RoR: Forum

Prescient and poignant, Prof. Machan.

I appreciate how you were able to see humanism beyond its origins (i.e., to abstract away the errors of Marx and Feuerbach). That is the mark of a conceptual mentality. Sometimes even very smart people accidentally lapse into a concrete-bound history of ideas*. For instance, Craig Biddle once argued that natural law theory requires at least an indirect belief in God, because early natural law theorists believed in God. Using that reasoning, you would have to say that humanism requires collectivism, because early humanists were collectivists. If there is a right idea that was introduced with errors it is not correct to hold out the errors as the essential feature of the idea.

Ed

*The history of ideas is different from the history of material objects, or material history. It is probably smart to remain concrete-bound when speaking of the history of material objects. It is never smart to be concrete-bound when talking about ideas. Ideas need to be treated on their own terms.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/27, 3:41am)

Post 1

Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 7:00am

There has been a ton of carny huckster bullshit trying to justify forced association throughout history.

It is a much simpler conceptual problem.

There are two basic political paradigms: free association and forced association.

In the forced association paradigm is slavery, rape, and totalitarianism.

In the free association paradigm is nothing remotely like any of that.

Choose.

It is no more complicated than that.

And excuse me when I don't listen to arguments justifying rape and slavery and totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism = collectivism unfettered by free association.

Corporation = free association collectivism.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 11/27, 7:05am)

Post 2

Wednesday, November 27, 2013 - 7:11am

The choice is not between collectivism and individualism; individuals freely form collectives all the time.

The choice is between human interaction fettered by free association vs. human interaction via compulsion under a model of forced association.

The former requires no emperor. The former requires peers defending their mutual freedom by being ever vigilant for instances of forced association, and fettering it whenever it rears it raping slave mongering head.

If 'humanists' need a nuanced moment to ponder whether they should advocate that which makes rape rape and slavery slavery, then methinks they are trying to sell a bill of bads, not to be confused with a bill of goods.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 11/27, 7:12am)

Post 3

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 10:36am

Fred,

[you may agree with the following]

I think sometimes you can be TOO eloquent, an error which corresponds to the error of sometimes being too analytical/rational (of which I plead "guilty"). For instance, there are concepts packed into your sentence:

--------------------
The choice is not between collectivism and individualism; individuals freely form collectives all the time.
--------------------

... which prevent it from ever being literally true. A human individual can choose against what is in their wide-scale, long-run interests -- essentially sacrificing higher values for lower values. That means that individuals can choose collectivism, but that -- whenever it is that they do that -- they are not practicing individualism.

To practice individualism means more than to merely make choices based on felt feelings or unprincipled sentiments.

Ed

Post 4

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 12:16pm

Ed,
Isn't every private business a collective of individuals freely choosing to engage in collaborative and collective action for mutual gain? The issue is the use of force, as Fred puts it "forced association". We necessarily have to engage in collective action to trade for mutual benefit.

Post 5

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 12:59pm

Fred is correct about free enterprise businesses being a product of collective efforts of individuals, and Mike is correct that every transaction is also a product of the collective choice of individuals.

But, the word "collectivism" is another story. Here are some of the definitions gathered from Googling the term:

- The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.

- A political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

- Any of several types of social organization that ascribe central importance to the groups to which individuals belong (e.g., state, nation, ethnic group, or social class). It may be contrasted with individualism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social, of 1762, in which it is argued that the individual finds his true being and freedom only in submission to the �general will� of the community. was the first modern philosopher to discuss it (1762). Karl Marx was its most forceful proponent in the 19th century. Communism, fascism, and socialism may all be termed collectivist systems.

From Ayn Rand:

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.�
And...
Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective�society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.�is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.
And...
Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.

If you view Rand's statements on collectivism you can see that she held it to be wrong at the metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, social AND political levels.

Post 6

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 5:00pm

Mike,

I accept your point about free choice vs. "forced choice", but I also agree with Steve.

I think you can talk about any grouping of people as a collective, and that accidentally makes things conceptually murky. Even Rand joked that her inner circle was a "collective." If it could be shown that there was collectivism in that group -- even if freely chosen -- I'm pretty sure she would withdraw her support for the group the next day (which would have killed the group, because it was centered around her thoughts and her work).

If asked if her "collective" was made up of people practicing individualism (instead of collectivism), I think she'd say "yes." Whether the issue is collectivism or individualism is actually something that can be set aside for the moment. What can come first -- and perhaps should come first -- is to recognize that they are indeed opposites and that, therefore, they cannot coincide (as that would be a contradiction).

Once it is granted that it has to be one or the other (but not both), then we could move on to whether the issue is about collectivism vs. individualism, or about free choice vs. force. Finding the answer to that will involve asking the question about whether individualism already entails free choice (or vice-versa), and whether collectivism already entails force (or vice-versa).

If the issues are so thoroughly joined that they cannot be separated, then Fred didn't add anything new to Rand's statement below:

*************************************
It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory�that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state�that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders�that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique�that fascism is not the product of the political �right,� but of the �left��that the basic issue is not �rich versus poor,� but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government�which means: capitalism versus socialism.
*************************************
--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html

So the basic issue is not left-right bipartisan politics, but is man vs. state, individual rights vs. totalitarian government, capitalism vs. socialism (i.e., individualism vs. collectivism).

Another way of saying this is that it is about free vs. forced association, but that is another way of saying the same thing (rather than saying something new).

Ed

Post 7

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 6:25pm

Ed,

The commonly accepted definition and usage of the word "collective" does not imply "force". The Wikipedia page "Collective" begins with: "A collective is a group of entities that share or are motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together to achieve a common objective." No implied forced association.

Using "free association" versus "forced association" to describe how "progressive" governments accomplish their social engineering goals is actually less murky to the non-objectivst majority. I think.
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 11/29, 7:05pm)

Post 8

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 7:00pm

Thanks for the perspective, Tibor.

Do you think utilitarianism also drives humanism in a collectivist direction?

Post 9

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 7:09pm

Mike,

Perhaps, instead of saying something new, Fred said something better than Ayn Rand. It would not be a crime to do so. He may have said the same thing she said, but only in a better way. I accept your point about collect-ives, but it wouldn't apply to collectiv-ism which, whenever humans are involved, will entail force (because of the nature of humans).

A recent example of how collectivism gives rise to force is Great Britain's recent attempt to limit free movement in the EU. If you build a welfare state, then they will come (at first). After a few decades, however (when things get bad as they always will under collectivism), they will be wanting to leave. It's as predictable as the sunrise.

Ed

p.s., There is like a revolving escalator: Capitalism makes even poor folks rich (by comparison to all alternatives). Some of these formerly-poor folks rise and turn sour and try to convince the masses that capitalism causes pain. If they succeed, there is some time where they monopolize themselves at the top -- under the guise that the heavy hand of state socialism (the thing required in order to guarantee their personal monopoly over all others) is here to save the day.

I hope that one day we get to the point where no more than a small fraction of the population falls for this ruse. If anything it will become harder and harder for the power-brokers to escape notice.

Post 10

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 7:59pm

Hi Ed,
If I look up the definition of "collectivism" I get

"collectivism
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Any of several types of social organization that ascribe central importance to the groups to which individuals belong (e.g., state, nation, ethnic group, or social class). It may be contrasted with individualism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the first modern philosopher to discuss it (1762). Karl Marx was its most forceful proponent in the 19th century. Communism, fascism, and socialism may all be termed collectivist systems. See also communitarianism; kibbutz; moshav.
"
It means exactly what you said. But I still like how clearly Fred's "forced" vs "free" association illuminates his arguments. Regarding your example, I would say "force gives rise to more force".
Thanks,
Mike

Post 11

Friday, November 29, 2013 - 8:29pm

Ed:

I didn't mean to imply that forming a corporation and/or going into business with others or working in a group with others was anathema to individualism. That would be to equate individualism with hermitism. I also wasn't intentionally revising Rand. I've been suggesting that there is a more useful way to emphasize her ideas. Simplifying Rand as I vs. We makes it too easy to demonize and trivialized her ideas. Humans associate without losing their individuality, or at least can. That is what I meant by a corporation.

Emphasizing free association vs forced association, imo, is a much more effective and easy to grasp axiom. That is what makes rape rape. That is what makes slavery slavery. That is what makes national socialism and communism both variants of totalitarianism.

It's not the red shirts nor is it the brown shirts. It's also not the smokestacks and factories and wingtips that makes capitalism.

Capitalism is free association in commerce. Not the guns of state and not cozy deals with the guns of state. That is classic Rand too.

Rands enemies have too easily painted her by emphasizing selfish and I vs we, to the point that they are never placed in the position of defending their forced association alternative.

Look at Obama rhetoric. "What is wrong with asking the most fortunate among us..." He totally gets away with that...even though he is not advocating asking anybody anything. He is pushing a policy of taking without asking ...forced association. Buy the left has successfully kept the debate far away from that metric and the right is both hapless and ineffective in responding to Obama rhetoric...even as it is a blatant lie.

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Saturday, November 30, 2013 - 6:35am

Ed:

Also, Individualism vs what we all understand as collectivism is included in the filter 'free vs. forced association."

Forced association of whom by whom? Of Individuals by others.

Free association includes not only the whom but the if; free to associate does not mean must associate. Must associate is also in the forced association camp.

Free vs forced association is not something new; it is not meant as an alternative to anything Rand ever clearly advocated. It is a shift of focus, of emphasis.

We understand what makes slavery abhorrent. We understand what makes rape abhorrent. There is no nuance required. We don't regard gang rape any higher that rape just because pure Democracy reared its ugly head. In that light, with that emphasis, it is clear what makes national socialism and other forms of forced association abhorrent. It is that same element of forced association-- forced by the collective over any individual.

Collectivists will squirm and rail at the concept of forced association. They don't regard their paternalistic megalomania as anything akin to rape. They will try to smear an abhorrence of forced association as meaning its advocates favor no laws and complete anarchy. After all, we are 'forced' to obey the law. They will claim that 'externalities' are the magic keys to the forced association kingdom, justifying any and all whimsical applications of forced association.

No. Advocacy of law based on the axiom of prohibiting forced association and encouraging free association as the foundation of enforceable law is not the same as an advocacy of complete anarchy; just the opposite. It is also anathema to the complete chaos which results from legislation fettered by no principle at all other than the ability of special interests to carve up the electorate into warring factions to force the whim of the moment down the throats of the entire nation, turning peaceful people against each other.

That out of all control process is where we are today.

regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 11/30, 6:40am)

Post 13

Saturday, November 30, 2013 - 6:47am

Tibor:

" If, as Marx held, we are specie-beings, so that our flourishing or development in life must be achieved together, in concert; if individuality is a myth and collectivity the norm, then humanistic ethics and politics will, accordingly, be collectivist."

Someone needed to ask Marx, "When specie-beings collectively gang rape, is that necessarily humanist? If not, then we need to clearly understand and focus on the element of human interaction that makes collective action like gang rape."

regards,
Fred

Post 14

Saturday, November 30, 2013 - 7:05am

Mike,

Good point about force being something that necessarily 'self-escalates.'

Ed

Post 15

Saturday, November 30, 2013 - 7:23am

Fred, I agree with you and, in retrospect, most or perhaps all of this hullabaloo would have been avoided had you said:

*******************
The choice is not between [association] and individualism; individuals freely form [associations] all the time.
*******************

It was your use of the word "collectivism" -- specifically in reference to a corporation -- which 'struck my patellar tendon' (causing my 'knee-jerk' response). Some old Chinese dude once said that a picture is worth a thousand words. But if you are super-conceptual and super-honest, then even a single word can be worth at least a hundred words or more. That's because every used word has to seamlessly integrate into the rest.

What that means is that some definitions are right and some are wrong, rather than merely being a matter of convention or even of unprincipled sentiment: "Oh, that is just how the word is used, so just get used to it." or "Oh, that is the way in which I personally 'prefer' to use the word, so just get used to it."

These justifications for continuing to use wrong definitions are unsound. There may be some wiggle room for language invention/improvisation, but there is not 'unlimited' wiggle room for something like that. Confucius was perhaps the first thinker to acknowledge this aspect of reality in writing.

Ed

Post 16

Sunday, December 1, 2013 - 8:20pm

Ed:

Collectivism certainly has a proper meaning. But signing onto a corporate effort does involve subjugation of ones will to the local collective voluntarily. There isn't always and I would say seldom is opportunity for complete individualism in corporate culture unless it is a corporation of one shareholder officer employee.

It is still free association however...not what should properly called collectivism. Collectivism as we commonly think of it is not restricted to free association. You are right about that.

Some might even freely choose collectivism; that can never be permitted to be used as an argument in support of forced association. No matter how many freely choose it. That would be the ethics of a gang rape.

Post 17

Sunday, December 1, 2013 - 9:50pm

Fred, I agree with what you wrote in post #16 above.... but I'm not sure we shouldn't chew more on what "Individualism" really means. You wrote:

...signing onto a corporate effort does involve subjugation of ones will to the local collective voluntarily. There isn't always and I would say seldom is opportunity for complete individualism in corporate culture... [emphasis mine]

I want to look at the alternative to subjugation of one's will in a voluntary association. You were clear that you were only talking about voluntary association. So, what would free association look like with NO subjugation? Reality and logic require us to admit that when more than one person joins together in an effort where they have to come to common agreement even when that means one or the other isn't able to have it totally their way.

I'd say that there is no subjugation involved, since choosing to engage in a voluntary association MEANS choosing to make agreements where one doesn't always get to have their way. Just as it MEANS that if we don't choose a voluntary association that we won't get the benefits it might hold for us.

Given that, individualism is more about the ability to choose (absence of force) even if the choice is to let someone else make a decision; it is more about the moral sovereignty of the individual over a collective (morality arises out of the individual's life being an end in itself - even if he decides his self-interest lies in working with someone else); it is more about the value of the group being measured by the degree to which it serves the individual and not the other way around.

Individualism is about our sovereignty - something that isn't decreased by engaging in group activities. I think the problem arises from the symbolic representation in the arts where the heroic individual is made 'super' by needing no help - at most they might have a side-kick and often that is used as an artistic device to demonstrate the stature of the hero (many super heroes were even written as orphans). We were given the idea that individualism meant acting alone or dominating.

Here at RoR we discuss individualism mostly in the political context, but it has a psychological component. Everyone starts as a child whose job is to "subjugate" their will enough to be able to learn and develop and flourish as children. Then as a teen, their job is to separate, to become more individual (autonomous) and often they do it badly, or awkwardly, by rebelling. Then with adulthood they come back from rebellion to rejoining in associations as an equal - as sovereigns - not as a child.

I think we sometimes get influenced psychologically by the teen we each once were, whose proper struggle was to individuate, and neither our culture, nor our education prepared us for seeing the subtleties of psychological individualism, where we can be just as strong in the give and take of a voluntary association as in solitary activities.

Post 18

Monday, December 2, 2013 - 7:30am

Steve:

Well, chewing on them(especially well chewing on them) is how we all understand them more clearly.

What struck me in your description of the process, with the role of education, is how potentially dangerous the politicization of education is. Before you know it, "socialization" means far more than what sociologists claim it is, and it becomes political indoctrination-- including, our understanding of what individualism is. "Socialization", today, includes the systemic obliteration of individualism, including the redefinition of self-fulfillment to be the achievement of the collective's goals uber alles.

Here is how that argument goes: we had to win WWII. Therefore, it is now time to line up and march behind the fasces of American national socialism.

And by that I mean, too late, already done deal. To all of us, a process begun long before we were born(and so, requiring ever more focused chewing these days to see through it.)

Perhaps in the context of individuals working on group efforts it is also useful to think for a moment about the differences between words like collaboration, cooperation, concession, and pure democracy. Without exception, the group efforts that I've been involved with that were based on concepts like collaboration have been the most effective. The absolute worst were more like pure democracy. Those experiences were my education on the topic, not the instruction of politicos with an agenda to sell and hands to wave while selling it.

Free association. Collaboration(an active act beyond mere cooperation; cooperation is what can be forced from prisoners in a prison camp, given enough force. Collaboration is will-full, active, aggressive self-interested cooperation. Or is it? Because look at the 'wiki' definition of collaboration, and see if you can't smell the agressive nature of "socialization" creeping into the very definitions of the words we use...

"Collaboration is working with each other to do a task and to achieve shared goals.[1] It is a recursive[2] process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals, (this is more than the intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective[by whom?][original research?]) � for example, an endeavor[3][4] that is creative in nature[5]�by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus. Most collaboration requires leadership, although the form of leadership can be social within a decentralized and egalitarian group.[6] In particular, teams that work collaboratively can obtain greater resources, recognition and reward when facing competition for finite resources.[7] Collaboration is also present in opposing goals exhibiting the notion of adversarial collaboration, though this is not a common case for using the word."

Let me be the first to ask, with regards to "although the form of leadership can be social within a decentralized and egalitarian group" w.t.f. does that actually mean???? The 'social' holy ghost disease has crept into every nook and cranny of the language. Might as well be Christ on the Cross.

It is America's Social Disease, dug in like ticks.

America used to have a basis to collaborate on all kinds of group projects, private and public. The more force directed by a suddenly inward facing federal government, the more America lurches toward a model of pure Democracy, and the abysmal results tell the tale.

America is so befuddled by its effective socialization that most Americans can't even think straight. We've reached that tipping point, at least.

An example. Facts and math readily available to 100% of thinking Americans. And yet...nowhere in sight. Why?

CMS/HHS MEDICARE/MEDICAID budget in 2013: $900B. Fact.

Average Wage Index (2012): 44,321.67. Fact.

MEDI tax rate on 100% of earnings: 2.9%. Fact.

US workforce: about 154 million workers: Fact.

Revenue from 'pay as you go' MEDI: 154 million times 2.9% times 44321 = 197 billion dollars.

MEDICARE/MEDICAID budget: about $900B

MEDI revenue from payroll taxes: about $200B

Tax rate required to fully fund MEDICARE/MEDICAID:

.029 x 900/200 = about 13%.

Presently, ACA/Obamacare is signing up millions more ... onto MEDICAID, not Obamacare. And the fiscal state above is -before- this tsunami of government compassion.

This is being done in broad daylight, with the facts available to anyone with a 8th grade grasp of mathematics(and really, a 4th grade rasp of math) with few saying "Huh? W.t.f.?"

MEDICARE in 1966 was $3B/yr. We can population and inflation adjust that to $45B/yr, and we are presently at *twenty times* that population and inflation adjusted number. Not twice population and inflation, but ... twenty times. And this is not regarded as a sign of a deep, fundamental problem in the concept...because of our effective 'socialization' instilled from birth.

I mean that literally. This 'problem' is a 'social problem.' The consequences are thus not borne by any individuals anywhere. It is a 'public' problem, something for the newspapers. Easily tolerated, because it is out there in holy ghost land somewhere, "social" in nature.

ANd so, the visible corollary to 'shed risk:' shed responsibility, shed accountability. An insight into why this collectivist socialist bullshit always craps the bed.

Always. You see anyone taking responsibility for the cluster fuck that is the Obamacare rollout?

Accountability in the age of Obama and American National Socialism: when you fuck up a $600million website, you get handed $400 million more to make it right enough for political optics...

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 12/02, 7:42am)

Post 19

Monday, December 2, 2013 - 1:28pm