Don't Fear "Collectivism"
By: Luke Savage
By Luke Savage
The socialist objective of securing shelter, leisure time, and economic well-being is about creating a foundation upon which everyone can pursue their dreams, curiosities, and ambitions — without having to constantly worry about their mere survival.
Striking telephone workers and union supporters in Boston, Massachusetts, on August 15, 1989. (David L. Ryan / the Boston Globe via Getty Images)
The capacity of the reactionary mind to invent catchall signifiers of supposed left-wing depravity often seems limitless. But in the canon of conservative epithets, there is probably none more common or enduring than "collectivism." Spend any time immersing yourself in reactionary writing or literature and you quickly discover that collectivism can be virtually anything. Taxation and regulation are collectivist. So are social welfare programs, trade unions, and Medicare. The various mid-twentieth-century experiments in economic planning were collectivist, as was Keynesian economics. These days, the term is frequently invoked in reference to identity politics.
In the 1960s, Milton Friedman could be heard warning that the collectivist menace was on the march, and "welfare rather than freedom" had become "the dominant note" — not only throughout the Eastern Bloc but also in the world's liberal democracies. Today, the Daily Wire warns us that collectivism is "the most broadly promoted theme throughout courses at America's highest ranked colleges and universities." The National Review, meanwhile, finds it rampant in the ranks of a leadership class that seeks to "make group identity the dominant category in our thinking about and practice of politics." The Mises Institute, for its part, deems modern progressivism a "collectivist, anti-individual" philosophy out to "destroy civilization itself."
Collectivism can thus be liberal or socialist, modern or postmodern, economic or completely unrelated to material realities. It is a scourge infecting America's academic and political institutions, and a defective pathology peculiar to intellectual and cultural elites. Though you'd be hard-pressed to find any deeper consistency at work here — if twenty-first-century Ivy League progressivism and the USSR are ultimately traceable to the same thing, these words might as well mean anything — there is nonetheless a unifying principle.
On the Right, collectivism has always been the great enemy of its more noble opposite, "individualism." The Left (or so the story goes) sees the individual as subordinate to, and defined by, the group, whereas conservatives extoll the sovereign and self-governing person, able to enter into voluntary relations with those around them in the absence of constraint.
As Nick French observes, it's tempting to respond to this wrongheaded narrative by pointing out the many obvious holes in conservatism's foundational bootstrap myth. Human beings, after all, don't enter the world on an equal footing or start out their lives equipped with the same set of economic and social opportunities. Society is not a tabula rasa onto which individuals simply inscribe outcomes of their own making, and much about a person's fate is shaped by forces entirely beyond their control.
This doesn't mean, of course, that people have no agency or that we should concede the incorrect premise that collectivism and individualism are necessarily opposed. Contrary to what the Right asserts, the Left is not animated by a rigid determinism that seeks to stamp out the individual or deny her autonomy. The socialist project isn't about imposing homogeneity or sameness, and the socialist critique of capitalism isn't that it affords too much freedom and latitude to individuals. If anything, the opposite is true.
In an unequal society structured by class hierarchy and defined by vast differentials of wealth and power, most people must invest inordinate quantities of time and energy just to secure the bare necessities of life. This task is hardly liberating. For many, it is degrading and exhausting.
The more you have to worry about where your next meal is coming from, what will happen if you get sick, or whether there will be a roof over your head next month, the more difficult it is to flourish as an individual. To be shackled to the hamster wheel of grinding wage work, crippled by debt, or beset by endless financial anxiety is also to be deprived of personal sovereignty and the necessary prerequisites for making of your life what you wish.
The socialist objective of securing these prerequisites for everyone — shelter, leisure time, economic well-being — is fundamentally about creating a foundation upon which everyone can pursue their individual dreams, curiosities, and ambitions without having to constantly worry about their mere survival. Such a world, however, can only be achieved through the kinds of social cooperation conservatives deride as "collectivist": public housing, education, and childcare; free and universal health services; economic redistribution; widespread social investment in shared goods.
In the Right's barren conception of freedom, each of these is the enemy of individual autonomy and self-government. In our own far richer one as socialists, they are the collective means through which every person can spend less time simply tending to life and more time actually living it.
Tags
Who is online
417 visitors
This author seems to understand socialism (actually communism) per Marx. That is a very good description (from the perspective of an individual) what Marx sought. Marx sought a classless, stateless society where people were free to use their talents to contribute to society without concern for the basic necessities of life. This is because the society had progressed to the point where technology could provide this for everyone. Not an egalitarian system (everyone treated equally regardless of talent, ambition, etc.), but one where human beings were living to work (to contribute based on skills) rather than working to live.
The ideal is good. Similar to the society of Star Trek. I doubt anyone alive today will see such a society.
You do realize that the society presented in Star Trek was an autocratic hierarchy dominated by what we would consider middle management. The USS Enterprise was not a democracy in any of the Star Trek iterations. The Star Trek society didn't seem to offer much opportunity for the expendable red shirted underlings.
It depicts a society where technology covers all the sustenance needs of the people and frees them to pursue their ambitions. It also depicted a non-egalitarian, merit-based society.
Historically, socialist created attempts at utopia's have all turned out to be dismal failures.
Most of them were not attempts to create the stated utopia but rather authoritarian control using utopic ideals as propaganda. Dictators lying to the people is not even remotely close to an actual societal attempt to do good.
As per the old proverb. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.".
That misses the point. The attempts by dictators such as Stalin were not good intentions — they were bad intentions using good intentions as propaganda.
The saying you quoted is actually part of my point. Merely stating something is irrelevant; one must act to achieve the stated objectives. That is what that saying means.
Claiming good intentions while doing something else is the problem.
Your denialism about Stalin simply regurgitates simplistic socialist propaganda designed to distance themselves from a black mark. No objective soviet historian I've ever read would countenance that sort of whitewashing. Stalin was a fanatical socialist. To deny that is like denying the sun rises in the morning.
And like most fanatics, he used his belief in accomplishing the ultimate good to justify truly depraved things. What's a few million murdered against establishing utopia on earth?
A lie. With all of your reading, you have obviously not read what Marx actually wrote.
If you define 'socialism' as Stalinism then yes, he was a fanatic. You refuse to acknowledge the profound difference between the meaning of 'socialism' per Marx and Stalinism.
All the while using Marx' socialism / communism ideals as propaganda.
we are not going down this long road again.
please, both of you, address the points made in the article.
And yet, most new businesses fail but this not an indictment of capitalism. Socialism is a system wherein the worker, users or customers own the means of production or property collectively much like stock ownership. In general co-ops have a better chance than private ownership.
Governments left or right, very conservative or very liberal or conservative, no matter their economic models can become tyrannical. Dictators come in all stripes, but that is not necessarily an indictment of the system.
It is simple minded to not understand all of this.
True, it’s an indictment of things like over regulation, poor business plans, poor business operations, lazy business owners, etc, etc.
Little if anything to do with Capitalism.
The United States of America is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.
Some people there live in poverty.
Is that acceptable?
Even poor Americans have better things, better medicine, more comfortable travel etc than the Rockefellers did 100 years ago because we avoided collectivization. If we do so for another 100 years, poor Americans of the future will live better than Elon musk does now.
whatever "good" things are experienced by poor people are generally the result of government intervention in their circumstances.
The same Rockefellers that founded Standard Oil in 1870 and operated it as a monopoly till 1911? I claim BULLSHIT!
"Is that acceptable?"
Perhaps not. Why are they living in poverty is the question that needs to be answered first. Disability? Lack of skills or talents? Laziness and lack of motivation?
There is no guarantee of equal or equitable outcomes in our society and form of government, but there is equal opportunity for those who can meet the qualifications required.
You cannot have properly functioning capitalism without poverty.
That is why we have a welfare state and why people should stop bitching about it
I understand what you're saying. I think it would be more accurate to say "without significant differences in revenue". Elon doesn't actually need anyone starving to get his daily ego massage.
Hmmmm …. And I thought it was because a large portion of our society are too lazy to do what it takes to make a living. Hell, we have a large number of “homeless” people who choose to be homeless. I know a few of personally.
To them it’s the ultimate exercise in freedom. As long as welfare gives them money, meals, housing when they need it, they will never change. Never.
They are wards to the people who work and pay for their freedom.
“I know a few of personally…”
Do you? Do you take a second to understand their predicament? Do you do anything…any thing to offer a compassionate hand?
[Deleted][✘]
I didn’t stutter.
Yes
Volunteer once a week for a homeless shelter. Got anything else? Seems that once again, you’ve miss the mark and missed it completely.
[Deleted][✘]
As long as we have overpopulation it will be a problem
Why, do you think, standards of living across the world (not just in America) are significantly higher even though populations have exponentially increased. Shouldn't we be much poorer than our ancestors if overpopulation was causing poverty?
And how much better off we could be with a total population that was lower. High standard divided by lower population equals more per person, so better individual life and less worry about crowding, running out of things and pollution.
So overpopulation doesn't cause poverty, it keeps us from being even more prosperous. And again, you believe this despite massive increases in population (the biggest population spike ever) correlating with the biggest positive spike in living standards in recorded history.
Did you watch the video I seeded, saying there is no looming overpopulation problem? That there's a looming underpopulation problem?
No, I did not see it anywhere here
You posted to it. Apparently without watching.
help me out, where is the video?
Oh, please!
You're a Mod. Are you saying you don't know how to find a seed, knowing the seeder?
Click on my name, then "articles".
OK I looked at it. I still say overpopulation is biggest problem
"The socialist objective of securing these prerequisites for everyone — shelter, leisure time, economic well-being — is fundamentally about creating a foundation upon which everyone can pursue their individual dreams, curiosities, and ambitions without having to constantly worry about their mere survival. Such a world, however, can only be achieved through the kinds of social cooperation conservatives deride as "collectivist": public housing, education, and childcare; free and universal health services; economic redistribution; widespread social investment in shared goods."
Yeah, but who ends up paying for all this utopian dream world. Doesn't this always revert back to the old.... "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" bullshit? The Pilgrims attempted collectivism when they arrived on our shores. It was a dismal failure. Humans simply are not wired to exist under such artificial conditions, their own self interests being primary.
The Pilgrims Tried Socialism and It Failed | AIER
the accumulation of great fortunes is an artificial condition.
Economic collectivism might indeed never work (for long) at a societal level. And for the very reason you mentioned — the natural focus of a human being on local interests first.
But words like collectivism are potent with much history and deep meaning. One should at least understand these terms beyond a bumper-sticker superficial level before making categorical claims.
For example, collectivism does not always apply at a societal level nor is it always political or economic.
Let's take a look at an example of long-term successful societal collectivism. In this case it is primarily cultural collectivism. The nation of example is Japan. You either understand this example or you do not. If you do not, I am not going to waste any time trying to explain it. Instead, I will encourage you to do your own private research.
Next is economic collectivism that does not apply at a societal level. The general category here are Cooperatives. There are many examples of Cooperatives that have been working for many decades. It is a well-tested economic model that does indeed work. Again, if you think otherwise then you should be doing research to see what you are missing.
Investigate Publix in the USA. For the best, long-term example, see the Mondragon corporation.
Bottom line, too many cavalierly toss words around with very little understanding of their etymology and practical examples.
What do you think Marx meant by that quote?
It's obvious what he meant. What do his words say to you?
Clearly you do not know what he meant. Otherwise you would have just answered the question.
Don’t fear collectivism,,.
I’m in awe of that statement . If there’s one idea to fear, it’s collectivization. You’d hope The Hundreds of millions killed by collectivization in the recent past should be enough of a red flag for even the most stubborn socialist at this point.
Rural Electrical Cooperatives, Farmer's Coop cotton gins and grain elevators and New York cooperative apartments are sll examples of socialist collective systems that have proven effective long-term...
Nope, no government control of production in any of those organizations.
None.
Then you're wrong. Cooperative agreements are highly regulated! Where did you go off?
So are privately (Capitalistic) owned ones but the reality remains.
The means of production of the organizations you noted, is not controlled by the state and are by definition, not socialist.
Unlike some here, I get off on reality. Truth. More here should try it. It will set them free.
Nope, now you are just shootings blanks...
The rural electric cooperative and farmer's coop cotton gin and farmer's coop grain elevator in my Oklahoma hometown have been successful for over a hundred years, despite regulation. My NYC coop apartment building is 96 YO. The fact is that there are many longterm successful cooperatives operating right now in the US. So there is no reason to keep denying the truth and making an utter fool of yourself denying what everyone knows is true!
Please stay on topic and stop deflecting. The topic of my post is they are not socialist by definition. Which I have demonstrated very clearly. Stop with the denial and deflection or prove me wrong.
I’m not the one making a fool out of myself here.
Except they are Sparty, they are collectives which are all socialist structures bound by socialist collective agreements, which is the topic and what we are discussing. Where do you get off trying to bullshit everyone here?
Nah, but still trying eh? It is funny though. I get my power from a Co-op. Which is run by a board of directors. Not the State.
Feel free to prove me wrong. You haven’t even come close. Opinions are absolutely meaningless in this regard and always will be.
You really don't know! Do you? Admit it...
The attached is for your own edification.
Control over the means of production and distribution by the state is the opposite of socialism per Marx. Under Marx' view, the state is an administrative agent under control by the people. That is, after all, the concept of collectivism. Further, the state would, per his theory, eventually become unnecessary.
The control must lie with the people (collectively); if it is indeed a function of the state that would mean control would be in the hands of a tiny minority. Control by the state or by the bourgeois is the opposite of Marx' socialism.
When speaking of socialism (if you intend to by referring to that defined by Marx), keep in mind that Marx viewed socialism as something that went beyond nations. Something akin to a European system. When speaking of cooperatives, etc. one needs to be understand that this would be merely an aspect of socialism. None of these systems are socialism per Marx since none are at a societal / multi-societal level.
Cooperatives, as JBB has indicated, implement aspects of socialism. They are illustrating that collectivism (writ small) can and does work. Thus the criticism that human nature prevents people from working together to accomplish a greater goal (in terms of the group) that in turn helps them is simply not true.
One can legitimately criticize political or economic collectivism at a societal level as being unworkable because that is backed by evidence. Never in our history has that manifested with pure theoretical intent at a societal level. But collectivism itself is a much broader concept than merely socialism (per Marx).
Being run by a board of directors is closer to pure collectivism if the board of directors answers to the people (in the domain). For example, if the people directly vote for the board, that would be a strong example of collectivism. If the board is largely untouchable by the people then that strains the meaning of collectivism.
Further, regulation by the state does not change the concept of collectivism any more than regulation by the state changes the concept of capitalism. The issue is ultimately control. Do the people (the workers or the members) of the coop control the operations (essentially this means ownership) of the coop or is this controlled (owned) by some external agent? If the workers or members (as a group) control the operations (own the coop) then that is illustrating collectivism.
No interest in getting into a “definitions” discussion here again as it has proven to be a fools errand. Suffice it to say State control of the means of Production is a well accepted definition.
Most Co-ops, like my power Co-op, are no more run by the State than privately owned power companies are run by the State.
Full stop.
Yawn …… educate yourself
Whoosh!
That is not the concept of socialism (per Marx). State control is essentially no different than control by the bourgeois. The opposite of collectivism. Look up State Capitalism and you will see what you just described.
Then that is good. A coop run by the state would be a distortion of the concept of coop.
Everyone focuses attention on the promised benefits of collectivism. However, there is rarely any mention that collectivism won't work without individual responsibility and sacrifice of freedoms.
Karl Marx did not avoid the immutable requirements of social cooperation. Socialism doesn't change the fundamental principles of economics, either. Those who own the means of production must exploit society unless they're self sufficient. The only way to achieve the goals of securing shelter, leisure time, and economic well-being without exploiting society is to become self sufficient.
No.
Not being allowed to harm others is not a sacrifice of freedom.
The cows must be milked and the chicken eggs must be collected. The corn won't plant itself. Nature imposes requirements that necessitates sacrificing some freedom. The collective must exploit those who supply the necessities.
At the most basic level, this is the conflict between urban and rural cultures. Cities cannot feed themselves. And rural society responsible for feeding the cities are required to sacrifice some freedoms. Most city folks don't realize how exploitive they are or what sacrifices they require.
Pure Socialism is a great concept.
We have never had, and will never get, pure socialism. Because humans get involved.
Then it’s no longer a great concept.
Even if you mean Marx' socialism, I do not think it qualifies as a great concept as described. Its main benefit is to reduce economic disparity, ensure everyone's sustenance needs are covered by a technological society, and free everyone to pursue their ambitions (for the betterment of the society).
But it relies upon too much economic planning / regulation. That might be made to work with advances in AI (for example) but it systemically takes away an aspect of freedom (even though the intent is to enable freedom). Further, capitalism is clearly not all bad. There are very good elements of capitalism that can be categorized as the 'entrepreneurial spirit'. While this would exist in Marx' socialism (since there is a drive for your enterprise to do well in the marketplace), it would not be as acute as we see under capitalism. Thus the incentive for extraordinary accomplishments (e.g. the iPhone, practical EVs, ...) might be reduced. The counter argument for this is that there are many people driven to accomplish for the sake of accomplishment and not necessarily strictly to achieve great fortunes. How many of the most successful people are driven by fame, challenges, pride, etc. rather than pure fortune is an interesting question (to me).
What seems to be a great concept is the mitigation of extreme capitalism. Capitalism naturally creates economic classes (systemically) where the richer do get richer while the poor get poorer. It also enables massive enterprises which can exert so much influence as to be a governing agent for a society. None of this is good.
So the question might be how to retain the good (e.g. entrepreneurial spirit) in a system where the basic needs (sustenance) are available to everyone, where people can more freely pursue their ambitions (typically contributing to the GDP).