Mankind has faced a bewildering multitude of self-made catastrophes and self-made terrors over the past few millennium, most of which stem from a single solitary conflict between two opposing social qualities: individualism vs. collectivism. These two forces of organizational mechanics have gone through evolution after evolution over the years, and I believe the long battle is nearing an apex moment; a moment in which one ideology or the other will become dominant around the world for well beyond the foreseeable future.
The assumption often made amongst academia is that the philosophy that appeals most to our “natural survival imperative” and caters to our desire for innovation will eventually win the day. That there is no “right or wrong” side; only the effective, and the less effective. The advanced and the outmoded. The transcendent, and the archaic.
It should come as no surprise then that most academics and prominent mainstream talking heads often sing the praises of collectivism as the inevitable champion in the war between cultural engines. Collectivism always presents itself with the flair and sexiness of the “new”, or the progressive, while individualism tends to wear the unpleasant battle scars of hard earned principles and heritage. Collectivism is the hot looking but mentally unstable bombshell blonde making promises of excitement and long term comfort she has no intention of keeping. She is so seductive not because she has any profound inner qualities, but because she has a knack for letting you believe she is exactly what you fantasize her to be. Only when it’s too late do you realize she’s a psychopathic pill popping man-eater…
Collectivism is, in fact, a bastardization of a more useful human condition; namely community. Inherent in all people is the need for meaningful connection with others, and thus, the world around them, without being forced to sacrifice their own identities and their own souls in the process. The best representation of this model is the idea of “voluntary community”, where individuals seek out each other and facilitate their own connections. However, if they can’t find meaningful connection, many people will settle for whatever they can get.
Collectivist structures thrive by shutting down free cultural avenues, manipulating public media, encouraging fear, repression, and bias, and destroying our ability to relate to others in a natural and voluntary way. Collectivism’s first goal is to distract and ISOLATE individuals from one another, so that honest community is difficult to build. Its second goal is to then offer a false community; a cardboard cutout or proxy that entices the public with fabricated and superficial connections that barely satiate our inner hunger for relationship with our fellow man (Facebook, anyone?). It uses our thirst for understanding against us, and lures us into a system of psychological enslavement where no understanding will ever be found.
Karl Marx is famous for stating that “religion is the opium of the people”, a belief that communists like Mao Zedong adopted. But, Mao was not opposed to “opiates for the masses” per say, only citizen organizations that could not be control. Mao simply replaced the various deities of the Chinese people with the religion of the collectivist state.
Like any opiate, collectivism instills addiction. The feeling of belonging to something bigger than oneself (even if it ends up being false) creates ecstatic euphoria, a euphoria that weakens as time passes unless the addict commits himself even deeper into the hive mind. Soon, every original aspect of the person’s character is forgotten and replaced entirely by his hyper-obsession with the collective. The whole of his identity becomes a shallow product of the state and he may even defend that state, no matter how corrupt, to the death. He now treats any criticism of the system as a personal attack on himself, because everything he is has been given to him by the collective. If the collective is a sham, then so is he.
Collectivism as a philosophy is a perfect tool for oligarchy. The men who dominate such systems rarely if ever actually believe in the tenets they espouse. They sell the idea of single-minded society as a nurturing light that will create group supremacy, prosperity, and perfect safety. But the truth is, they couldn’t care less about accomplishing any of these things for the masses. They are only interested in exploiting the promise to galvanize the population into a fraudulent community, a dystopia in which the citizens police each other in the name of the state, giving the elites total dominance.
The most vital aspect of the collectivist process is convincing the public that the individual citizen is not sovereign, but is actually the property of the group. Many readers have already witnessed this argument first hand in the statements of MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, who believes your children are not yours to raise, but products of the collective to be molded:
But this is only a taste of collectivist zealotry at work. Here are just a few of the most prominent disinformation tactics and methodologies used by centralization cultists to twist the fabric of nations and enslave individuals…
1) The Blank Slate
Blank slate theory stems from the Freudian model of psychology and has been adopted and refined by modern mainstream clinical psychiatry. The theory contends that all psychological processes and character traits of an individual are merely products of repetition and memory derived through environmental experience. Psychiatry extends the theory into biology in the belief that all human behavior is nothing more than a series of reactionary chemical processes in the brain that determine pre-coded genetic responses built up from the conditioning of one’s environment. The foundational assertion of blank slate theory is that human beings are born empty. That we are bio-computers; soft machinery, just waiting to be programmed.
The blank slate argument is essential to the philosophy of collectivism. If every person is born without inherent characteristics or spirit, and all people are manufactured by environmental conditions alone, then, collectivists contend, there is no such thing as true individualism. Programmed people cannot act, they can only react according to their conditioning. Therefore, they have no inherent ability to choose, or to determine their own destinies.
If a society can be convinced that this theory is fact, then the inner self (the source of individualism), no longer bears any meaning. The environment is then seen as the only determinant that people should care about. Environment becomes the sole master of their lives, and whoever controls the environment, controls them.
The problem is, blank slate theory has been proven time and time again to be absolutely false. From the work of MIT professor Steven Pinker, to the psychological studies of Carl Jung, to the linguistic studies of Noam Chomsky, as well as numerous studies in mathematics, quantum physics, and anthropology; every field of science has produced more than ample evidence that human beings are not born as blank slates. Rather, they are born with the very building blocks of thought, language, mathematics, and even predispositions towards certain personality traits.
The most important of all of these discoveries though is attributed to Carl Jung, who found that moral conceptions are in fact inborn. The existence of “psychological dualities” at birth (including an unconscious sense of good and evil) means that all people come into the world with the ability to CHOOSE. Environment only determines our lives if we allow it to. This is why the worst of men sometimes come from the most sheltered and safe environments, while the best of men often come from broken and terrible homes.
Collectivists have struggled desperately for ages to deny or destroy the concept of inherent individualism. They want us to believe that everything that we have was “given to us” by them. As long as we know they have given us nothing, they can never truly win…
2) Individualism Is The Same As Selfishness
Collectivists repeat this lie Ad nauseum. The suggestion is simple – even the smallest individual actions “affect everyone”, thus, everyone is culpable for the problems of the whole. And, if everyone is responsible for the problems of the whole, then everyone must take responsibility for everyone else. The job of society then, at least in the opinion of collectivists, is to keep every individual member of that society in line. One unruly cog could bring the entire machine to a halt. Anyone who refuses to submit to the directives of the group is bound to hurt the group, and is, therefore, selfish, or even criminal.
The insanity of this way of thinking should be obvious. First of all, it assumes that the directives of the group are always logically and morally sound. It assumes that because the majority of people have come to a particular conclusion, that conclusion must, by default, be correct. The fact is, history has shown that at any given moment the majority is wrong about something, if not most things, and these mass trespasses against reason and conscience always end up being stopped by a minority of individualists. The greatest social achievements of mankind are the result of the ingenuity and courage of individuals who in turn inspired others.
Perhaps the best possible thing is for the machine to be sabotaged at times by “selfish individuals’. Perhaps individuals are actually more necessary to the survival of the group than the group is to the survival of individuals…
3) The Family Unit Cannot Be Trusted To Raise The Next Generation
In the quest for a collectivist system, all competing interests must be debased. The individual must have nowhere to turn for guidance or comfort but the system itself. Children become a highly sought after target, because their inborn personalities are easier to oppress, and because they are always dependent on someone for their survival already. The collective (usually in the form of government) desires to be that “someone” the child depends on, and so, the role of the parents has to be diminished.
Collectivists in the U.S. use the “It Takes A Village” approach in order to marginalize the family unit and paint parents as secondary figures in the development of their own offspring. Under this philosophy, each subsequent generation is seen as a kind of “commodity”, a resource that belongs to the group and that must be “protected” from the damaging ideologies of the parents. One has only to examine the extreme politicization of American public schools today to see this process in action. The goal is to push the idea of family into obscurity, while forcing children into indoctrination factories that instill specific behaviors through fear, shame, and propaganda.
No one, and no entity, however, has the capacity to care for any child more than that child’s own parents. Some parents do fail in their responsibilities, but what kind of role model does government really make in their place? Governments lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, and mass murder in order to get what they want. Government has nothing worthwhile to teach anyone, including our children.
4) Global Problems Will Be Solved By Collectivism
I find in my examinations that the opposite is true. Most global problems are CAUSED by collectivism, not solved by it. The greater good is always subjective. The group will always be an abstract illusion held together by nothing more than the whims of the individual. And, in the grand scheme of things, only individuals make any difference in the course of human cultural development. The collectivist strategy requires the suppression of individualism, otherwise, they cannot obtain power. That means, the very bedrock of their philosophy is a threat to the security of the future. In their obscene quest to control tomorrow, they ensure that tomorrow dies.
They promise community, and they give you isolation. They promise prosperity, and they give you servitude. They promise safety, and they give you a land of perpetual terror. They promise purpose, and give you insignificance. They promise peace, and they foment war after war after war, reaping turmoil all around us, as well as within us.
Our only hope is to maintain the integrity of our heart, and our will. The proclamation that the individual is subject to the necessities of the collective is a con. There is no such prerogative. In the end, there is no power over us but that which we give away. The state doesn’t matter. The group doesn’t matter. The “greater good” doesn’t matter. All that matters is the life of the individual. Each individual. For when all men rediscover their individualism, only then will we be able to move forward as a whole.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better.
To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:
http://www.alt-market.com/donate
Silver and Gold are on their way back to historic highs, and now is the time to buy. Let LibertyCPM.com help you decide how to best protect your savings and insulate you from an ever destabilizing dollar.
Do you need long term food storage but want the best quality as well? The good people at Nuvona Premium Foods are offering discounts on their Non-GMO food storage for Alt-Market readers only! Take advantage of this incredible deal while it lasts!
http://www.nuvonapremiumfoods.com/altmarket/
Do you have enough Non-GMO seeds in case of economic collapse? Seeds are the OTHER alternative currency, and if you aren't stocked, then you aren't prepared. To buy top quality non-GMO seeds at a special 10% discount, visit Humble Seed, and use the code Alt10
written by Shorty Dawkins , April 11, 2013
We have Kant, Hegel and Schelling to thank for the collectivist view of human existence. Fascism, socialism, communism, all derive from these philosophers. It is amazing to me that collectivists can only believe in the "group", while ignoring the simple fact that the "group" is composed entirely of individuals.
written by Henry Bowman , April 11, 2013
It is amazing that "they " the progresives are now right out in the open about things. There are many cases now of the big brother pushing into places he doesn't belong. We as a society can brunt some of the blame by allowing the progs to destroy the family as a unit . When you take God and responsibility out of a home moral decay and mockary of the family fills the void. It won't be long until we all have to join in the "two minuets of hate " . On second thought I think thats a show on msnbc .Time to take back the republic before the " minestry of love " visits .
written by Don Fraser , April 12, 2013
While the essay is excellent at revealing much of our present dilemma the elephant is scale. Only when our group size exceeds around 150 individuals does the apparent need for systems (control) arise. We are ignoring to our peril our millions of years of our species tribal experience. Only in tribal groupings can we act effectively within our immediate environment. We need to fight to reclaim our local individual attention before we can begin to address our numerous systemic problems. I suggest we simply form groups of the size appropriate to our species with those who live near us. Using sensible boundaries such as streets in a suburb, blocks in a city or floors in a building. It is my belief that only in human scale groups can solutions be found. The power of the family is too insignificant and the power of society too corrupt but our past offers a clear template to us.
written by Unus Mundus , April 12, 2013
Excellent piece. Thank you in particular for using Carl Jung as a reference. His insights are crucial for economics/finance. Re the individual vs the masses Jung made a distinction between groups and humanity as a whole. The latter is what counts and is threatened if the individuated individual is threatened:
"The natural process of individuation brings to birth a consciousness of human community… Individuation is an at-one-ment with oneself and at the same time with humanity, since oneself is a part of humanity. Once the individual is thus secured in himself, there is some guarantee that the organized accumulation of individuals in the State…no longer consists of an anonymous mass but of a conscious community."
In short, if individuation is "prevented" by the State, the State continues as an anonymous mass.
written by Roger Yates , April 12, 2013
We are social animals surely? We are hard wired for collectivism of some kind. Our core human quality of consciousness is an adaption evolved from our need to understand self and other in a social group (you do the research on this one). The "collective" has given us evolutionary advantage, it has good survival potential. Of course so does individualism. These forces are in tension. There is no such thing as a free lunch. You gain some and lose some. Community v. the collective is a false distinction. Yes collectivism is a problem. Most real things in the real world are. Life's tough.
written by Woden , April 12, 2013
Spoken like a true "automaton" and "Borg Collective", I might add.
written by Clam Lover , April 12, 2013
I wish Kate Upton was property of the collective. I could sure use a piece of that property.
written by Collapsing into Consciousness , April 12, 2013
The answer may lie in something called "individual collectivism."
Individual collectivism understands that individuals need to be recognized and acknowledged with the larger social group. In our culture, it is a rare person who is able - or even wants - to act outside some sort of collective, whether its a policeman or fireman, an employee or a business owner, a sports or corporate team, a local or national culture, a religion or spiritual calling, or a political leaning. Even as individuals, we seek like-minded people to associate with, to support and be supported, to share common goals. It is our nature.
And while we claim to abhor "collectives," we automatically join them, leaving the impression that it's not really about collectives at all, but rather, the freedom to choose which collective we participate in rather than objections about collectivism. This doesn't deny our personal identities or rob us of the choices we make regarding our participation in a collective.
It is, in fact, our ability to join collectives in the form of societies that has allowed us to make the many cultural shifts that have brought us to the place where we're now able to not only discuss concepts like Individual Collectivism, where the individual and the collective are honored for the healthy aspects of each, but them to work for the betterment of both.
We evolved in collectives. There will be no collective without individuals and there will be no individuals without a collective. For better or for worse, it is the individual within the collective that is responsible for where we are today.
We need each other now more than ever.
written by Brandon Smith , April 12, 2013
@Collapsing
We did not evolve into "collectives", we sought out community. There is a difference. Collectives absorb the individual and force him to relinquish his personal liberties and characteristics in order to create a hive mind. This goes against every instinct of the individual man. He has to be tricked or threatened into joining the collective. It is NOT a natural process.
Community is a voluntary system that people adapt to because it represents their value systems (which they have the ability to choose), and because it serves a purpose that they relate to. Community does not seek to supplant the individual. On the contrary, it seeks to support the individualism of each member because the group becomes stronger and more unique in the process.
People's inability to distinguish between collectivism and community has been the cause of most problems and crises in the history of man. Be careful not to make this mistake...
Also, I would point out that individual psychological characteristics as well as individual conscience are INBORN, meaning, the concept of moral compass for the individual is NOT subjective, but inherent at birth. This means that the individual does, indeed, exist without the "collective". This is scientific fact, not philosophical opinion.
written by Roger Yates , April 12, 2013
"Collectives absorb the individual" etc We are a social, communal or collective species. These are just words that describe a species that has evolved to function in groups. There is a trade off between the benefit to the individual of being in a group and the pressure group membership places on her individual sense of well-being. These kinds of trade-offs are common throughout nature. No form of social species adaption can possibly be without friction. It is absurdly Utopian to suppose that the individual and the collective (community, group, society) can always (or maybe ever) be in complete harmony. Our human level of technological development requires large scale groupings. This IS a problem for individual freedoms. But if you want to live in a place without an overarching collective, that comprises a number of unique communities of interest, move to the Democratic Republic of Congo. No gun control either.
"We sought out community" you talk as if we originate from isolated individuals like Adam and Eve who then coalesced into communities. We have evolved from a long genetic history of social species. As I pointed out above, it is probable that our sense of individuality (having self) has evolved from what evolutionary biologists call "theory of mind" which is a necessary skill for any high order social animal. The individual and the collective therefore define each other. They are two aspects of one thing.
written by Brandon Smith , April 12, 2013
@Roger
You still don't seem to understand the difference between collectivism and community.
The only "trade off" that should be required when an individual interacts with a group is that he should not impede the personal liberties of any other individual in that group. The Constitution of the U.S. revolves around this concept, and it's certainly not a "utopian" dream, merely common sense.
Collectivism presents the false argument that the "group" somehow has rights that supersede those of the individual. This is patently false. The group is an abstraction. There is no group, only individuals. Thus, there are no "group rights", only individual rights. A community recognizes this fact, and does not attempt to debase individual liberties for the sake of some abstract fantasy hive mind.
You are essentially claiming that collective controls are inborn, and that we are predetermined to become subservient to group status, yet there is no evidence to support this concept. Also, since the individual is born with the the ability to choose outside of his environmental conditions, then there can be no inherent "collectivism", because the choice to join or not join is his to make before he even comes into the world. He may not fully understand this inherent choice until he grows older, but it is there none the less.
A community is voluntary, a collective is not. A collective does not allow it's "members" to walk away.
Inborn personality traits, moral concepts, and archetypes go FAR beyond biological instinct, and have never been explained by biology. The fact is, nobody knows exactly where inherent knowledge originates. To act as if we do know is ignorant.
There is plenty of evidence to support the fact of inherent individualism. There is absolutely NO evidence to support your claim that this individualism is dependent on some "instinctual collectivism". You are operating on opinion, and nothing more.
written by walate , April 12, 2013
It makes death a welcome transfer out of this hell being created.
written by Ordinary Joe , April 12, 2013
I read all the above and tried to come to terms with the definition of a collective. I goggled and was not satisfied with the answers I found. One definition stated a collective was the same as a cooperative, but there were no economic incentives. Some definitions stated it was a commune or a group of individuals.
None of the definitions would fit into a specific category. I guess it means whatever the person trying to say it means.
Other than that, I think that our society is made up of groups of all kinds. On a primitive level there are those that have skills that can protect and allow others to survive and there are those that will not survive unless protected. Our modern day society continues in that same vein.
There are many sheep and not so many wolves and sheep dogs. Sheep most times cannot distinguish between the two. Both have characteristics that can be interpreted as similar but it is the outcome when the sheep can distinguish the difference.
So, to whom do the sheep flock? To those that have the most glitzy presentation. They become seduced by the lights. To those who promise the world but deliver nothing. By then it is too late.
written by Brandon Smith , April 13, 2013
@Roger
"It is not a question of rights, it is a question of what works the least worst way. This is how the real world is. "The individual" is also an abstraction within the parameters of the kind of argument you are using. Of course "an individual" in the real world is not. And neither is "a collective". Again in the real world. "Hive mind" is a paranoid notion."
Again, I highly recommend you look into the studies of Carl Jung, who has already disproved every one of your assertions. The individual is not and never will be an "abstraction". Inherent character traits, inherent moral concepts, archetypes, and inherent choice make the individual a CONCRETE REALITY. Perhaps the ONLY reality we can consider concrete in this universe.
The concept of the "hive mind", or mob mentality, is a historical reality, not paranoia. We have seen it over and over again in dictatorships and communist regimes. It is product of social manipulation of the individual desire to connect to others, or to survive. It is an attempt by oligarchy to erase individual prerogative and present false single minded community. To act as though it is not a concern is absurd, to say the least...
You still have produced no evidence that individualism has any dependence whatsoever on some inborn "collectivism", and you have even backtracked a bit on your original position to avoid having to present evidence.
Metzinger is a modern theoretical philosopher, and his work has always been a product of OPINION, not fact. He consistently overlooks proven inherency of individual characteristics and psychological contents. His work is truly at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to understanding consciousness: sort of like mind-studies for toddlers. I suggest you expand your horizons, otherwise, you'll never really get the big picture.
Unless you can somehow disprove the findings of Jung (you never will), along with numerous others who have proven the existence of inherent knowledge and personality, the facts support individualism as the only inherent state of man. All social organization comes later, and is a matter of choice, not biological law.
"Collectivism" (whatever YOUR particular definition may be) is an environmental construct, not a biological or spiritual construct.
You are apparently suggesting that individual traits evolve out of collectivist tendencies, yet, I have already shown this to be utterly false. Inborn traits, by their very nature, are uninfluenced by ANYTHING ELSE, even inborn social sense. They simply are. They are not dependent on other influences, otherwise, choice could not exist (and it does, as Jung's analysis proved).
You can hypothesize about the nature of inherent knowledge and where it comes from all you want. Your conclusions will simply be novel opinions until you can produce evidence to back them. Until that time, the fact remains that the building blocks of individualism are inborn. Period. Claim it's biology. Claim it's genetics. Claim it's fairy dust. Your claims are not relevant. Without a body of facts to support them, they remain mere will-o'-wisps; assumptions and opinions. And though you are certainly welcome to your opinions, don't expect that they will be taken seriously, as baseless as they are.
written by Don Fraser , April 14, 2013
A community to me is a group who are known to each other and therefore size constrained. A collective is a group of people not necessarily known to each other and therefore generally on a different scale.
written by ekim , April 14, 2013
140K years of success as a species without "experts" ..how did it ever happen?
written by Mrs M , April 14, 2013
Individualism is great but whether a community or collective people will always give away their individualism for their perceived needs to be met by the group (large or small). Think peer pressure. Very few people have such a strong sense of self to resist giving up part of themselves to join a group. We all have a need to be liked, loved and approved of and this is the need that drives us. Therefore people will always lay themselves down on the alter of community or collectives.
written by Brandon Smith , April 15, 2013
@Mrs. M
Your mistake is in thinking that it has to be one or the other. We can indeed have both individual will and liberties respected, while at the same time living within a community. It has been done before on a small scale, and it works as long as people can refrain from trying to control those around them. The bottom line is, do YOU have the ability to live without trying to dominate the lives of those around you? You don't need to worry about anyone else. It's not your place; it's not anyone's place.
written by rubiconsolutions , April 27, 2013
Let me preface this by saying I'm a voluntaryist. As such, I don't hold the constitution in very high regard. It's easy to understand how people would however given that public schools have pounded its virtue into their brains over the past hundred and fifty years. What is the first line of the declaration of independence? "We the people..." We is a collectivist term. The declaration is filled with rhetorical flourishes that seem to point to the power of the individual but that is not what governs america. The constitution is that document which guides law. 95% of the language, the words in it are parliamentary in nature and devoted to the power of the state. Less than 5% is about the individual and even that is watered down and couched in a way that makes it open to interpretation. There is very little in the document that actually constrains government. Article 1, Section 8 is the most dastardly part of the thing. It gives government almost unbridled power to do what it wants at the expense of the individual. Between Article 1, Section 8 and the 16th amendment people can be directly taxed at a rate of 99% and that would be considered "constitutional". Personally, I agree with Lysander Spooner when he wrote - "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
written by Brandon Smith , May 01, 2013
@rubicon
"We the people" is not a collectivist term. I recommend you commit yourself to further study of what collectivism is. "We the people" was a term of independence meant to separate the colonials from the chains of monarchy and define a separate venture away from the British empire. It astonishes me how some people today are able to take such incredible liberties with history, as if they were there, in the midst of it all, and qualified to criticize.
You are not qualified to criticize, and certainly not qualified to improve on the constitutional model, being that you have no advantage to offer.
Lysander Spooner is a child, and like a child he refuses to examine today in context of yesterday. The constitution has not failed in its design; WE have failed in the execution of its design. There is a big difference. The sheer naivety involved in your analysis is truly awe inspiring.
written by Michael Voytsekhovsky , April 20, 2015
Great Russian writer Ivan Efremov in his science fiction novel "The Bull's Hour" said: "We are developing individuality while rejecting individualism." Individuality - is an absolute good. Individualism - this is a very mixed blessing.
In its extreme forms of individualism leads to an extreme degree of fragmentation in society. Disparate individuals easily enslaved by the powerful. After all, individualism leads inevitably recognize the inequality of men. Hence the strong can enslave the weak. This is the wrong side of the dream of endless personal freedom.
If we want to live in a perfect world, we must recognize the equality of all people upon their birth.
Freedom of people in the world are very illusive thing. The question is, who and what do you serve. Can serve his belly. Can serve his vanity. You can serve the banksters. You can serve your family or his people. Can serve all humanity. The choice is always yours. And that choice is determined by the scale of the person.
In my humble opinion, individualism - is for wimps who are afraid to get lost among his own kind.
However, the bitter truth is that the world is not ready for a true team. Each of us should be kind, honest, fair, unselfish before from the human herd turn into a human collective.
