I still can't reconcile anarchism with people's apparent tendency towards collectivism...HELP!

Anyone find it strange that, considering how society and the market comes to be, and the importance of individualism in such processes, that we're so prone to voluntarily surrender ourselves to the collective?

Nobody voluntarily surrended themselves to government, it was forced upon them.

People fall prey to all sorts of superstitions. Reason progresses nevertheless.

Even if this was the origin of the State, it would not justify the initiatory violence enacted upon future generations.

GilesStratton:

Nobody voluntarily surrended themselves to government, it was forced upon them.

I disagree, people often choose order before liberty, and people naturally gravitate towards those who they consider superior for whatever reason, and actually concede power to such person, persons, or institutions.

 

Government is not voluntary. Some people choose to use violence against other people. Government subjects don't choose order -- so called order is imposed on them.

Juan:

Government is not voluntary. Some people choose to use violence against other people. Government subjects don't choose order -- so called order is imposed on them.

I understand and completely agree that government's a parasitic entity that derives sustenance from the productive. However, many people, for example, Thomas Hobbes and to some extent Thomas Paine, acknowledge an apparent need to submit some of their liberty for the sake of order or a protection of the rest of their rights. I personally do not agree with this viewpoint, however, it's still a perceivable phenomenon, especially in war-torn regions. People there tend to prefer to live under a dictatorship if it means order and "peace".

Once again, I believe in anarchism, and the inherent evil of government; however, I'm arguing that people seem to have an innate desire or tendency towards collectivism.

 

It's a good point, unfortunately, I haven't made much traction with it here myself.

We really need to acknowledge that many of the poor, middle and upper class are all pro-state.  A majority of our so-called fellow citizens benefit from, or ignorantly endorse the system.

Until we know our enemy, we cannot hope to defeat them.

Throatpoker:

I'm arguing that people seem to have an innate desire or tendency towards collectivism.

Well, maybe some people do have collectivistic leanings while some other people don't. If all people wanted collectivism, then we would be living in a stateless communist society...

As to the existence of an innate tendency to collectivism, I doubt it. If anything, children 'have' to be coerced in accepting arbitrary authority all the time.

GilesStratton:

Nobody voluntarily surrended themselves to government, it was forced upon them.

True, but ultimately, the existance of teh governmet is dependent on the passive consent of the majority of its subjects.

shazam:

True, but ultimately, the existance of teh governmet is dependent on the passive consent of the majority of its subjects.

As is the case with any protection racket. What's your point?

 

Great question! I have an answer, although most of you won't like it at all.

There is a basic, innate urge in most people (some of you will vociferously exempt yourselves, I'm sure) to wish to feel some sort of a connection with God. To seek a higher power, some fundamental force in the universe.

In modern times, the concept of "God" has been largely replaced with "democracy". It's the "Tower of Babel" idea, that we can replace God if we have unity enough, right? In unity, there is strength, or so the popular fascism goes.

Ever tried to argue someone out of this wondrous and perfect concept of "democracy"? When you speak against democracy (in purely secular terms, mind you), people shun you like you're pronouncing blasphemy. They stop wanting to talk to you at all, in fact, like you're this horribly dangerous person whose words might infect them with a horrible disease.

Democracy is the god we are expected to worship. Believe in democracy, because democracy makes all government activity okay, right?

In more religious times, you didn't see a lot of collectivism. When was the first big collectivist movement? Right, in the French Revolution... where the priests were slaughtered by popular demand, and the "Goddess of Reason" usurped God on the altar at, well, memory escapes me as to the actual cathedral in Paris. Point is, people did go to that altar, and literally worshiped.

Prior to collectivism, people thought God had to do with going to war. And go, they did -- for the religious experience as well as the superior pay.

Man cannot serve two masters, but there is a deep-rooted desire to follow one thing that is "bigger than self". If God -- the real one, not the god of war, finance, self-indulgence, or hypocrisy such as you see in the Big Religion industry -- is not that master, then things fall apart. This is just the one of the "democracy" flavors of how it falls apart.

 

Throatpoker:

Anyone find it strange that, considering how society and the market comes to be, and the importance of individualism in such processes, that we're so prone to voluntarily surrender ourselves to the collective?

Human nature is social, not so individual as Greek philosophers claimed within their historical context. Humans would perish as a species if left with no contact with thir fellows, as opposed for example to species of other animals that are able to live unattended since their very birth,

 

Ruben, I disagree with your interpretation of the question. For one thing, "anarchism" does not mean "total individualistic self-sufficiency", ala Robinson Crusoe. We live interpersonally, interdependently. That's not what the original question is about.

The original question is specifically about "collectivism", or what you might call "groupthink". I think that this is a fairly new political concept in the world, mainly originating during the Enlightenment. Many people blame Jean Jacques Rouseau for it.

 

Jaq Phule:

When was the first big collectivist movement? Right, in the French Revolution...

False. I wonder why conservatives keep on lying ?

Juan:

Jaq Phule:

When was the first big collectivist movement? Right, in the French Revolution...

False. I wonder why conservatives keep on lying ?

 

Call me a conservative again and I will happily email you a punch in the nose.

If I'm wrong, I'd happily accept a correction. Would you care to elucidate?

 

The French revolution was a revolution against almost absolute monarchy and theocracy. The French revolution did have a libertarian wing and a collectivistic/socialistic wing - both opposed to the ancien regime (the right wing).

Collectivism is way older than the Enlightenment and the French revolution -- In fact the ancien regime that libertarians fought against can be roughly described as collectivistic, in the sense that the individual rights of the majority were not respected by the monarchs and the oligarchy.

I'll grant you that there are forms of "rough" collectivism throughout history. Perhaps I should have said, "populist collectivism"? Is there earlier large populist, collectivist uprising that you can think of in European history, or indeed in world history, that compares?

There may have been a libertarian wing of the FR, but I don't think they were in charge of the guillotine. Not after the revolution was in full swing, anyway.

I also disagree that the FR was simply "against almost absolute monarchy and theocracy". This wasn't a new thing in France, it had been going on for a long time. Why, all of a sudden, did the third estate rise?

Part of it was economic conditions, caused in no small part by the Bourbons' debts, and the depradations of the Bank of France (John Law, anyone?) But bad economic conditions are rampant throughout history, and this was nothing new either.

I think the big spark came with the pamphleteers.  Abbe Sieyes in his extremely popular "What Is the Third Estate?" -- heavily influenced by Rousseau, mind you -- declared that the "people" were the state, and that the state in the body of the people was everything. This was 1789, and was the biggest influence causing the Estates General's boycott of the national assembly, widely recognized as the first standoff in the FR.

 

Rubén:

Human nature is social, not so individual as Greek philosophers claimed within their historical context. Humans would perish as a species if left with no contact with thir fellows, as opposed for example to species of other animals that are able to live unattended since their very birth,

I agree that we're social beings, as mentioned by Jaq, by individualism I didn't mean a secluded/go-at-it-alone life.  As Mises wrote: "The philosophy called individualism is a philosophy of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of the social nexus."

I personally think that collectivism goes much farther that what has been mentioned here, it could even be argued that it's just a byproduct of our evolutionary history of communal survival.

Jaq Phule:

Perhaps I should have said, "populist collectivism"? Is there earlier large populist, collectivist uprising that you can think of in European history, or indeed in world history, that compares?

I don't know. I think that Plato already complained about democracy and 'populism' in the Republic ?

There may have been a libertarian wing of the FR, but I don't think they were in charge of the guillotine. Not after the revolution was in full swing, anyway.

I didn't say they were in charge of the guillotine. The libertarian and moderate factions didn't have the upper hand, that's for sure.

I also disagree that the FR was simply "against almost absolute monarchy and theocracy". This wasn't a new thing in France, it had been going on for a long time.

I don't see how it follows that, because monarchy and the church were old, the revolution was not against monarchy and the church ?

Why, all of a sudden, did the third estate rise?

For various concurrent reasons I suppose.

Part of it was economic conditions, caused in no small part by the Bourbons' debts, and the depradations of the Bank of France (John Law, anyone?)

So, the revolution was partly a reaction against the attacks on private property carried by the monarchy.

But bad economic conditions are rampant throughout history, and this was nothing new either.

At some point people got fed up. But it doesn't follow that the people who got fed up were all 'collectivistic'. Some probably were, some were not. I'm not defending the forced equality that the socialist wing of the revolution sought...I'm pointing out that equality before the law was a legitimate libertarian aim and that it entailed a conflict between the third state and the oligarchy and clergy. The people who wanted the privileges to end were not necessarily collectivistic.