).

Racism is but one of the many forms of collectivism. Much like all the other forms, it says that people aren’t really individuals, that all our actions, our personalities, our achievements are defined by something else, something we can’t control – be it our skin color, our nationality or our gender. A racist, be it one of the “hating kind” or not, will always believe that people should be judged and treated differently, that they are in fact different, according to their “race”. To a racist, laws that protect a group, or harm a group, or try to “ensure fairness” by harming one group to the benefit of another, are not only acceptable but necessary. The idea that it isn’t skin color that really matters, but one’s own individual choices, is alien to him or her.

Back to Affirmative Action. AA, which is in practice in several countries, including the USA and the UK (it may have different names in each country), is a group of laws and policies which attempt to ensure “fairness” to “minorities” in terms of employement in workplaces. (it can also apply to other fields, such as education) Thus, it imposes “racial quotas”, which mean that there must be X% of “minority” employees in a company.

To AA supporters, the idea that an employer will choose the best man or woman for the job isn’t enough – it may not even be believable. Minority groups must be artificially “supported”, even if that means that an employer will be forced to turn down a more qualified candidate. To such a supported, “fairness” does not mean that everyone will have a shot at getting a particular job, without being discriminated for “race” – it means, instead, that people will be hired or refused according to their “race”. Because, to their racist minds, “race” is the only thing that matters.

AA supporters don’t see, however, that this is demeaning, even insulting to minority groups – they’re being told, basically, that they couldn’t ever get a particular job by themselves, on their own merits, and that they’re only getting it artificially, to ensure “fairness” and “equality”. They’re being told that their achievements, their personality, their qualities, their choices don’t matter – in a way, that they’re no different from anyone else with the same skin tone.

Would you like to be told “you’re only here to fill our quota for whites/blacks/asians, if it was up to us we wouldn’t have hired you”?

We are the choices we make, not something which was determined before we were born.