What is wrong with collectivism?

Conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin, paleoconservative author of The Creature from Jekyll Island criticized the film for promoting collectivist ideas.



This implies that there are problems with collectivism. What are the problems with it?What is wrong with collectivism?
What is wrong with collectivism is that it requires the use of force to do the "collecitivising."



It it more fair to call it "collecting", because collectivists are actually collecting from him, and her, and them, and you and me, to put the things they collect in the "pot", so that redistribution can take place of the things they have collected.



What is wrong with "collecting" comes in the form of the question: "By what right do they get to collect what is not theirs?" The concomitant question is: "By what right do they get to decide who receives what has been collected?"



The theory of natural rights was revived during the Age of Enlightenment, as a direct result of the Renaissance. There is no "natural right of men" to collect from other humans against their will, when the purpose is, as Marx stated, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."



Any collecting, such as taxes, must be done fairly, by rule of law, and "distributed" equally, such as in the building of roads. If you remember the movie Doctor Zhivago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zhiv… the Communist government took over the Doctor's home and told him what part of it was now his to live in.



They gave other parts of the house to the homeless, and in some cases to their Party friends. THAT is the difference between "collectivism" and a free society. But don't try comparing America, France, England, Germany, or any other western nation against the original idea of the U.S. Constitution. All western nations have been influenced by collectivism and it is hard for many people to see where it begins and freedom ends.
individualism have its letdowns, such as narcissism, competitiveness, and lack of true innovation[Innovation only occurring for benefits of practicality]. Collectivism can also have its problems, such as lack of "new ideas", conformity, etc. It tends to bog things down, and stunt growth in different manners.



Both can have downfalls - Just depends on your take. Competitiveness being bad, because it requires a goal which can be completed. I figure, the man who races and is content with the race, no matter the end result, is better than one whom also tries his best, but only to win. The one who does it for lack of competitiveness, seems to have a higher growth possibility. Plus, it has been shown that competitiveness does not work to well in critical thinking manners.What is wrong with collectivism?
"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."
The conservative mindset emphasizes personal accountability over collectivism although it is a balance of both lubricates society. Roads, firemen and police are the result of "collectivist" policies. Antipathy towards collectivism usually indicates the speaker lacks compassion and self-knowledge, with many hidden rooms in his own psyche. His loud messages to others about anti-collectivism and the glory of individual personal accountability are usually just loud messages to hidden parts of himself that are lazy and looking to get by with a silver spoon or a magic bullet. Thus the second generation of wealth are usually always conservative and anti-collectivists, running from their own demons.
In my mind collectivism associates unavoidably with communism (I've experienced it) hence = bad.

I didn't read the book you make reference to, but to me collectivism means sacrificing the individual for the (supposedly) good of the group. In the happy instance at least only a minority will be unhappy while the majority will be happy, so it means sacrificing a small number for the good of a large number (and who is to say that the small number of individuals don't matter??) But in practice it gets even worse. Imagine you are with a group of friends - say 7 of you - 3 want to go to the movies, 2 want to go to the theatre and 2 want to go to an exhibition. In collectivism the 3 that want to go to the movies will win and the rest will have to follow. But what if the other four strongly don't want to go to the movies? And being 4 they should be the ones to win against the movie goers! This is a paradox applicable not only in collectivism but in our democratic election systems.
I don't see "collectivism" versus "individualism" as being the same as "communism" versus "capitalism". All forms of society, political and economic organization, national and ethnic identity, religious and ideological belief, cultural/artistic affiliation and mode of communication are collectivist, based on often unspoken rules, but every individual interprets or misinterprets every rule in a different way. "Individualism" happens because of individual deviations from the reigning orthodoxy and not because of any particular form of organization.



I see "collectivism" versus "individualism" as being a conflict and a paradox lying at the root of human existence. Some sort of unity with a group (preferably not legally binding) enhances the quality of human life, but so does the kind of radically innovative, mercilessly honest personal reflection on the world that (if expressed with the same honesty) is liable to open the individual to isolation and persecution at the hands of the hawkish herd with its sensitive ego.



The more large-scale the form of organization, the less close an approximation it will be to each individual's deepest aspirations, and the more able it will be to enforce orthodoxy. A large world with few people would offer most scope for practical individualism, since those who dissented from the herd could just say "screw you; we'll go off and do our own thing". In the modern, crowded world, there is no escape from mass-scale forms of organization, whether "communistic" or "capitalistic" (same ****, different clothes).



I think that commercialism, representative democracy and celebrity culture fit each other like a glove. They all exist within societies in which people are encouraged to aspire to a narrow, economic form of "individualism" involving "competition" for wealth, status and fame. A vast gulf emerges between individuals based on those three things, but the society becomes ever more homogenous (ever more an irrational mob) when it comes to tastes and values and "psychology". This is because "glory" in these societies comes from mass appeal, from appealing to the tastes (commerce), values (democracy) and "psychology" (celebrity culture) of the lowest common denominator (this being the set of collective, unspoken rules binding the majority together and forcing the rest to conform). That's why "elite" people (businesses, politicians, celebrities) are characterized by undignified anxiety about the opinions of all sorts of (not always ideologically compatible) "non-elite" people, logic be damned.



You won't be very popular if you appeal only to a mystical, cognitively super-advanced elite.
Mate, this is spooky because I've recently been thinking about this. There are a couple of films that will answer this better than I can possibly answer because it will show you and let you interpret it.



The first is one I watched last weekend called "The Experiment", it was an american remake of "Das Experiment" (german film) which was based on a true life "experiment" event taken place in England in the 60s. The idea was that they asked some people to enter a random experiment which they do. They all all last minute put into a prison, some are put in guards unifrom, other prisoners unifrom. They all like each oterh at teh start, but eventually the guards think they have to be like real guards, and punish the prisoners, even though they didn't do anything. I wont spoil the ending but its pretty crazy.



The second is "The Wave", again a german film, where a school class says germany will never be dictorship again, the teacher next week tell the class they can now copy each otehrs test, act as a group, they can invite others into the group and they can do anything they want to make the group better and its up to them to make the group good. It all starts of great but eventually it goes crazy, even for the teacher, he can't control it anymore, some students dont want in the group so they get singled out, but it becomes bigger than that, its a massive pack mentality. The teacher at the end tries to stop the group but its kinda got a mind of its own, nobody can control it. its good the end, I'd recommend it if you are asking this question. It made me think big time, made me even rethink team work. The peope in the group just want to be in it, they dont question what they are doing, they just think this for the group. Even if as an individual they wouldn't, they stop using their brains.
one problem could be that collectivism is opposed to Individualism, it doesn't consider the individual.
simply, no room for individuality.
the collective...