Collectivism, including its ideological progeny – socialism, Marxism and communism - promises to improve the lives of all in the collective, but when you think about that, this rationale is counter-intuitive because the method it uses to accomplish this “improvement” is to restrict, limit or co-opt the true productivity of one person for the benefit of the other.
While this may well be an improvement for the latter, it certainly isn’t for the former.
But not all collectivism is bad.
There actually are two types of collectivism, elective and coercive.
Elective is the “good” kind of collectivism, as when a community, a service organization or a church comes together to accomplish a goal for the good of the collective. It is voluntary and the individual’s association with the group is driven by his desire and duty to be part of the activity. His productive efforts are shared freely and no one cares if one is able to contribute more or his efforts are more valuable to the attainment of the goal.
Coercive is the “bad” kind where some arbitrary authority assigns you a station or task and you have no input in that decision or ability to opt out. This association is involuntary and the individual’s association with the group is driven by the demands of the collective that he be part of the activity. His productive efforts are coerced and his contribution and his efforts are treated as if they are no more valuable to the attainment of the goal than those of his fellow collective members – even if they are.
The difference between the two is one thing: choice.
Voluntarily joining a collective is a matter of individual choice based on the selflessness and charity of the person. Giving of your time, skills and/or money makes the individual a better person; it demonstrates selflessness and builds character. It feeds the soul of the individual that they can do good things to help their fellow man.
Being coerced into a collective is a choice made by the collective based on the usefulness of the person. It removes the possibility of choice and makes the individual a worse person; it demonstrates no need for selflessness and charity, only obedience. It removes the feeling of individual worth and destroys the soul of the individual because no matter what they do, the authority is going to control all aspects of the individual.
To paraphrase F.A. Hayek, there is the plan, nothing but the plan, no dissent is allowed because people might come to think the plan is flawed, and the committed supporter of the plan must be willing to give up all independent thought and morality in service of the plan. The literally must be prepared to the the most horrific things if the plan requires those things to be done. Those who disagree must be removed.
That’s why coercive collectivism always takes on the aura of a religious cult.
A decade ago (back in 2012), conservative author and broadcaster Dennis Prager brought together the themes of argument from authority, total subservience to government and antipathy toward God to confirm assertions that the sun the Democrats orbit is not collectivism but in fact, the creation of a sort of a religion of progressivism, something that Ludwig von Mises termed “statolatry” – the actual and literal worship of the state:
“You cannot understand the Left if you do not understand that leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian.
One of them is material equality as the preeminent moral goal. Another is the villainy of corporations. The bigger the corporation, the greater the villainy. Thus, instead of the devil, the Left has Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the “military-industrial complex,” and the like. Meanwhile, Big Labor, Big Trial Lawyers, and — of course — Big Government are left-wing angels.
And why is that? Why, to be specific, does the Left fear big corporations but not big government?
The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason. No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history. Who killed the 20 to 30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago — big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death — big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca-Cola kill 5 million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?”
We have all engaged in elective collectivism. If you have ever volunteered for anything at your kid’s school, in your church or in your community, no doubt you see it as a good thing -and other than occasionally being forced to deal with a Karen or two, you probably emerged unscathed with a feeling you did something good.
Elective collectivism has a very a soft edge to it.
For that reason, I don’t think the term “collectivism” evokes the proper amount of terror that should be associated with any form of coercive collectivism.
I think perhaps the term “collectivism” and “community” are overused, mostly because they mean something entirely different to an adherent of statolatry.
It is today as it has been and always shall be, absent the freedom of choice there is no freedom.
In the leftosphere, coercion is conviction. The left rules with an ironic fist.
We need a different word for elective collectivism - call it charity, say, or volunteerism. The difference isn't just a matter of choice, but of the consequences downstream. Forced collectivism inevitably results in a downward wealth spiral, reduced quality of life, then reduced quantity of life - ultimately always resulting in crisis. Humans, possessing free will, were not designed (or evolved, if you will) to be chained to a yoke like a service animal.