Are Socialists Really Collectivistic?

[hmkpoker]

This is going to sound kind of funny, but I believe that most modern-day leftists aren't really collectivists at all; they're individualists (albeit grossly misguided ones :P).

Most socialists that I have spoken with do not actually act with society, as a whole, in mind. Rather, they see the forest for the trees. Most social goals are done with individuals, namely the disadvantaged, in mind. The ends are geared toward helping specific individuals, not the entire social economy.

To exemplify what I mean by thinking with the collective in mind, consider a human body. While most of us would view the human body as a whole, we know that logically it is simply a collection of highly interdependent cells. It so happens that the world we live in requires us to view these cells as more than a sum of their parts.

Almost every cell in a healthy body is a boon to the rest of the cells (and naturally for the rest of the body). We would view a living cell as a generally good thing. However, when a cell becomes dysfunctional and cannot serve its purpose, the behavior taken toward it is extremely un-socialistic. The cell is left to die, devoured by phagocytes, removed from the system, and terminated so that it does not pose a threat to the body.

This is extremely contrary to the view of "seeing the forest for the trees." If we view the body as nothing more than the sum of its cells, and prioritize the life of the individual cells as the end of our goals, we would have to view this process as wrong and wish that nutrients were delivered to struggling cells instead.

This is, in my opinion, extremely analogous to the socialist view of society. The individuals they aim to help are undoubtedly a drain on society. Those who produce less than they consume must represent a drain on our social resources. This is glaringly obvious. To protect them with limited resources can only occur by reallocating resources produced by those who benefit society, and, because they act with self-interest, must therefore inhibit their production.

A true collectivist would see poor people as an unnecessary drain on our social resources, and would give them a very low social priority, for the true greater good.

[owsley]

I think what a socialist would tell you is that they support the government programs they do in order to make up for systemic inequality. They would say that poor people are poor because of the evil system (racism/capitalism/whatever) and it's not their fault, so to leave them behind is unfair. nice post.

[Borodog]

vnp

[Nielsio]

I can see why people feel guilty about the poor when they think that the poor are poor BECAUSE they are rich themselves.

[ALawPoker]

Nice post, hmk.

But what would you say to someone who simply values equality? Your analogy sees a body as a worthwhile end and ignores the possibility that its cells could have worthy subdesires of their own. Who's to say which is more important? What makes the assumed goal of the whole body more important than the stated goal of the pancreas?

I don't have a problem with interpreting other people's values as worthwhile entities in their own rights even if what they want is different than what appears best for the sum of society.

EDIT: Although I guess what I just said really speaks nothing against your point here; that socialists are not actually collectivists, heh.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]

But what would you say to someone who simply values equality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of the question of whether a system like that would actually push us closer to equality, it's unfair to take my hard earned stuff to do so. Why should I be forced to spend my money on stuff I deeply object to? I've already provided for society by performing a function for society which has left me with a stack of cash.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

The greater good is Soviet-style socialism. I think most modern socialists or social democrats don't aim for the greater good anymore. The point isn't anymore to get to the moon, to irrigate all the lands, to build a school in every village etc., the goals of today (as you claim) are more towards creating a society where every single individual has a good life. You hear more often Bush speak about the greater good than you heard it from Gerhard Schröder. I think you are pushing in an open door here.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
it's unfair to take my hard earned stuff to do so. Why should I be forced to spend my money on stuff I deeply object to? I've already provided for society by performing a function for society which has left me with a stack of cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

What made you think you had the right to earn all that stuff? Some people don't like looking over their shoulder and seeing people they empathize with living better lives than their own.

People can value whatever they want to value. I agree with you that valuing production seems more reasonable than valuing equality. But if I want to value my hamster as the most important thing in the world, I can do that.

People value equality out of ignorance. It's an archaic instinct I guess. Asking the average human to value a free economy policy is like asking a dog to walk on the glass floor over a cliff. He doesn't want to do it and he won't enjoy doing it. It doesn't make sense to him even though there's objectively nothing to worry about.

I tend to think people are happier when they get what they think is best. All I care about is being happy. I don't correlate happiness with production. I tend to think that the more fit an entity is to survive, the more it takes to satisfy him. I just don't see how it's possible to think a wolf's life is objectively worse than a human's. We're both here. We both won the evolutionary game. The things that make our lives seem objectively better must also operate as constraints in that we recognize burdens that are tougher to satisfy.

I think the same must hold true when you consider society its own entity. You can argue that one path would lead to life being objectively better; but in my opinion you're just making it objectively different. Society will find new burdens.

I think all I can really be sure of is that I value my friend in his own right, so I care more about what he thinks than what I think he should think. I could think its important to spend time teaching him what he should think for the betterment of society. But then is it really worth it if I don't think its possible to actually better society's condition?

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
What made you think you had the right to earn all that stuff? Some people don't like looking over their shoulder and seeing people they empathize with living better lives than their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

not quite sure how this is relevant to me? If other people don't like seeing homeless people on their way to work, by all means, let them go ahead and do whatever makes them feels like they are helping them.

[ QUOTE ]
People can value whatever they want to value. I agree with you that valuing production seems more reasonable than valuing equality. But if I want to value my hamster as the most important thing in the world, I can do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with that. If hamsters are that important to you, I'll probably try and sell you a better hamster which you will like more, and if I found a way to do this we would both be happier.

I don't really see where you are going with your post. It doesn't relate to me objecting to other people forcing me to pay for their wars and wasteful social programs.

[ALawPoker]

I don't mean you can't object to that stuff. Of course you can. I'm just saying you can't claim the moral high ground if he wants you to pay for wars and social programs just because your way leads to more production.