Is collectivism necessary?

[Greebo]

Would this go for Communist groups and objectivist groups as well? Is this why we see infighting within groups like the Taliban when it comes to Islamic goals?

Of course. But in a communist group, such a value must be suppressed if it is denounced or forbidden by the state.

For instance - it's perfectly fine to be homosexual and be Objectivist because we recognize that homosexuality is a personal matter (whether or not it's a choice is a matter for someone else to debate - it doesn't matter which it is to us). In Communist Russia, however, being openly gay was a likely death sentence.

[Guest ZAC D.]

Of course. But in a communist group, such a value must be suppressed if it is denounced or forbidden by the state.

For instance - it's perfectly fine to be homosexual and be Objectivist because we recognize that homosexuality is a personal matter (whether or not it's a choice is a matter for someone else to debate - it doesn't matter which it is to us). In Communist Russia, however, being openly gay was a likely death sentence.

So that would be analogous ( ie. similar in some respects) to what krauthammer and Rove are doing to Christine O'Donnell? Now, if Christine subjected her free-will to the old establishment republicans that would be an act of collectivism? I think I'm starting to get it.

I thought Ayn rand was against homosexuals morally? I think she was wrong to be against them morally. Though I am aware she was not against them in any legal sense.

[Greebo]

So that would be analogous ( ie. similar in some respects) to what krauthammer and Rove are doing to Christine O'Donnell? Now, if Christine subjected her free-will to the old establishment republicans that would be an act of collectivism? I think I'm starting to get it.

I thought Ayn rand was against homosexuals morally? I think she was wrong to be against them morally. Though I am aware she was not against them in any legal sense.

Exactly in line with my point. Ayn Rand's personal posthumous approval of a persons personal actions and choices is not required for a person to be an Objectivist. Nor is it necessary for any of us to grant personal approval to all of her attitudes.

Gender orientation and attitude towards the different orientations are substantially different values, and yet it is unimportant to the Objectivist philosophy entirely. We may find homosexually personally repugnant, and yet will always advocate for the right for a person to BE homosexual.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Gender orientation and attitude towards the different orientations are substantially different values, and yet it is unimportant to the Objectivist philosophy entirely. We may find homosexually personally repugnant, and yet will always advocate for the right for a person to BE homosexual.

And IMHO this is all that should be expected of anyone in a civilized society. This is tolerance of something you do not like, yet really have no say in since it violates no one's rights. Alas, you will be tarred as "homophobic" by many "gay rights activists" for not wholeheartedly approving of homosexuality.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Sorry, that may have gotten a little bit off track.

But I have illustrated an example of "groupthink" which is a form of collectivism. "Gays want this..." or "African americans want that..." are all examples of some person stepping forward and claiming to speak for an entire group... a group based on some non-essential fact, rather than on what the individuals in the group actually believe and value.

[SapereAude]

I understand what you are saying but I don't think you are acknowledging the fact that a collective mind exists. I think socialism is a concrete example of it. Moreover, aren't Free markets, democracy and the freeway all examples of collective decision making? I think it is important to distinguish between that and communism or oligarchy where the decision making is restricted to a small group of people.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble with definitions. This makes your arguments incoherent.

Several times in this post you have used "collectivism" where "cooperation" would be the appropriate term. People acting together as individuals for a common cause is not collectivism. Collectivism being in which the individual is not an end to himself but a means for the group. In cooperation the individual joins with others to achieve mutually agreed upon ends.

I would strongly suggest that when you toss out a word you look it up first.

If you are really seeking to understand this subject you will first have to know what the words you are using actually mean.

You asked why Rand would use the term "moral" to describe capitalism.

Look up the definitions of moral, immoral, and amoral and you will understand.

[Guest ZAC D.]

"But I have illustrated an example of "groupthink" which is a form of collectivism. "Gays want this..." or "African americans want that..." are all examples of some person stepping forward and claiming to speak for an entire group... a group based on some non-essential fact, rather than on what the individuals in the group actually believe and value."

That was probably the best explaination of this whole entire discussion that I've been trying to differentiate between for three threads now. Now that makes sense when it comes to what collectivism is and isn't.

Edited September 24, 2010 by ZAC D.

[Guest ZAC D.]

"Several times in this post you have used "collectivism" where "cooperation" would be the appropriate term. People acting together as individuals for a common cause is not collectivism. Collectivism being in which the individual is not an end to himself but a means for the group. In cooperation the individual joins with others to achieve mutually agreed upon ends."

I understand my error now.

[sully6492]

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.

[AAAJC]

Ayn Rand's philosophy of individualism stems not necessarily from her opposition to what you seem to be calling a "group thinking". In the opening chapter of her book Voice of Reason, she states that the United States was founded on the belief that "man is an end in himself." This, however, does not mean that every men has to stand for himself. Armed with reason, men are capable of doing almost anything as long as their actions do not result in violation of rights of others. In fact, a society in which every individual must stand ALONE wouldn't work. Howard Roark, whatever talent he might be endowed with, wouldn't be able to build skyscrapers unless there are those who demand such things.

I think of Objectivism as a system where every individual has a freedom to choose: a system where involuntary submission is strictly prohibited. Process of making voluntary decisions does not involve any selfless motives. (Assuming that people are rational) We make those decisions because there is something to be gained for ourselves. I think your black rights movement (Civil Rights Movement, I guess?) is a perfect illustration of her philosophy. It was a voluntary movement where no one was forced to do anything. The movement was a non-coercive movement where everyone acted with the motive of gaining equal rights for themselves.

I wish this helps!