Talk:Collectivism (disambiguation)/Archive 1

How much is "collectivism vs. individualism" discussed outside of Ayn Rand circles? I don't know, which is why I am asking. - I don't like this article -- it seems to be some libertarian argument that communism and fascism and racism are all of the one cloth... I definitely don't think its NPOV. "Collectivism" is a propaganda term used by certain groups -- I don't think it has any NPOV definition at all. And yet this article treats it like its just some matter of fact... -- SJK

I agree that it is non-NPOV libertarian propaganda ... and worse, it is bad non-NPOV libertarian propaganda. I'm a gun-carrying libertarian, and I think it should be vigorously neutered. However, I think there might be a use for it: many philosophical systems do value the group over the individual; e.g. Confucianism. Something good could go here, but what's here now isn't it.

I came to this page via a link from "sexist." I too do not like this article, and although I agree with SJK and Epopt, my take is slightly different: I think this article confuses and conflates "collectivism" with "essentialism." I have rewritten the intro to make it more NPOV and have removed stuff that really is about essentialism; I will either move that stuff to an existing article on essentialism or I will create a new one. In the meantime, perhaps others can help make this more NPOV and thorough/useful

This page does not describe Bakuninist collectivism, which is related to libertarian socialism. (I came here from Anarchism, where the term was used to describe libertarian socialism; I'll improve the description of libertarian socialism, but this page also ought to include a summary of Bakuninist collectivism.)

This is NOT NPOV
This page is pure propoganda for right-wing libertarians. Someone should delete it. Collectivism is not the opposite of individualism. Indeed, the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker was collectivist in the sense that he opposed private property and believed in democraticly run economics.

Rewrite
How now, brown cow? Sam [Spade] 13:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? You just made the POV far worse. This needs another rewrite. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems to me its your own POV you folks are stumbling over. Nazism, marxism, corporatism, etc.. are all forms of collectivism. But lets see what you have in mind. Sam [Spade] 13:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That's as absurd as saying that all political ideologies are just forms of "humanism", because they deal with human beings. Or perhaps capitalism, corporatism and Nazism are all forms of property-ism, because they defend private property. Or perhaps you're just creating catch-all terms out of thin air in order to make your unrelated enemies appear to have some connection to each other. I seem to remember something Hitler said...
 * "It belongs to the genius of a great political leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to single category, because in weak and uncertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right. Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the question whether all others are really wrong and only their own movement are in the right. And this brings about the first paralysis of their own power. Hence a multiplicity of different adversaries must always be combined so that in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle is directed against only one enemy." - Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
 * It's funny to see you taking Der Fuehrer's advice so enthusiastically. The nazis used "Judeo-Bolshevism" as a label for anyone who opposed them. You use "Collectivism" for exactly the same purpose. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as the rewrite is concerned, I've finished it, so be my guest and take a look. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's get one thing straight: The listing of any ideologies as "forms of collectivism" is pure POV (insofar as the adherents of those ideologies do not call themselves collectivists), and will be mercilessly removed. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK. I've merged our versions. Please try to tone down your POV, for example its unhelpful to make assumptions about other editors. I am a collectivist afaik. Meritocracy is a core value of mine, something I assume would only be possible within some sort of collectivism. Have a look at User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. Sam [Spade] 14:07, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, as a general policy, I never make any effort to tone down my POV in Talk pages - only the actual articles require that. I disagree with your edits because they have reverted far too much; also, as stated above, I oppose any identification between a certain ideology and "a form of collectivism", as long as the adherents of that ideology dispute this claim. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I ment in the article, RE: the POV comment. Stuff like


 * "Some, such as Ayn Rand, have a tendency to apply the term "collectivist" to anyone who disagrees with their views." or


 * ""collectivism" itself is more often used by anti-collectivists than by anyone else".


 * Do you have a cite for either of those POV's? Sam [Spade] 14:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I agreed to remove the first statement from the article, but I do have evidence to back it up. If you've ever been to Capitalism.org (which is entirely based on Rand's views), you'll notice how they make the absurd claim that all people who disagree with them (even other laissez-faire capitalists) are supporting a form of "collectivism".
 * For the second statement, I'd have to say it's a rather self-evident fact. How many anti-capitalists (the obvious targets of the term "collectivism") actually call themselves collectivists? Just looking at the ideologies you listed as "forms of collectivism", which ones actually identify themselves as "collectivist"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:04, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the necessary correlation between anti-capitalism and collectivism. Competition is necessary, as is collectivism, they do not stand in contridiction. The contridiction of human nature occurs when one is attempted without the other. I suppose I'll take your word on rands claims, I confess I havn't the interest in visiting her website, nor reading up on what she had to say. Sam [Spade] 15:15, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But we're drifting away from the point: How many so-called "collectivists" actually describe themselves as collectivists? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I havn't the faintest clue. Probably mainly just communists and their opponents use the term, I'd assume. Sam [Spade] 15:27, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I am a communist and I can assure you that we do not use this term. Have a look at the (rather massive) archive of communist writings over at Marxists.org and see if "collectivism" is used in any of them as a self-descriptive term.
 * One of the best examples of the reasons why we should not make any claims as to which ideologies are "collectivist" is the case of "nation-oriented collectivism" vs. "class-oriented collectivism". The "class-oriented collectivists" want to abolish social classes, while the "nation-oriented collectivists" want to preserve the purity of every nation. If you made a variant of Marxism in which "class" was replaced by "nation", you wouldn't get nationalism. You'd get a movement that wants to abolish all borders and barriers between nations. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Varieties of collectivism
Varieties of collectivism are distinguished in part by which group they mean, for example corporation, national, racial, religious, economic class, or all of humanity.


 * The above has been questioned. Specific thoughts, if you will. I thought it was better than what I found, and clearly some sort of listing of types is necessary. No page nazi's, if you please ;) Sam [Spade] 14:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, there are thousands of dedicated laissez-faire capitalists who would argue that corporations are the most wonderfully individualistic things on the planet. The claim that corporatism is a form of collectivism is extremely controversial to say the least. Then there's nationalism. This might have some merit as "collectivism", but, again, most neo-cons would vigurously disagree. The racial collectivism is mislabeled, to begin with (the link should have pointed to racism, not nazism), and the nazis were only collectivist when it came to the people under their control, not the "inner party" (so to speak). Religious collectivism doesn't have to be Theocracy. As for us Marxists, we only regard people "with respect to their economic class" when we analyze social or historical processes. That's no more "collectivist" than a historian talking about different nations and saying "the Romans did this" or "the Greeks did that", or a psychologist putting people in different categories according to their psychological profile. It's a useful model for understanding complex phenomena, no more. And, for that matter, Marxists actually want to eliminate social classes!
 * Finally, there's your sneaky and blatantly POV definition of "all-of-humanity collectivism" as "meritocracy". I don't think any comment is necessary about that. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * How was that sneaky? I found that list, and linked the terms as best I could. Why you place a negative spin on that I don't know. I assure you I had no devious intent. I think its clear we need to revamp the list, and place it in the context of the various groups mentioned not necessarilly having had labled themselves as collectivist. I get the impression that you think of marxism as collectivist, to the exclusion of other ideologies. Obviously a variety of other people use the term in other ways. The important thing is that we present all valid uses in a neutral and objective light. Sam [Spade] 15:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The whole "sneaky" comment was more of a figure of speech than anything else. I didn't mean it to sound as if I'm accusing you of anything, I just meant that the link in question had an obvious POV. And to make my position clear, I think "collectivism", in the way it is described in this article, is a far too general catch-all term that makes unfounded assumptions and tries to make highly different ideologies appear to be related. And it does not do this based on any real similarities, but on the fact that they share a common enemy (capitalism). To put all anti-capitalists in the same boat is as absurd as putting all anti-communists (people as different as Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler, Ronald Reagan and Benito Mussolini) in the same boat. The list is wrong because it is practically a random selection of ideologies accused of being "collectivist" by their opponents. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, thats all I intended it to be, a list of who is acused of being collectivist. Anything else would be taking a stand on what is collectivist, which I don't think were likely to acieve a concensus on (and which even if we did, prob wouldn't be NPOV). Sam [Spade] 14:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, it seems I need to make my argument clearer: Different ideologies have different lists of enemies which they accuse of being "collectivist". If you aim to write a complete list of every ideology who was ever accused by any other ideology of being collectivist, then your current list is horribly incomplete. And, through being incomplete, it is inherently POV (putting up this list is a favor to all the ideologies which are not on it). Further, I could argue that every ideology that ever existed should be on a truly complete list of collectivisms, because Objectivists accuse all others of being collectivist, and Anarcho-Capitalists accuse Objectivists (among others) of being collectivist. Thus, every single ideology in existence has been accused at least once of being collectivist.
 * Given this huge mess, wouldn't it be easier (and more NPOV) if we simply refrained from drawing up any list of "collectivist" ideologies? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Easier for us, but for the reader? They are coming to this article wondering what collectivism means, and who it refers to. We aught not leave the job 1/2 done. I do agree we must be cautious about presenting only one side of things, but that said, I think this is primarilly an objectivist term, is it not? Sam [Spade] 22:58, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Then let's mention the fact that collectivism is primarilly an objectivist term and link to the objectivism article! That will get the job done and be NPOV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dialectic
If you have some changes to make, please merge them in (as I have done) rather than simply reverting to an earlier version, removing all the important changes I have made. theses + antitheses = synthesis. Sam [Spade] 10:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Now you're talking my language. ;) But do we at least agree that we should mention objectivism (or any other ideology that launches accusations of "collectivism") on others, rather than indirectly supporting those accusations by mentioning the accused? This can be seen as a synthesis of my idea to not mention the (unfairly) accused, and your idea to mention at least someone. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, the reason I edited by earlier version rather than yours is simply because our only dispute seems to be around the matter of which ideologies to mention, so I assumed you had agreed to my other changes. If this is not so, what objections do you have? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:00, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how we can verify who uses the term the most, so thats a problem. Similarly with people not calling themselves that, which is very hard to verify. Clearly I think we need a list of examples of who is said to be collectivist, so thats a distinction. The part on corporatism is quite important, and I'm a bit uncomfortable w your stating that ayn rand thinks all non-objectivists are collectivists, thats seems like some particular weirdness of hers that would be best left to the objectivist article itself. Sam [Spade] 12:19, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Before we continue, let's settle everything else: Do you object to anything in my most recent version of the article, other than the removal of the list of ideologies? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, of course, thats what I was trying to explain above :) The things I didn't object to I merged in, if you notice :) Sam [Spade] 14:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine, then will you please state your objections? This whole thing is getting far too tedious and I'd really like to reach some sort of consensus soon. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * To make it easier for you, I'll list your main changes:
 * (1) You removed "Very few people use the term 'collectivism' to identify themselves" and other similar comments. This is a factual truth, so why do you keep removing it?
 * (2) You replaced "differences between groups are considered more significant than differences between individuals within groups" with "differences between groups are considered significant, while differences between individuals within groups, to the extent that they are acknowledged at all, are considered unimportant", which is a blatant insertion of POV. And not just any POV - you're implying that collectivists do not recognize differences between individuals, which is utterly absurd.
 * (3) You added "Anti-collectivists and others point out how this sort of reasoning has historically led to the repression of individual rights, which were sacrificed for the alleged good of the group." First of all, this is blatant POV ('X pointed out that Y is evil'). Second of all, it's full of holes (what line of reasoning? what historical cases are you talking about? what individual rights were sacrificed? which definition of "individual rights" are you using? etc.). Third of all, this idea belongs in the anti-collectivism section, and I had already placed it there in a previous edit (I added the comment "Many anti-collectivists argue that collectivist emphasis on the group suppresses individual rights"). Given these facts, I see no reason whatsoever for your objection to remove this paragraph. It's POV, ambiguous, and redundant.
 * (4) You keep removing "and presumably used for the benefit of all", even though this is a stated aim of all "economic collectivisms" as you define them. Notice the use of the NPOV qualifier "presumably".
 * (5) The list of so-called "collectivist" ideologies, which we keep arguing about. We'll get back to this once we settle everything else. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Relation toward fascism
To imply collectivism as tantamount to fascism and that individuality is the end-all, be-all does seem to skew the article highly. It'd be more appropriate to state positive as well as negative examples, such as corporatism and bi-national states.

I've rewritten it, not as detailed, but I hope more neutral in point of view.

To Milneau Trudnea, Fascism, Marxism is collectivism. How these words are not in the article is hard to realize.WHEELER 18:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow. "I am right and you are wrong". Such an astute argument! Tell me, how long did it take you to come up with that brilliant insight? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To Milneau Trudneau, the term collectivist existed before Ayn Rand. It is a common term for communists and their systems of government. It is not an objectivist term.WHEELER 19:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thats what I have been trying to say all along. Sam [Spade] 20:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, my name is Mihnea Tudoreanu, and I've grown rather tired of you misspelling it. Here's a hint: Use the copy & paste function. Now, as for your claims, please notice that I did not say the term "collectivism" was invented by Ayn Rand. I did, however, mention the fact that objectivists use the term more than anyone else. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Prove it. Cite sources. Just the facts, ma'am. Sam [Spade] 18:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The discussion that went on and on...

 * Yes, I think it was pretty clear that you've been trying to say that you are right and I am wrong, but a discussion is supposed to consist of actual ARGUMENTS. So, please, answer the points I've laid out above. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I did, scroll up. Sam [Spade] 17:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * No you did not. Read my 5 points just above this section. I posted them on October 6th. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Well, I don't see how we can verify who uses the term the most, so thats a problem. Similarly with people not calling themselves that, which is very hard to verify. Clearly I think we need a list of examples of who is said to be collectivist, so thats a distinction. The part on corporatism is quite important, and I'm a bit uncomfortable w your stating that ayn rand thinks all non-objectivists are collectivists, thats seems like some particular weirdness of hers that would be best left to the objectivist article itself. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 12:19, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)"


 * Yes, and the conversation went on:


 * Before we continue, let's settle everything else: Do you object to anything in my most recent version of the article, other than the removal of the list of ideologies? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, of course, thats what I was trying to explain above :) The things I didn't object to I merged in, if you notice :) Sam [Spade] 14:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine, then will you please state your objections? This whole thing is getting far too tedious and I'd really like to reach some sort of consensus soon. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * To make it easier for you, I'll list your main changes:
 * (1) You removed "Very few people use the term 'collectivism' to identify themselves" and other similar comments. This is a factual truth, so why do you keep removing it?
 * (2) You replaced "differences between groups are considered more significant than differences between individuals within groups" with "differences between groups are considered significant, while differences between individuals within groups, to the extent that they are acknowledged at all, are considered unimportant", which is a blatant insertion of POV. And not just any POV - you're implying that collectivists do not recognize differences between individuals, which is utterly absurd.
 * (3) You added "Anti-collectivists and others point out how this sort of reasoning has historically led to the repression of individual rights, which were sacrificed for the alleged good of the group." First of all, this is blatant POV ('X pointed out that Y is evil'). Second of all, it's full of holes (what line of reasoning? what historical cases are you talking about? what individual rights were sacrificed? which definition of "individual rights" are you using? etc.). Third of all, this idea belongs in the anti-collectivism section, and I had already placed it there in a previous edit (I added the comment "Many anti-collectivists argue that collectivist emphasis on the group suppresses individual rights"). Given these facts, I see no reason whatsoever for your objection to remove this paragraph. It's POV, ambiguous, and redundant.
 * (4) You keep removing "and presumably used for the benefit of all", even though this is a stated aim of all "economic collectivisms" as you define them. Notice the use of the NPOV qualifier "presumably".
 * (5) The list of so-called "collectivist" ideologies, which we keep arguing about. We'll get back to this once we settle everything else. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)