People seem to be confused about what collectivism is.

[heavenlyboy34]

Collectivism is subjugation of the individual to a group. Period. That is the root of the definition. When the group's rights, or needs supercede any individual in that group. That is what distinguishes it from stereotyping. This is the point I am trying to make here. People are blurring the line so much that stereotyping has become collectivism. They can be connected, granted. But they are not the same thing. At all! I'm not making this up, I'm taking it straight from Rand and Griffin.

Yeah, that's what the Soviets meant by "Collectivization", too. Didn't work so well in Afghanistan, though.

 

[RockEnds]

Well I guess I walked right into that one. I apologize if I've offended you. I have adopted family members, and so I wrongly assumed your situation was similar. But your point is well taken on how ingrained stereotyping is, probably for all cultures I would imagine.

I'm not clear on how it relates to the exchange of anonymous children for cash, and collectivism. What are you referring to there? Can you be more specific? Are you talking about the adoption process?

Yes.

Collectivism is essentially the political opposite of individual rights. Through the adoption process, the legal individual is destroyed. A new individual is created by the state. The ALMA decision is a good example of this, and for some reason, I can no longer find it online. ALMA asserted several things, among them that illegitimacy is a quasi-suspect class. Since the vast majority of adoptees at that time were born out of wedlock, the adoption process must hold up to a higher legal standard. The court ruled that because adoptees are issued a new birth certificate which at the time generally stated they were born to two married parents, they were not born out of wedlock. In other words, we're legally not who we were at birth.

I told the lady at the hospital I was born there. I was. That was me. "Was" is the key word, though. I do not have a medical record of birth. I have a legal record of birth, but no medical record. I am not the same person that I was on the day I was born. Now, how can I assert my individual rights if I am not me? It's a really fun game that they play. It's a mind &^@#. Lots of smoke and mirrors. So I have the right to my medical records from the day I was born. But I was actually born 18 months before I was legally me. So for 18 months of my life, I exist only as a legal fiction. I have no records because I did not exist. I have no individual rights to exercise during that time because I wasn't. The legal person that did exist no longer exists. I cannot exercise her rights because she is not me.

Does that make sense?

So I have all of my rights from the day I was born creating the illusion of continuous individual rights. But since I was not born, there's a gap there. A big one.

 

[awake]

Collectivisim; One person convices whole masses of other people to not use thier own thought process, to instead let him do all the thinking and call to actions. Its the idea of brainless lemmings.

 

[Deborah K]

Yes.

Collectivism is essentially the political opposite of individual rights. Through the adoption process, the legal individual is destroyed. A new individual is created by the state. The ALMA decision is a good example of this, and for some reason, I can no longer find it online. ALMA asserted several things, among them that illegitimacy is a quasi-suspect class. Since the vast majority of adoptees at that time were born out of wedlock, the adoption process must hold up to a higher legal standard. The court ruled that because adoptees are issued a new birth certificate which at the time generally stated they were born to two married parents, they were not born out of wedlock. In other words, we're legally not who we were at birth.

I told the lady at the hospital I was born there. I was. That was me. "Was" is the key word, though. I do not have a medical record of birth. I have a legal record of birth, but no medical record. I am not the same person that I was on the day I was born. Now, how can I assert my individual rights if I am not me? It's a really fun game that they play. It's a mind &^@#. Lots of smoke and mirrors. So I have the right to my medical records from the day I was born. But I was actually born 18 months before I was legally me. So for 18 months of my life, I exist only as a legal fiction. I have no records because I did not exist. I have no individual rights to exercise during that time because I wasn't. The legal person that did exist no longer exists. I cannot exercise her rights because she is not me.

Does that make sense?

So I have all of my rights from the day I was born creating the illusion of continuous individual rights. But since I was not born, there's a gap there. A big one.

Does that mean that your BC states that you are 18 months younger than you actually are since you were not issued a BC at birth? My understanding is that everyone is issued a BC at birth, but if they are adopted, a new BC is issued with the names of the new parents, but everything else stays the same. Am I missing something here?

Edit: This is very confusing, why wouldn't they have medical records for you at the hospital you were born at?

 

[RockEnds]

Does that mean that your BC states that you are 18 months younger than you actually are since you were not issued a BC at birth? My understanding is that everyone is issued a BC at birth, but if they are adopted, a new BC is issued with the names of the new parents, but everything else stays the same. Am I missing something here?

No, that's exactly how it is. My birth certificate states that I was born at the same time at the same place to different parents. Do you think the hospital has a record of that birth? I actually have an old log around here somewhere. My adoptive mother was working at the bank that day. She wasn't at the hospital giving birth to me. I have the right to the medical birth record wherein my adoptive mother gave birth to me because I'm the person named on that birth certificate. That record doesn't exist. I do not have the right to the medical record that does exist because I am not legally the person who was born there that day. You should have seen my eyes glaze over when all of this was being explained to me back in my teenage years.

edited for clarity.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I've always found the actual discussion on these particular notions interesting in itself. We tend to look at these concepts and define and understand them as we perceive them and in a manner in which we would like to apply a common perception of them to processes in our lives but not always in the entirety beyond just us as we relate to the whole. We're just a speck, really. It just is that way. Nothing wrong with it, I guess. Is weird. I had just got done some reading relevant to this Collectivist revolution in evolution and was reminded that the idea or debate on such concepts are thought about much differently depending upon how we as humans place them into context with how we think they relate to just us as humans and our processes both artificial and natural.

Anyhoo. This is always an interesting topic of discussion, I think. Reminded me that I've been meaning to change my sig.

 

[osan]

Stereotyping is thinking all individuals from a collective are the same.

More precisely, a stereotype is a form of statistical statement. Applied to statistically significant populations, stereotypes can be rather precise. They can be crap, too, and appear to be that more often than not. Stereotypes break down catastrophically when two conditions are met: they are applied to individuals and are applied blindly. Unfortunately, this appears to be the case far more often than not.

Collectivism is thinking the wishes of the collective are more important than the wishes of any individual within that collective.

I would word that a bit more strongly: it is a philosophy which asserts that human rights are additive in nature, thereby and of necessity implying that the rights of the individual suborn to those of the group and that the group may therefore employ force to compel the compliance of the individual to its will.

 

[Dr.3D]

You mean it's not someone who collects things?

Just like a racist is somebody who like to go to the races.

 

[Elwar]

There is a distinction between being a part of a group as opposed to being that group.

There is the career/race/age/sex/etc. that you have and then there is the collectivist lumping of a distinct definition based upon that career/race/age/sex/etc..

I could have a certain degree of melanin in my skin which physically gives me a similar response to sunlight as others with the same degree of melanin. But just because I have that same amount of melanin in my skin does not mean that I like the same music, act the same way, talk the same way or am expected to behave the same way. The only commonality with the amount of melanin would be that I may be expected to wear a certain amount of sunscreen or not when out in the sun and be able to share such a commonality with others with the same amount of melanin.

Same with career. There are certain things you would expect everyone in the career to have experienced and may be expected to be able to share that commonality, but beyond that they should not be expected to act the same or talk the same, etc. A person is an individual who may also be a police officer. He could be expected to have some experience with firearms and some knowledge of the law. But he does not necessarily eat donuts all day and go drink beers with the boys at O'Malley's after work.

Thinking of everyone as their group is a form of laziness and is an easy way to live your life. If you only have to get to know a dozen or so groups and then put everyone you know or meet into that group, then you do not have to think very much about distinctions and you do not need to remember as much stuff about people. Seeing everyone as an individual and having knowledge of everyone starting at scratch and gaining knowledge of them from that base level and remembering all of that information is more difficult and requires more thought.

The person who is hurt most by the collectivist thought are those who choose to live their lives the way they want and have to constantly fight the collectivist mentality of who they "should" be.

 

[TheTyke]

Given Ron's quote that "Racism is an ugly form of collectivism," his understanding seems to support what Capt is talking about. I think subjugating the individual to the whims of the majority is the ultimate destination of that kind of thought.

 

[Deborah K]

I think Ron is talking about the fact that some collectivist groups (like racists) think in terms of the group being its own entity, with rights of its own.

 

[FreeHampshire]

Well I think it's a bit childish to just hate something for being collectivistic. I define myself as an Individualist politically speaking. However, I'm an Individualist in the ancient Indo-European sense. As in, I still value things like culture, language, heritage, nations while putting a healthy emphasis on the Individual. The original Liberals & Mutualists were along that line of thinking as well.

 

[MikeStanart]

 

[tremendoustie]

I don't know ... there are two definitions according to webster:

1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

I think stereotyping and bigotry do fall under definition 2. "All cops are bad" emphasizes collective identity, rather than the individual.

 

[Deborah K]

I don't know ... there are two definitions according to webster:

1: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control

2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

I think stereotyping and bigotry do fall under definition 2. "All cops are bad" emphasizes collective identity, rather than the individual.

This doesn't go far enough though, imo. What word best describes "subjugation of the individual to the group" ? To me, this is the essence of collectivism. And too often, the term is interchanged with stereotyping.

 

[July]

I think that there is a distinction between the two, but that one can often be a symptom of the other. For instance, in a collectivist group, there is the expectation that the well being of the group is more important than any one individual member, so there can be a tendency to promote uniformity within the group....there is a need to keep the group harmonious and cohesive by emphasing shared values, beliefs, traits, characteristics, etc. This can lead to a flattening out of diversity within the group, since individuals who don't conform to the group norm, within the acceptable limits, can be viewed as undermining the group. This type of thinking can lead to a worldview where members of a group are assumed or expected to be the same...and lead to stereotyping, etc...especially by outsiders or members of an out group.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

t

It isn't a person who "groups" certain people together. So, saying all cops are bad, or all women like to shop, or all teen boys are vandals, or all blacks are this, and all gays are that, etc., etc. is not collectivism, it's stereotyping. And when it borders on bigotry, then it steps over the line into racism and prejudice.

Collectivism, on the other hand, is the subjugation of the individual to the group. "For the good of the whole", or "the common good". Therefore, it is acceptable to sacrifice an individual for the sake of the group. Collectivists view the group as an entity of its own, with rights of its own. The government is the ultimate group, but cults, and some minority groups are collectivists too. Of course, it begs the question: who gets to choose who will be sacrificed for the greater good? In the case of the government, well, we know the answer to that.

Socialism and communism are built on collectivist thinking. I remember a time in school when students had to do an exercise called, "The Life Boat". Does anyone else remember that? You had 5 people in the boat but only enough supplies to sustain 4, so you had to make a choice who was going overboard, and it was based on how useful the people in the boat were. It was a lesson (indoctrination) in collectivism. It was also a subtle way to teach kids to devalue life, in my opinion.

Anyway, I thought it needed to be clarified because a lot people on these forums seem to think collectivism and stereotyping are the same thing.

I remember doing that exercise in college. I was the one arguing that I can't judge an individual life, no matter what I think of them. It wasn't my place to judge. The others would try to convince me that I had to choose someone. There was a choice of someone who was extremely evil and they tried to make me believe that evil was whatever I wanted it to be in order to excuse the killing of that person. The exercise, I thought was pretty barbaric, but it was a lot more expansive than you just mentioned, including things like animals and an injured person to weight against the group.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I get the distinction you're making, Deb. However, there is also a collectivist viewpoint which looks at an individual and only sees the group to which the observer thinks they belong. Not necessarily stereotyping that individual, but grouping that individual into a collective. For example, "you shouldn't care about X since your group likes Z".

Am I describing the distinction well enough? It's not looking at the individual and thinking they should be like other individuals from that group. It's looking at the individual and thinking they should be in lock step with that group, or their ideas don't matter if they're not in lock step with that group.

"It's not looking at the individual and thinking they should be like other individuals from that group. It's looking at the individual and thinking they should be in lock step with that group."

Those sound like the exact same things. What's the difference?

 

[Deborah K]

t

I remember doing that exercise in college. I was the one arguing that I can't judge an individual life, no matter what I think of them. It wasn't my place to judge. The others would try to convince me that I had to choose someone. There was a choice of someone who was extremely evil and they tried to make me believe that evil was whatever I wanted it to be in order to excuse the killing of that person. The exercise, I thought was pretty barbaric, but it was a lot more expansive than you just mentioned, including things like animals and an injured person to weight against the group.

What year? I think it was 1974 for me, junior high! We were put into groups and had to decide as a group. It was so disturbing at the time. I don't remember details.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

"All cops are bad" - Stereotyping because you are saying all cops are the same. However, if you do not like the institution of law enforcement and you say "Cops are bad", you are now talking about the collective. Further, and this is where I think we're falling into the gray area, if you see an individual cop and view him, not as an individual, but only as a representation of the collective, that is collectivism as well.

Make sense? I'm having difficulty putting this into words.

In short,
If you think person A is like all other persons in a collective, it's stereotyping.
If you see person A only as a representation of the collective, it's collectivism. Person A is no longer seen as an individual (the same or different from the rest of the collective), they are seen as the collective.

(damn, I tried again. Not sure I'm succeeding.)

It makes sense to me. Saying the word "all" means you are addressing every single member of the group, individually. Saying the word that refers to the group without addressing the individual is collectivism because it doesn't even see the individual as being relevant.

Therefore, when I say "all cops are bad", it's not collectivism. It's stereotyping. However, not all stereotyping is illegitimate. Collectivism is illegitimate because it subjugates a person to the group without considering their individuality.

Is that roughly what you are saying?