Community and collectivism are opposites.
– Eric S. Raymond (via David Thompson)
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayOctober 1st, 2011 |
 96 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Yes indeed. And people who think libertarians are ‘atomised individuals’ really do not ‘get it’ at all.
I think one needs to be very careful about defining community and collectivism when making these sorts of statements and I don’t think Eric did that. And saying that belonging to a community is a matter of choice put me in mind of Ralph Rackstraw
For he might have been a Roosian,
A French, or Turk, or Proosian,
Or perhaps Itali-an!
Choice is not what I think Gilbert had in mind.
OTOH, I sense that Eric conflates collectivism with modern left wing government coercion, which I don’t think describes the many and various voluntary religious communities of the last 2000 years that practiced collective ownership. Of course, many of those communities were also characterized by personal poverty, but that was part of the deal.
Chuck: ‘collective’ is not the same as ‘collectivist’. For example, collective ownership is perfectly compatible with capitalism, as in large companies owned by numerous shareholders. As long as such collective ownership is voluntary for all involved, it is not collectivist.
Also, I don’t think that Raymond conflates collectivism with any specific form of the latter, modern or not. His statement holds perfectly well with regard to any form of collectivism, no matter how old: nationalism, racism, antisemitism, etc.
When a classical liberal or libertarian says “collectivist” they mean “collective action imposed by force”.
So collectivist does not mean collective. Samizdata is a ‘collective’ but it is not collectivist.
BTW I take issue with the ‘left wing’ bit… the term really means nothing any more. The self-described ‘right’ if often every bit as ‘collectivist’ as the self-described ‘left’.
Antisemitism and racism are forms of collectivism? I’m speechless.
Perry, are you saying that community and collectivism are opposites by definition? Wouldn’t that make Eric’s statement a tautology? It would help the discussion if you would define collectivism and community so that the statement could be compared to the evidence and evaluated on its merits.
Chuck, your speechlessness is a plus, as it may give you time to reflect on the matter;-P
Of course they are. Pure forms.
For ‘community’ to have any meaning other than being a euphemism for ‘state directed’, yes that is exactly correct.
And just as socialists tend to use the words ‘social’ and ‘community’ as synonyms for force backed state power applied at a local level, classical liberals and libertarians use those words to mean the exact opposite… voluntary social interaction as opposed to politically mediated interaction.
Perry (and Chuck), collectivism can fall short of an actual action: it is more of a worldview, where a person personifies groups of people, attributing to them traits and qualities that in reality only individuals can possess. Such worldview certainly can (and very often does) predispose a person to certain kinds of actions, but it still exists in their absence.
Oh, nonsense. Antisemitism and racism are aspects of community, community is all about being identified with the group. I think you are confusing community with free association, which is a very weak form of community with none of the essential loyalties that come with identification.
Of course, we could redefine all these terms, but then we wouldn’t be having a discussion about community, we would be having a collectivist shouting match.
Ok, fair enough… they are collectivist if they are expressed politically, otherwise they are mere bigotry.
I find it perfectly clear that community and collectivism are not opposites.
Free association and involuntary association are obviously opposites, but these terms are not interchangeable with the aforementioned ones.
It is perfectly possible to be forced into a community: an association of individuals. The forcing is collectivism in action. Whether you then love or hate living in this community is a separate matter, and neither makes the forcing of you into it right or wrong; it is wrong in and of itself.
Racism is an instance of believing that communities other than the one you are in are inferior, and can be treated worse than individuals within your own communities. Whilst feeling a sense of community with people like yourself is necessary for you to be a racist, or rather, for your racism to matter (if you feel community only with yourself you are unlikely to be a threat to anybody, unless you go on a psychopathic killing spree, which is something else entirely), collectivism most certainly is not. If governments can not be collectivist, then collectivism is not even a requirement for state sanctioned racism.
Anyway, I haven’t read the article so the quote is probably out of context, and makes sense in context.
smitten! or is that smited?
They certainly are interchangeable the way we use the terms. To folks such as us “collectivism” is a general branch of the political ‘taxonomy’ where states collectively impose involuntary actions on people and I am sure that is the usage in the quote in question.
So blacks are a community by the mere “virtue” of their skin color? I rest my case made in my previous comment.
Smittenized.
by the mere “virtue” of their skin color?
He didn’t say that, you are putting words in his mouth. Blacks are a community by virtue of the fact that they perceive themselves so. I’d go further, and say US blacks are also subject to the northern prejudice against southerners, and are perceived in that context. That is a matter of food, language, and cultural inheritance as much as skin color. I also recall Gary Graffman’s story of his Russian immigrant father trying to rent an apartment in Harlem. “I’m not prejudiced,” he told the super. “We are,” the super replied, and shut the door.
In the US there were also communities of Poles, Italians, Russians, Irish, and Jews. They lived in their own neighborhoods for the common language, customs, food, etc. And there were little wars at the boundaries of the turf occupied by the different groups. Such little wars still go on, say between Hispanics and Blacks.
People will be people. That’s one of the impediments to the realization of a true libertarian paradise.
Au contraire. Indeed allowing unpleasant behaviour like that is essential in any liberal (in the non-American sense) social order.
I am all for people’s right to freely associate… and disassociate. If someone wants to be a bigot and refuse to allow someone into their house or place of business based on their race or whatever other basis they want, I am all for them being allowed to do so without the state getting involved.
Yes Chuck, people will be people, and some of them will be racist – no big deal, really.
Sorry, but that is a classic example of a collectivist statement. Did you ask every single black person out there if that is how they actually perceive themselves? I bet if you did, you’d discover that there are three types of blacks: those that agree because that perception was forced on them by white racists; those that agree because they are racist themselves, and those who disagree. I don’t care what the numbers are, but I’m willing to bet money that there is at least one black person in each of these three groups, which would totally pull the rug from under your statement, because only individuals count to a non-collectivist.
Now where’s llamas to sing the smittinization song – or at least Laird to recite some poetry for the occasion?
BTW, with all the contempt I feel for the guilt game some black Americans like to play, I have to point out that Poles, Italians, Russians, Irish, and Jews chose to live in separate communities for reasons that were rather different from the ones that were forced upon blacks.
Er,…I hear the smitebot coming…la la la la la la…Oh, bother…
The smitebot is taking care of a little business elsewhere. It will be back soon.
It is adorable – I had no idea!
They are forms of classism, which can take on the forms of paranoia (“they’re out to get us”) or snobbery (“they’re classlessness is polluting our classiness”). The reaction can be either passive – simply trying to avoid the enemy and/or rube classes – or active – organizing those within the favored class to combat the enemy classes).
Archie Bunker represents the passive reaction. He wants the “others” to leave him alone. He may get into debates over class-related beliefs, but he doesn’t go around trying to make people (inside or outside his class) do anything. He just wants his beer, his TV, his nights at the neighborhood watering hole.
Collectivism is the active reaction. Collectivists seek to prod members of the favored class into thinking in classist terms (“class consciousness”) and into banding together to make war of some sort against the rube/enemy classes. All forms of collectivism seek to steal freedom, property, etc. from one set of classes to boost the power, wealth, etc. of another.
Well, I was smited responding to Mid’s excellent essay on computers, natural selection, and civil disobedience…but it was worth it, because now I am smitten with the kittens.
;>)
–J.
Now where’s llamas to sing the smittinization song – or at least Laird to recite some poetry for the occasion?
Being smited is a drag
Alan: I take your point. I still prefer to think of what you call ‘classism’ as ‘inactive collectivism’ (as opposed to the active kind you correctly described). Also, I have a semantic problem with the use of the word ‘class’ in this context – to me ‘collective’ still sounds more suitable. [/nitpicking] (for now…)
They are opposites insofar as the first is voluntary at the individual level and the second is forced by the state. Collectivism attempts to shroud itself in the voluntary, but its eventual power rests on the threat of force at the point of a gun.
Collectivism is the principle that the collective is morally sovereign over the individual, as a direct consequence of being metaphysically prior to the individual — i.e. That the content of one’s character are determined by one’s collective, rather than authored by the choices made by oneself.
As the penultimate collectivists of the last century once put it: “What you believe is no disgrace; the swinishness is in the race.”
Collective action is collectivist when individuals are not permitted to opt out (because the collective is morally sovereign, and therefore the arbiter of the good.) It is individualistic/capitalistic when every individual involved has freely consented to be involved (because the individual is morally sovereign, and the collective action/group/community, being morally subordinate, must respect the individual’s choice and judgement of what is the good — for him.
In other words: political liberty derives from individualism, i.e. the principle of individual moral sovereignty — and its basis in ethical egoism.
Shocka!
*sheesh*
“reverse”(fill in the blank) ie.-phobia is…
Anti-semite (ism) is….
Racism (vs. racism) is…
A Communityism (communism?) vs. a collective (collectivism?)
Anyone want to take a shot at using the word Chauvinism (NOT the “feminist” mis-re-interpretation) in a sentence?
I’m thinking a dictionary (OED? most certainly NOT Wikip*dia)will help avoid further disingenuous usurpation and misuse of lazy rhetorical devices.
For example…
A lectern is NOT a podium, dammit! I don’t care how much “common” mis-usage, predominately by an “elite” cadre of people who have been bestowed certificates-of-attendance, by allegedly demonstrating a journeyman’s comprehension of “communications”, to those who have allegedly mastered it, continue to mal-appropriate (ie.) these two “concepts”.
Instead of “collectivism”, I think the current operational concept on the Left is “communitarianism”, where individuals are “encouraged” to do what they may or may not desire to do by the force of law, for the betterment of the community-at-large. It is the basic concept behind zoning/building/landscaping codes.
“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.”
In other words, whether people voluntarily subordinate the individual to the collective – or are forced to subordinate the individual to the collective – is immaterial. Both are examples of collectivism.
Additionally, a community can be either collectivist or individualist. As such, community and collectivism are not “by definition” opposites. But, nor are they necessarily synonymous. The organizing principles of a given group or community are what determine whether it is or is not collectivist in nature.
Fair enough, B Leigh, but only if you broadly define “community” as you (implicitly) have. But if one is trying to create a pithy quote (a bumper sticker phrase, if you like) which makes an important philosophical point Mr. Raymond’s formulation works just fine, because in general usage “community” implies “consensual”. Whether it’s in the geographic or some other sense (as in a “community of interests”), when most people think of a community the underlying assumption is that one either joined it voluntarily or, at worst, is free to leave if one chooses. Anything else is a “community” only in the sense that a prison is, and (to me, anyway) that’s not a particularly useful definition.
Laird
I think you missed my first point. You claim that “”community” implies “consensual””. My point is that ‘consent’ (or lack thereof) is immaterial to collectivism. As such, it doesn’t serve to distinguish “community” from “collectivism”. Thus the “important philosophical point” is not “fine”.
The claim that community and collectivism are opposites is simply not true.
There is such a thing as voluntary (ie ‘consensual’) collectivism. The principle that the individual is properly subordinate to the group can be (and is) voluntarily practiced. So there can indeed be a “community” which is “collectivist” rather than individualist. That fact makes the claim that “community and collectivism are opposites” false – not “fine”.
A ‘community’ as the term is used in the comparison,
refers to a group of people who share a _common_
set of core social rules which enable them to function
as a society.
Community is the primary means of social survival
during Hard Times, as we are all going to see
demonstrated shortly.
“Community” is not a panacea. “Community” can easily be the cause of “hard times” rather than the solution to them. A community is not a value simply because it is a community. Such a belief is the definition of collectivism.
The ethical principles a group embraces and practices are what determine its value or disvalue – ie whether that group is good or bad.
A community which embraces collectivism – which holds the community as the standard of value – which subjugates the individual to the collective – creates “hard times”, as we are currently witnessing. Appealing to more collectivism will not ensure “survival”. The solution to the problem of collectivism is not more collectivism. That is simply the path to swifter destruction and death.
The solution to the immorality that is collectivism is individualism. A “community” which faces “hard times” must embrace the moral good that is individualism in order to ultimately escape those “hard times”.
A “community” most certainly can voluntarily embrace collectivism. The Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 did that very thing, and it nearly wiped them out. So your point is certainly valid in a technical sense.
Nonetheless, I continue to maintain that as those terms are commonly understood in modern parlance, “community” implies consent and “collectivism” implies coercion. Mr. Raymond’s succinct phrase would not withstand scrutiny in a philosophy classroom; that much is conceded. But as a “bumper sticker motto” it serves its purpose admirably.
I think you summed it up very well, Laird.
“I continue to maintain that as those terms are commonly understood in modern parlance, “community” implies consent and “collectivism” implies coercion.”
Both supposed ‘implications’ are false. And you acknowledge this fact explicitly. Yet you accept the falsehoods anyway.
Accepting false definitions because they are supposedly “common” is a logical fallacy (the Appeal to Quantitative Authority – x is ‘right’ because they say it is right’). In fact, accepting a false idea because it is held by a collective is an example of collectivism – one you practice without coercion (thus proving my point by your very denial of it).
B Leigh, language is not a value, merely a tool (albeit an extremely valuable one). It just so happens that both Laird and I are nuts about precision in speech, but you can’t insist on using a phillips screwdriver on an appliance that was assembled with slot screws – even though it should have ideally been assembled with phillips ones.
No such appeal is at play here: x is not right, it is useful. It is useful, because it is used by many. Like a telephone.
B Leigh, words mean what the majority of people decide that they mean. And that can change over time. That’s the nature of language. There’s no “right” or “wrong” about it, and merely because you disagree with or disapprove of a particular definition doesn’t change anything. We can all decry the corruption of the word “liberal” from its 19th century definition to the modern meaning of “leftist”, but that will neither change popular usage nor make it somehow “incorrect”. It is what it is. Sorry, but you’ll just have to deal with it.
The term community (like the term civil society) at least implies voluntarism (free choice – including the right of exit).
Collectivism at least implies – force and fear.
They are indeed very different things.
For example when did the homes in Ireland for girls and women who had got into trouble stop being communities (i.e. good places – and when they were founded they actually were good places) and become the places of evil that have become so well known?
WHEN LOCKS WERE PUT UPON THE DOORS AND THE RESIDENTS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE WITHOUT PERMISSION.
That is collectivism.
I disagree, Paul: as others have noted, collectivism can be voluntary. What you are describing may be properly termed ‘forced collectivism’.
“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.’ ”
Ayn Rand
“The Only Path to Tomorrow,”
Reader’s Digest, Jan, 1944, 8.
“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.”
Leonard Peikoff,
The Ominous Parallels, 17
“Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.”
Ayn Rand
“Racism,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 128
“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.”
Ayn Rand
“‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 180
“The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality. Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men—which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind. Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)—a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.
From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other.”
Leonard Peikoff, “Nazism vs. Reason,”
The Objectivist, Oct. 1969, 1
“What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that “Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality—so the notion that “Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues.”
Ayn Rand
“Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 101
As a cultural-intellectual power and a moral ideal, collectivism died in World War II. If we are still rolling in its direction, it is only by the inertia of a void and the momentum of disintegration. A social movement that began with the ponderous, brain-cracking, dialectical constructs of Hegel and Marx, and ends up with a horde of morally unwashed children stamping their foot and shrieking: “I want it now!”—is through.”
Ayn Rand
“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 266
(Apparently not–at least on this blog.)
Then there is this succinct statement made by one of my students:
“It’s said it takes a village to raise a child. I have seen that village, and it isn’t rasing my child.” -College Student
Perhaps the author ought to consider Señor Frederic Bastiat’s observation:
“The mind never fully accepts any convictions that it does not owe to its own efforts.”
“words mean what the majority of people decide that they mean.”
No – because reality, not the arbitrary whim of the “majority”, is the standard of judgment. In other words, ‘Because they say so’ is not a rational justification for anything. Agreement is not reality.
“There’s no “right” or “wrong” about [language].”
There is right and wrong about language – about concepts, words, and definitions. And that is because they refer to facts of reality. They identify fundamental similarities between things, distinguishing them from things which are different in that respect. All these similarities and differences exist and cannot be either contradicted or evaded. To do so would be to reject reality. As such, to recognize and accurately identify these fundamental facts makes a concept ‘right’. To contradict or evade these fundamental facts makes a concept ‘wrong’. In all cases, the standard is not “whatever the collective demands” but “whatever the facts of reality are”.
For instance, morality is a code of values to guide mans choices and actions. There are many such codes in existence. That one particular morality may be held by a majority does not change this fact – nor does it “imply” that morality is just that morality. Ex – say the majority believes the word of god is what is moral. They would not recognize any other code of values as morality. As such, their ‘common meaning’ of morality would “imply” only the word of god. A secular code of values, not being the word of god, would be excluded from the category ‘morality’. And thus one would have people (like yourself here) claiming “‘the secular” and ‘the moral’ are opposites.”.
This is a falsehood accepted on the basis of a logical fallacy. It is wrong for the exact reason the claim “‘community’ and “collectivism’ are opposites” is wrong. Both seek to replace a subcategory as the category, effectively evading the existence of all the other subcategories through this act.
To accept a false idea because it is “popular” rather than correcting the falsehood is the opposite of rationality.
“x is not right, it is useful. It is useful, because it is used by many.”
This is a prime example of subjectivism (of which is collectivism is simply a particular practice). Consciousness, not reality, is held as the standard and validation of an idea. In this case the collective belief of “many” consciousnesses is held as the standard. This is known specifically as collective subjectivism. And it is invalid precisely because it substitutes the mind in place of reality as the standard of judgment.
B Leigh, that’s not the point. You are mistaking the term with the idea which it represents. Consider “Concept X”. Concept X may or may not be rational, or moral, or whatever characteristic you care to ascribe to it. If we have a term (say, “Knorg”) for Concept X, that term itself is not Concept X, it merely stands for it. If over time “Knorg” comes to mean something else in popular parlance, then that’s what it now means. If Concept X retains any utility some new term will arise as its new name. All that means is it has a new name, and the old name now applies to something else. And whatever the word “community” may have once meant, or what it may mean to you, my assertion is that in general usage the word now includes the concept of voluntariness. If you want a broader term to reflect your definition, fine: pick a new one. But this one’s already taken, and it no longer means what you claim.
B. Leigh, you are conflating concepts and ideas with words that describe them. The label on a bottle is not the same thing as its actual content – the latter being the objective reality, with the former being a mere convention, which is by definition subjective. Or are you suggesting that in human society there should be no room left for subjectivity or conscientiousness? Anyway, it sounds like we’ll have to agree to disagree.
…I meant ‘consciousnesses’ – check the spellchecker…
And Laird beat me to it anyway.
“You are mistaking the term with the idea which it represents.”
No. I am identifying an attempt to destroy a concept through the substitution of a single sub-category for the entire concept. It is the attempt to redefine the concept in terms of non-essentials (while ignoring the fundemental defining aspect). It’s like defining man as the rational animal with white skin. This takes a single category of man, adds a non-fundamental characteristic, and seeks to redefine all other races out of the species. It is categorization by arbitrary whim. That the whim is chosen collectively doesn’t make the choice valid.
Reality – the identity of the objects being compared and contrasted – dictates the choices. To arbitrarily create (or change) words and/or their definitions is to reject reality as the standard of judging any and all of them.
“Or are you suggesting that in human society there should be no room left for subjectivity or consciousness?”
I am saying that existence is the primary and that consciousness must conform itself to reality – not the other way around. The former is objective – the latter subjective. And in reality, being subjective (ie upholding something other than existence as the standard of ones judgment) is deadly dangerous – for the exact same reason collectivism is deadly dangerous.
Interesting. And how does one know that one’s consciousness does, in fact, conform to reality – without using one’s consciousness, that is?
B Leigh, that makes no sense. If I have a dog and call him “Bill”, then get a cat and call him “Bill”, too, and start calling the dog “Sam”, nothing fundamental about the dog has changed. But you’d better accept that his name is now Sam, because if you start calling for Bill you’re going to get the wrong animal (assuming, of course, that a cat will come when called).
“And how does one know that one’s consciousness does, in fact, conform to reality”
Through logical reduction to the perceptually given.
“- without using one’s consciousness, that is?”
Such a demand is absurd contradiction.
Since perception is an activity of the conscious mind, you have just stated that one knows that consciousness conforms to reality by logically reducing (an activity of consciousness) to the perceptually (an activity of consciousness) given.
In other words, you know your consciousness conforms to reality because your consciousness tell you it does.
You don’t see a problem with that?
“If I have a dog and call him “Bill”, then get a cat and call him “Bill”, too, and start calling the dog “Sam”, nothing fundamental about the dog has changed.”
Bad analogy. First proper names are fundamentally different from all other words. But even accepting proper names as an example, the analogy is faulty. A proper analogy would be: you have a dog and call him Bill. After a while you say Bill is not the dog’s name. Bill is just the dog’s spleen’s name. So when you call Bill, you are really just calling his spleen.
“You don’t see a problem with that?”
No – because I don’t ignore what ‘perception’ is – awareness of existence. So the logical reduction I referenced is to those aspects of existence to which I have direct contact (as previously stated, the perceptual given).
Huh? Perception is signals arriving in your consciousness and you interpreting them. Interpretation is an inherently fallible act.
You may want to read this thread. Down a ways, it wandered onto the topic of perception and the relationship between consciousness and reality.
“Perception is signals arriving in your consciousness…” No. That is sensation not perception.
“…and you interpreting them.” No. One experiences perception. One does not create them. They are not ‘interpretations’ of reality. They are direct contact with reality.
Done here.
Put simply, perception is infallible. It cannot be wrong. Conception, on the other hand, – including explanations of particular perceptions – can indeed be wrong (example: a stick in water looks bent. If one concludes that the stick is bent, that is conception, not perception. The perception is valid. The conception is false.)
“Done here.”
Bye
Me, too. Bye.
Cya.
Say hi to Bill, the dog’s spleen
He says “hi” back. 🙂
And a talking spleen at that. You’ll be rich! Oh wait – is it like the Warner Bros. frog? If so, sorry.
😉
“Perception is signals arriving in your consciousness…” Oh, and btw – consciousness is an action – an action of a thing. So to say perception ‘arrives’ in consciousness is like saying running ‘arrives’ in your locomotion.
It is a nonsense statement.
Put simply, perception is a particular form of consciousness – a particular form of awareness (the same way running is a particular form of locomotion).
Alisa.
Certainly collectivism can be voluntary.
But POLITICAL collectivism is not voluntary.
So collectivism (as a POLITICAL concept) is the opposite of community.
I agree with others that the statement, while short and sweet, is not meaningful to most people because there are not agreed on definitions for the terms. Perhaps it should be revised to :
Community and collectivism are opposites because Community Action is based on a voluntary collection of individuals, while Collectivism is based on government force compelling individuals to act for the government collective.
Another good concept to get across in this area is that real Charity and Compassion are voluntary, and thus cannot be done by gov, which is based on force, so Compassionate or Charitible government is meaningless. Government can do justice, by treating everybody equally under the law, but government cannot do compassion without losing justice, since compassion is based on treating people unequally.
I agree with you, Richard40, but try putting that on a bumper sticker.
Paul, doesn’t the term ‘political’ already imply coercion by definition?
I am saying that I agree that collectivism is the opposite of community. I am also saying that applied collectivism (as opposed to collectivism as a mere world-view) is necessarily coercive – i.e. political (politics being necessarily based on coercion). Does that make sense?
“I am also saying that applied collectivism (as opposed to collectivism as a mere world-view) is necessarily coercive – i.e. political (politics being necessarily based on coercion). Does that make sense.”
No, because that means all ‘applied’ standards of value are supposedly the same. In other words, “applied individualism” is supposedly “necessarily coercive – ie political.” Thus the claim would not only be “Community and collectivism are opposites” but it would also be “Community and individualism are opposites” (and any political system would be the same as well – ie “Community and communism are opposites”; “Community and capitalism are opposites”; “Community and libertarianism are opposites”.) Such a definition destroys the identification of the fundamental difference between individualism and collectivism, treating these opposites as if they were the same.
This is what happens when one tries to define things by the non-essential. One ends up violating the law of identity – treating A and non-A as if they were the same when they are fundamentally different.
None of the above comparisons is valid – because the term community is not defined by whether force is used or not (the ‘criminal community’, the ‘community of prisoners’ etc are all valid uses of the term ‘community’) and nor is collectivism defined by whether force is used or not. By trying to limit a category to a given sub-category within each, you destroy the fundamental distinction between the things being compared.
That is the opposite of the function of concepts and of language.
Essentially, what you have claimed is that ‘community and politics are opposites’. That is simply false.
I didn’t claim that, BL, I simply posited an idea to Paul, so that he and I can reach better mutual understanding.
“No, because that means all ‘applied’ standards of value are supposedly the same.”
It means no such thing. You are inferring that “applied” necessarily means “through the application of force”, but in fact it contains no such universal connotation. It does have that meaning when used to modify “collectivism”, but it has the opposite meaning when used to modify “individualism”. Since it begins with a fundamentally flawed premise the remainder of the paragraph is erroneous.
“”No, because that means all ‘applied’ standards of value are supposedly the same.”
It means no such thing.”
Unlike you, I didn’t drop the context of your statement. You identified “applied” specifically to mean “political” (ie the application of collecitvism in the political realm). And you explicitly stated that collectivism in the political realm is “necessarily coercive” because politics is “necessarily based on coersion”. My point is that principle applies across the board. “Politics being necessarily coersive” means both collectivism and individualism are necessarily coersive in the political realm – because, as you say, politics is necessarily coersive. As such, my statement stands.
“Essentially, what you have claimed is that ‘community and politics are opposites’.
I didn’t claim that…”
When you declare that a defining characteristic of community is “consent” (as opposed to “coersion”), and when you declare that a defining characteristic of politics is “coersion”, then, whether you realize it or not, you are quite specifically claiming “community and politics are opposites”.
On mobile, so thought both posts were by Alisa. Please mentally adjust the written pronouns accordingly.
On mobile, so thought both posts were by Alisa. Please mentally adjust the written pronouns accordingly.
“Politics” is interactions among people. It can be any number of persons, even two, but it cannot be only one. To assert that “individualism” is political is nonsensical (you can’t interact with yourself), thus your conclusion is erroneous.
“To assert that “individualism” is political is nonsensical…”
The Founding Fathers would weep at such words.
“”Politics” is interactions among people.”
Politics is the application of moral principle to the interaction between individuals. Individualism is a moral principle. It holds the individual as the standard of value – as opposed to collectivism, which holds some group (the state, the race, etc) as the standard of value. When this moral principle is applied to human interaction – ie when applied in the political realm – individualism identifies the individual as sovereign, not subject of others. As such, it uses government force to defend this sovereignty from any other individual who would violate it. Collectivism, on the other hand, identifies the individual as servant, as subject, to the given collective. As such, it uses government force to subjugate the individual to the will of that collective.
To claim that the moral principle of individualism is not applicable to human interaction demonstrates a gross ignorance of philosophic, moral, and political thought and history.
Alisa – my response to laird got waylaid. While waiting for it to appear, perhaps you would care to state whether you share Laird’s bizarre belief that “individualism” is not applicable to politics?
BL: I don’t find Laird’s assertion bizarre at all, but I need time and a functioning brain (which I don’t have at the moment) to lay out my precise position on this. Feel free to watch this space for a day or two.
No, no, no. Profoundly incorrect on oh so many levels.
‘Politics’ is what we call the process by which people try to control the means of collective coercion.
Simply ‘interaction amongst people’ is generally what we call ‘society’.
Perry is correct in identifying ‘politics’ to be a narrower category (ie one particular form) of the wider concept ‘human interaction’ (of which ‘society’ is also simply one particular form).
Laird wrote: “Politics” is interactions among people., and he italicized ‘among’ – which tells me that he did not say that it covers any human interaction.
My take on this is that politics is human interaction under conditions of coercion imposed from above, and I think this is consistent with both Laird’s and Perry’s assertions. So, to sum up: no, individualism cannot be applicable to politics.
Alisa – on what basis do you claim “individualism” is a principle which cannot be applied to interaction among individuals? That basis is certainly not political history or philosophic history – where the concept ‘individualism’ is well established as a moral and political principle.
With his latest arbitrary assertion, laird has now explicitly claimed that “individualism” and “interaction among humans” are opposites – because human interaction involves “any number of persons, even two, but it cannot be only one” because “you can’t interact with yourself”. Thus he apparently believes “individualism” does not identify that which is common to all individuals (and thus completely fails as a concept pertaining to individuals). His notion of “individualism” somehow tells you ONLY about “yourself”. It does not tell you anything about anyone else nor does it apply to anyone else. Thus laird’s “individualism” may identify you as sovereign. But it fails to identify any other individuals as sovereign – for if it included such an identification, then one would have a political principle – ie one would have a principle identifying how one should interact with those other individuals (for if the other individual is sovereign, then to treat him as a slave, to subjugate him, to initiate force against him, etc, would be a contradiction of the principle that he is sovereign).
Absent the identification of a characteristic common to all individuals, laird’s assertion doesn’t even qualify as a concept. It is simply meaningless.
At this point, you need to rationally define your terms. What the heck do you believe the meaning of ‘individualism’ is, and what do claim prevents that principle from being applied to human interaction – ie how is the principle not applicable to all individuals and thus not applicable as a guide to the individual’s interaction with other individuals?
Never claimed any such thing – please re-read carefully.
“individualism cannot be applicable to politics”
“Politics is interactions among individuals”
Thus individualism cannot be applied to interactions among individualism.
If you mean otherwise, then you need to restate your position more “carefully”.
damn autocorrect:
Thus individualism cannot be applied to interactions among individuals.
Apparently laird and alisa arbitrarily believe that the moral principle of individualism cannot (for some still as yet to be identified reason) be used as a guide to the political use of force. They arbitrarily reject the idea that the principle of individualism dictates political force be used to defend each individual’s sovereignty (rather than subjugate or enslave him). They simply cannot conceive of such a fact.
Thankfully, the Founding Fathers were able to grasp what alisa and laird do not.
Alisa – yes.
However, the word “collectivism” normally means polticial collectivism (that is how the word is normally used – historically, and currently), but the word “community” does not (historically) mean coercion, it means voluntary interaction (normally).
That is why they are opposites – force versus voluntary.
Which is pretty much what I said way back near the beginning of this thread. (10/2/11 at 11:07 PM).
Laird,
You were correct earlier on to point out BL’s error in tacitly equating “application” with “application of force”.
BL,
Rand’s positions are not to be taken uncritically, but you are doing just that.
Mike – tossing out a smear instead of identifying a specific idea you claim is in error is simply irrational.