Modern Collectivism
Modern collectivism is the “philosophically validated" argument for primitive ritualism. After the Enlightenment, philosophers reinvented collectivism to retain the elements of ritualism, converting the tribes into races or nations and attaching a modern philosophical flavor to the old fundamentals. I discussed philosophical pre-history and its connection to primitive religious role paradigms in my book “Behind the Ritual Mask”. The conversion of these paradigms is the essence of modern philosophy with the exception of Aristotle and Ayn Rand.
Rule by one man--dictatorship
Here the tribal chief becomes the government or dictator. Like the tribal chief, the collective must have someone whose views represent the collective mind, someone with the prestige and power to effect the goals of the collective. Collectivism attempts to empower one Individual who makes its myths real and can effect the survival of the group. In a wider sense, collectivism fosters dictatorship because the members believe that the will of the group is best implemented by the will of one person. For our purposes, it is important to recognize that a philosophy that fosters a collective identity as a primary component of self-validation necessarily must foster an unthinking acceptance by the individual. This leads to passivity in individuals and opens the door to dictatorship and storm trooper thugs as in Nazi Germany.
The dictator does not want confident, happy individuals, living in freedom without fear. He wants unhappy, fearful, humble, obedient and unassuming automatons. Necessarily, the collective will train its members early about the value of sacrifice and the guilt that they must feel if they challenge the collective. This idea pits a person against himself and is responsible for many of the psychological problems of modern man. The existence of psychological aberration falls squarely at the foot of collectivism. Only debilitating mediocrity or rebellious non-participation can be the outcome of a situation where the Individual must sacrifice his mind, his work and his ability to the will of the leader. It is the cause of the decay that afflicts collectivist societies.
(Consider the opposite view. If a philosophy fosters Individualism and independence, it would necessarily foster a form of government and society that gives the Individual choice and dignity. Each person would be able to question the views and actions of the leaders of society and would be a deterrent against the formation of dictatorship.)
Loyalty to the tribe--Collective identity
The most common collectivist metaphor is that of the ant. The ant, it seems, is the perfect automaton. It lives solely for the sake of the colony. It operates automatically and everything it does is designed to advance the collective. The ant performs its duty without aberration and without any semblance of volitional control. It simply does what it is supposed to do. The ant colony is one of the few forms of collectivism that has actually worked throughout history. That is because the ant can’t think, he is small and able to spread his colonies beneath the feet of most predators. For the collectivist, the ant is the ideal creature. If only man were able to see himself as part of the greater whole, as only an instrument through which the group is able to survive, then we would have the perfect society. If only man would do what he should, then he would be moral.
This view, part and parcel to the collectivist view of man, indicates the strength of the effort in collectivist societies to instill group loyalty and devotion. The Individual is required to possess only one form of identity, the collective identity; because only this view will perpetuate the goals of the collective. An Individual identity would negate the collective and destroy it, just as one rogue ant would cause harm to the entire colony. This is because a collectivist sees his group as the only true representative of humanity. Therefore, to the collective, the Individual is the enemy, different, evil, hated and inferior.
Commonly held beliefs--Propaganda and the Big Lie
Postulating evil enemies helps motivate the members of the collective to fight for the goals of the group. The collective therefore keeps a stream of propaganda flowing against any other group. Prejudice, over generalization, division, polarization and lies are its infectious tools. It also does everything possible to whip up a common paranoia, collective pride, collective identity and collective superiority. This is why warfare is inevitable in a collectivist society: for the collectivist the chorus of opinion found in the group is the fundamental “sounding board” and authorizer. This makes collectivism the source of both schizophrenia, paranoia, neurosis and personal conflict.
Inevitably, the collective must engage in a struggle for world dominance. The greater and more sinister the enemies, the greater must be the struggle against them, the more hated they must be and the crueler the effort to eradicate them. If we look at history, we see that the largest collectivist systems, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, were responsible for the most vicious efforts to dominate the world--and to eliminate whole nations and "races." Both were masters in the use of propaganda and the Big Lie. Both considered the entire world their enemy. Both exploited their people to such a degree, that they needed to conquer other nations in order to maintain power.
Ritual Practices--The psychology of collectivism
The myths of many primitive cultures postulate a cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil. The forces of good, of course, are those that represent the collective. The ritual "acting-out" of these myths forms the foundation of many primitive cultures to such an extent that even today, most festival celebrations are celebrations of that victory of good over evil. Surprisingly, many of history’s biggest wars were fought between religions that worshipped the same deity under different names.
Today, one of the most common rituals is war. Through war, either by means of sports competition or bloody nation battles, the Individual tribal member confirms his role in society and his value. He fosters the values of the team or nation, proves his value and validates it through the victory that the group has gained. Better a football team than an army.
It can even be said that war itself is an "acting-out" of these same myths, a ritual that allows man to subconsciously repeat the cosmic struggle found in ancient cultural role paradigms. Indeed, it is not surprising that the more primitive the culture, the more warlike are its men. Their greatest hero is the god of war, Mars. Indeed, the more collectivist the culture, the angrier are the men and the more submissive are the women.
Most people are exposed early in life to the precepts of some religion. Such religions give modern man the same messages that primitive religions gave. Men learn that only God is sacred, that they are on this earth to satisfy or serve Him. They learn that other religions are inherently wrong. They learn that “we” must struggle against and attempt to convert anyone not of our religion. Some religions require open warfare against “infidels."
The modern equivalent of the ritual collective mask is disapproval from peers and authority figures. The modern day punishment is jail, job termination, or in more benign collectivist societies, disenfranchisement. We are taught that the Individual is inherently evil, of this earth, born with Original Sin. His role is to sacrifice for others, be meek and humble before God, fear God, follow commandments or he will end up in tortuous hell for eternity. Men are taught to fight their sexual and worldly natures and feel guilty for experiencing pleasure.
When we answer the question, what do we “know” now, we can conclude that modern collectivism is derived from primitive ritualism. It is a direct outgrowth of cultural and social institutions that characterized primitive man. We can also conclude that the very same “solutions” found in primitive societies will be equally unsuccessful when applied to modern societies. And such has been the history of the world.
Original Sin
A pervasive idea in our world culture is Original Sin. It is the notion that man is fundamentally imperfect, flawed, and doomed to failure. It comes from mythology, where the first man and woman, born into perfection, committed the sin of defying God, and were damned forever for that defianc
e.
The idea of Original Sin explains for many people why man does not perform his role in what is considered by many to be a perfect political system: collectivism. In essence, Original Sin is an apology for collectivism. The argument goes that because man is imperfect, he is not good enough to make communism, socialism, and statism work. Man’s original sin is that he is not an ant.
Most of us are fed the doctrine of Original Sin from early childhood. We are taught to conclude that there is something flawed about man. Yet, the doctrine of Original Sin explains nothing. It says that the reason for man's imperfection is that he is imperfect. Simply stated, it is an insult that sends individuals toward a dead end in their relations with their inner selves and others. Yet, an explanation for failure must also be an explanation for success. It precludes happiness, well-being, and success. Being alive is failure under this view. Succeeding at survival is failure, building a factory that creates jobs is failure. Becoming right is failure. This doctrine that is supposed to help us understand man leads us to a lack of understanding--it is an easy (and false) explanation for the issues about man that we do not understand.
There is no Original Sin. Man cannot be guilty by nature. He can only be man, and he is what he is. The idea of a sin implies a bad action and man cannot commit a sin by merely being born, since that act is totally innocent. A sin can only be committed by conscious willful action.
Free will is the idea that each human being has a choice to think or not to think. Consider the opposite attitude that involves accepting knowledge because God supposedly says so. What kind of knowledge will that bring to the individual? A knowledge that God should be feared. Turn those fears into fear of authority figures and even peers and you have the prescription for “un-free” will, the idea that moral choices should be based upon the opinions of others.
More fundamentally free will holds that man must choose to engage his mind in the thinking that will secure his survival. This implies a mind capable of evaluating reality and of reasoning and decision-making. It implies a mind focused on the real world rather than the clouds. It further holds that man can either initiate the process of thinking or he can evade that choice and let chance determine the correctness of a particular course of action – the way most men live today.
Free will is not a static, mystical idea or gift from God, as is sometimes supposed. In fact, the opposite of Original Sin is free will. It assumes that man is clean morally and capable of correct thought. It assumes that he can improve his life by making the correct choices. It provides the foundation for a true self-esteem, since self-esteem is an outgrowth, fundamentally, of a properly reasoning mind.
Free will functions best in the independent mind, the mind not encumbered by fear of the collective (and all the discomforts that this fear creates). The collectivist, on the other hand, is a person whose capacity for clear thinking is distorted by fear of the collective. Anytime fear is a factor in moral choice, reason is impossible and virtually anything goes.
Collectivism, like Original Sin, is the enemy of free will. To be constantly focused on what other people require, what other people think, is to have a corrupted capacity for proper choice. A person with this focus becomes a victim of self-humiliation, whims and emotions, distorted as they might be, and does not have the full capacity to make rational judgments. The person who feels compelled to ask others what is proper is an "otherist."
The critical question is how did the idea of Original Sin become so influential? How did it become such a huge cultural paradigm and why are people blind to the psychological harm it creates? Perhaps this is because Original Sin is a moral crutch, an explanation for failure and an excuse to deny the thought process that man needs in order to survive. But, this approach is a dead-end fraught with confusion and failure. Because the otherist has not validated his knowledge, he fails at implementing correct action. Blame it on Original Sin. It is not his fault.
When being like those around one becomes the method for achieving identity, there can be no sense of self-creation. If the standard for identity is a common standard, then integrity is not as desirable as conformity and imitation. Justice is not as desirable as non-judging acceptance of those around one. Honesty is not as desirable as pretending. Morality is not as desirable as common attitudes, traditions and behaviors. Pride is not as desirable as group identity. Happiness is not as desirable as mindless pleasures of the moment. Reason is not as desirable as mindlessness. Knowledge is not as desirable as prejudice. Romantic love is not as desirable as promiscuous joining (Promiscuous joining is more common than we might think. It includes getting married because that is what one is supposed to do. It includes social promiscuity, the acceptance of every person regardless of the personal values they possess. It includes sexual promiscuity where one bases sexual choices impulsively without distinguishing the personal value of the sexual partner. It includes joining gangs, organizations, churches, and making a variety of personal choices because that is what the group does. It amounts to making choices according to what others are doing.)
The Individualist does not see every Individual he encounters as a potential sex partner. In fact, sex is never his first thought when meeting another person. Evaluating that person's character is. Today we see collectivism coming home to roost through social orgies (collective socializing or ritual orgiastic dancing), casual drug use, casual sex ("It’s only about sex."), divorce statistics, marital cheating, alienated lovers, one-night-stands, group sex, people struggling to find love and failing time after time, taking what they can get, and getting what they can take (As the old song says, “If you can’t be with the one you love, then love the one you’re with”).
The concept of original sin has many names. Sometimes it is called the innate depravity of man, man’s primitive nature or his sinful nature. It is even called man’s inability to ascertain reality. Whatever the designation, original sin destroys the possibility of moral action and it provides an easy excuse for the man who would prefer to depend upon the thoughts and actions of others. But more than this, for the individual, it means isolation and alienation from the rest of mankind. It means the denigration and destruction of his individuality – it means the impossibility of happiness and self-love.
Collectivism in Action
In early school years most people discover the collective called the nation or country. This collective must be pledged allegiance to, under god. We are told it must remain united, strong. We are told that governmental institutions promote the general welfare and that whatever they do is for the good of its citizens. We are told to follow all of its laws and to be good citizens.
We are told to ask not what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country, as if our country is a tribe for which we must sacrifice. We must allow our government to take from us whatever money it wants for whatever goals it chooses. If we disagree, then we are selfish, greedy, evil, supporters of big business, etc.
That our nation was created for the individual, for the pursuit of happiness; that it was devised as a government of laws and not of men; that the government was supposed to be controlled, not individuals, was lost in the stampede to collectivize humanity. That individuals have the right of free speech, to bear arms, etc., has been lost in the stampede to make all men subjects.
As we grow into adults, many of us are presented with the possibility of playing or watching team sports and activities. We are taught the value of sportsmanship, of teamwork, of seeing oneself, not as an individual, but as one who does his part to advance the goal of the team – to win. Yet, we are told that winning is not everything. We use team sports as a metaphor for war and self-sacrificial life, totally ignoring the fact that most of our great athletes are mega-millionaires who train intensely hard to earn those millions, who were so selfish that they worked for hours each day in order to hone their very Individual talents and skills, skills so great that they do not need to be team players because they dominate in their sport.
&
nbsp; When we join the working world, we work for a company or corporation. We are taught the value of being a team player, following company policies, strengthening the organization by sacrificing one's time, money, and thinking to the goals of the company. We are presented with the necessity of expressing political opinions that the company feels are in its best interests. We are to think like a group so the company can become strong and perpetuate itself. We must see competitors as evil conspirators who are out to destroy us and who must be defeated with greater effort and struggle.
We have forgotten that corporations are free institutions that allow the participant an opportunity to pursue his livelihood, his well-being and that of his family. He will be industrious and committed to the corporation to the extent that he can use his talents to obtain a high income for himself. He will also question entrenched business processes and policies in order to improve them and distinguish himself as a value to the organization.
Individualism Page 7
