Is collectivism necessary?

[Guest ZAC D.]

Group think is neccessary to use enough force to protect individual freedom from the evil bad group thinkers, so you end up in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Don't tell me that collectivism doesn't mean group think, I've read enough about objectivism to know that by objectivist own rules, A is A.

Edited September 21, 2010 by JASKN
Thread title changed for clarity

[Hairnet]

Define group think. That is necessary before any sense of your argument can be made.

[brian0918]

I couldn't make any sense of your post. Since you're new, I'll give you some slack - can you please provide us with one or more questions to answer?

[Guest ZAC D.]

Blacks used groups to protect their rights against racist groups. Is that not group think collectivism?

Edited September 21, 2010 by ZAC D.

[Guest ZAC D.]

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." - Ayn Rand.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/i_swear-by_my_life_and_my_love_of_it-that_i_will/222077.html

Is that not great for fiction or maybe a song, but the most anti-social doctrine? Is not collectivism ultimately a necessary thing?

Edited September 21, 2010 by ZAC D.

[2046]

No, collectivism is not "any time you have a group of two or more people associating together." Individualism is not "when a person refuses to join with, talk to, or associate with others for any reason." They are moral, political, and psychological concepts. Objectivism is not an anti-social philosophy, society and associating with other men is an objective value.

What do you mean by "group think?" You are the only one in control of your thinking ultimately, no one can get inside your brain and perform your mental functions for you, there is no "collective brain."

[Guest ZAC D.]

But Ayn Rand also said: "A man’s happiness is not antisocial, but un-social; it is a private domain which society has no right to touch.”

http://annecheller.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/ayn-rand-quote-of-the-day-2/

Isn't anti-social and un-social mere semantics?

By group-think I mean a group of like-minded people who collectively get together and agree to fight/protest/protect their rights against other group-thinkers that don't want these people to have their rights. A good example of this would be the group-thinking protests against people who want to strip a man of his private property rights. eg. The Park 51 mosque.

A majority can influence anothers thought. Did not Nero's architecture influence later architects? Did not the Domus Aurea influence the pantheon's dome design? Did not the Colossus of Rhodes influence the statue of liberty? Is that not the work of a collective mind?

What is collectivism then?

Edited September 21, 2010 by ZAC D.

[softwareNerd]

What is collectivism then?

Here are some quotes showing what Rand meant by "collectivism".

[Guest ZAC D.]

That's her form of collectivism. What I'm saying is collectivism can have bad effects but it can also have good effects. I'm trying to make the case that whether you like it or not it is necessary. If you were black wouldn't you sacrifice your life if that is what it took for blacks to have rights? Isn't collectivism a good thing when it's about protecting rights?

[2046]

What is collectivism then?

Collectivism politically means the subjugation of the individual to the group. Morally, it means the group is the standard of value. Psychologically it means a person's thinking and valuing must be dependent, holding the thoughts and values of the group above his own independent judgement.

Associating with others is not collectivism. Cooperating with others is not collectivism. In fact, if men suddenly refused to associate and cooperate with one another, the vast majority of the human race would die out, as there would be no division of labor. It would mean the reversion of the state of human existence to the most primitive level, something like what a collectivist dictatorship does within a country.

When men associate and cooperate we assume nothing more than self-interest. It is to our benefit to associate, to trade, to cooperate with others, but only on certain conditions, viz. individual rights. Getting together with others and forming groups with the actual goal of the protection of your rights is a profoundly selfish activity. To say that it is collectivism would be to say that you prefer enslavement, but you will subjugate your preference to the group's preference for freedom.

Individualism does not say “nothing can influence another's thinking.” Tons of things influence you daily, another person may make you aware of an idea or alternative that you were not previously aware of. This doesn't mean that you don't think for yourself, however. Still, your brain belongs to you, and only you can process mental activity. Individualism says “think for yourself” is a redundancy.

So too emotions, like happiness, are aspects of the individual, and are experienced by you.

[EC]

But Ayn Rand also said: "A man’s happiness is not antisocial, but un-social; it is a private domain which society has no right to touch.”

http://annecheller.w...e-of-the-day-2/

Isn't anti-social and un-social mere semantics?

It means a man finds his happiness through him self not others. He may enjoy the company of others, but it is because of shared values.

A majority can influence anothers thought. Did not Nero's architecture influence later architects? Did not the Domus Aurea influence the pantheon's dome design? Did not the Colossus of Rhodes influence the statue of liberty? Is that not the work of a collective mind?

A mind is a singular entity. Therefore a collective mind would be a contradiction in terms. These individual people aren't somehow magically reading each others mind, as you know that's impossible. The key word you used a few times is "influence" or rather individuals learned from and expanded on previous knowledge in creating new things and ideas.

What is collectivism then?

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

“The Only Path to Tomorrow,” Reader’s Digest, Jan. 1944, 8. (from the Ayn Rand Lexicon)

[Guest ZAC D.]

Why did howard roark not cooperate with others when it came to his building design? It had to be his way or the high way. There could be no influence but his own.

Edited September 21, 2010 by ZAC D.

[Guest ZAC D.]

It means a man finds his happiness through him self not others. He may enjoy the company of others, but it is because of shared values.

Isn't that group-think? A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

A mind is a singular entity. Therefore a collective mind would be a contradiction in terms. These individual people aren't somehow magically reading each others mind, as you know that's impossible. The key word you used a few times is "influence" or rather individuals learned from and expanded on previous knowledge in creating new things and ideas.

What about brain-washing?

[EC]

That's her form of collectivism. What I'm saying is collectivism can have bad effects but it can also have good effects. I'm trying to make the case that whether you like it or not it is necessary. If you were black wouldn't you sacrifice your life if that is what it took for blacks to have rights? Isn't collectivism a good thing when it's about protecting rights?

Collectivism is collectivism. That's not Rand's "form" of it, it's collectivism's definition. People joining forces for some cause or another isn't collectivism but it usually has some aspects of it involved. Collectivism's purpose is to violate the rights of individuals for murky purposes supposedly involving the "public good". It has nothing to do with protecting rights. Just the opposite.

[Guest ZAC D.]

Are you saying collectivism is subjective since objectivist can use it pragmatically?

[Dante]

That's her form of collectivism. What I'm saying is collectivism can have bad effects but it can also have good effects. I'm trying to make the case that whether you like it or not it is necessary. If you were black wouldn't you sacrifice your life if that is what it took for blacks to have rights? Isn't collectivism a good thing when it's about protecting rights?

What you're calling "collectivism" when you refer to blacks banding together to fight for their rights, she would not have considered collectivism at all. This is because this is an example of independent people with shared interests working together. That is NOT what she meant by collectivism. A basketball team is also a group of people with shared interests (winning the game) working together. This isn't the type of "group" she was against. She was against subjecting one's own fundamental identity to the collective. That's completely different than joining a collective because it promotes your individual interests.

For example, joining a political party, a sports team, a company, a book club, etc can all be good forms of social association. If you join the group because your individual interests tell you it's a good thing, there's nothing wrong with that. If you're in a group and they do something you think is wrong, but then you just "go with the flow" and ignore your personal opinion in favor of the group, THEN that's collectivism as Rand saw it. And that is wrong.

[EC]

Are you saying collectivism is subjective since objectivist can use it pragmatically?

No. I'm saying collectivism violates the rights of individuals for the sake of the "collective good" which supposedly is usually the opposite of what is actually good for the individuals who make it up.

[Dante]

Are you saying collectivism is subjective since objectivist can use it pragmatically?

We're saying that collectivism as we use the word has a very specific definition, and joining an interest group does not meet that definition. Collectivism involves subjugating your individual identity to the group. That is not present in the case of blacks fighting for their rights or other such examples. Collectivism is never practical under normal circumstances (exceptions that Objectivists might recognize include subjecting your own judgment as a soldier to your commander's judgment in a battle scenario).

[Guest ZAC D.]

"exceptions that Objectivists might recognize include subjecting your own judgment as a soldier to your commander's judgment in a battle scenario"

Why is that an exception? espeically when you just said:"you just "go with the flow" and ignore your personal opinion in favor of the group." Is not the soldier ignoring his mind for the good of the commander/group?

I think what you guys are saying to me is if a group supports individual rights or something innocuous that's a good form of collectivism, but if the group supports subjugation of others rights that would be a bad form of collectivism?

Edited September 21, 2010 by ZAC D.

[Dante]

Why is that an exception? espeically when you just said:"you just "go with the flow" and ignore your personal opinion in favor of the group." Is not the soldier ignoring his mind for the good of the commander/group?

I think what you guys are saying to me is if a group supports individual rights or something innocuous that's a good form of collectivism, but if the group supports subjugation of others rights that would be a bad form of collectivism?

A group supporting a common cause, like individual rights, is not collectivism at all. That's what we're saying; it's pretty clear.

If you're part of a political group that advocates subjugation of the rights of others, because you truly believe in that doctrine, then your membership in that group is not collectivism either. It's evil, because it advocates the subjugation of rights, but it's not collectivism, because you're not subjugating your own will or judgment to the group. It's the other way around; you're part of the group in the first place because of your independent judgment.

Also, the battlefield scenario is one where life and death are at stake and often hang on following orders without question. My point was that under normal circumstances it's evil and self-destructive to surrender your will or identity to anyone, but I didn't want to make a blanket statement because there are emergency circumstances where it's not always possible to stop and suss out everything to everyone's satisfaction.

[JASKN]

That's her form of collectivism.

You brushed off SoftwareNerd's link, but it's really the most important point to consider: the definition of "collectivism." If you and Rand are talking about two different concepts, your discussion with Objectivists here on the board who are assuming Rand's definition is going to be fruitless unless one side can understand the other's definition. Most posts are trying to clear up your misunderstanding of Rand's "collectivism."

Technically, a collective mind cannot exist since no man can use another man's brain. So, "collectivism" as Rand defines it is the ongoing process of allowing others to make one's decisions for one's self. It is deciding not to decide.

Edited September 21, 2010 by JASKN

[Guest ZAC D.]

If you're part of a political group that advocates subjugation of the rights of others, because you truly believe in that doctrine, then your membership in that group is not collectivism either. It's evil, because it advocates the subjugation of rights, but it's not collectivism, because you're not subjugating your own will or judgment to the group. It's the other way around; you're part of the group in the first place because of your independent judgment.

So if I subjugate my will to an objectivist group am I a collectivist? I think alot of people used their independent judgment to join communism no?

Also, the battlefield scenario is one where life and death are at stake and often hang on following orders without question. My point was that under normal circumstances it's evil and self-destructive to surrender your will or identity to anyone, but I didn't want to make a blanket statement because there are emergency circumstances where it's not always possible to stop and suss out everything to everyone's satisfaction.

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of objectivism? I thought objectivism was absolute.

Edited September 21, 2010 by ZAC D.

[Guest ZAC D.]

Technically, a collective mind cannot exist since no man can use another man's brain. So, "collectivism" as Rand defines it is the ongoing process of allowing others to make one's decisions for one's self. It is deciding not to decide.

Technically you are correct. However, I disagree with your point that men can't utilize other men's minds. After all, Ayn rand herself pointed out collectivism is subjecting your free-will to the collective, right? That means your mind, your independent judgement. Marx did it to minds. Socialism existence is a concrete example of that.

Edited September 21, 2010 by ZAC D.

[JASKN]

Technically you are correct. However, I disagree with your point that men can't utilize other men's mind.

I meant it literally. You can "utilize" another man's thinking only once he makes it communicable and available for you to absorb yourself.

[JASKN]

After all, Ayn rand herself pointed out collectivism is subjecting your free-will to the collective, right? That means your mind, your independent judgement. Marx did it to minds. Socialism existence is a concrete example of that.

Now, however, I am confused. If you changed your mind and agree with Rand's "collectivism," what is it that you are now asking about?