Welcome to Gaia! ::

This is just a draft of a small essay I've been working on today in my free time. Contrary to the title, this paper is not anti-socialist nor anti-communist; it is in fact a defense of socialism and attempts to illustrate how socialism is, or can be individualist by nature and how capitalism is more collectivist and conformist (forcing people to adopt business and market-oriented mentalities in order to survive the market, forced conformity of mindless production and consumption to be most efficient at making profits for capitalists, how it forces true individualistic people to have to socialize with others in the market in order to survive in a capitalist economy than is needed). I'd like to see your critiques, suggestions and opinions on it. I'm also thinking of posting it in the ED forums when its polished up some more.

-----------------------
The Specter of Collectivism

While economic rationality and coordination by the state is almost immediately disregarded by many Americans, social collectivism is running rampant and infringing upon individuality in many aspects of our society. The family is, like the nation and state, an involuntary collective one is simply born into. The family has coercive powers over their children at a young age, and often uses such to propagate or influence them with specific ideological or religious perspectives while their minds are still in their developmental stage. To protect their individuality, the state should ensure that children are not too heavily indoctrinated in any religion, political or philosophical belief or perception until they are old enough to comprehend such issues and decide for themselves. On the more individual level, such as in social environments, children are encouraged to “fit in” and be like their peers, otherwise they are perceived and labeled as deviants from the norm. In this scenario, independent thought, methodologies and pursuits are smashed by the collective interests and ambitions of ones peers, even the culture of consumerism and business ambitions are enforced as the default ambitions one should have in life. “Liberty” or “freedom” is then sometimes defined as freedom of business, which becomes ingrained in a persons mind and thus becomes their social expectation. Another form of social collectivism is the concept of nationalism and patriotism, and the expectations to serve ones country or adhere to the most “patriotic” stance also infringes upon individuality, and is indeed a form of social collectivism. The usage of the word “conservatism” to refer to a particular group’s traditional beliefs and methodologies is offensive because those who do not conform or share such beliefs are automatically “liberal” – “new” or “different”, sometimes even a threat to existing notions of liberty.

However, the real "threat" to "liberty" and "freedom" (but more importantly, to rationality and sanity) is what I call social collectivism. This is not to be confused with so-called economic collectivism such as socialism. Claiming one is un-American for being socialist is a characteristic of social collectivism. It sees individuals and judges them based on group-status, and forces individuals to adopt the norms or beliefs of their geographic location, that of their parents or that of their environment they were born into. This is a far bigger threat to individualism than socialism could ever be, because if one is restricted in what he or she can think desire or what conclusions they are allowed to arrive to through rational discourse, individualism is then subordinate to the group. To me, that is a much bigger threat to individualism than receiving health insurance from the state which you pay for through taxes instead of purchasing health insurance from a private company. It is in light of this reality that true individualism would oppose family constraints and other inhibitors on individuality, such as market and social impositions rather than just coercion on part of the state. If one proclaims that an individual’s unique habits are “strange” or “wrong”, yet would excuse such if that individuals habits originate from an ethnic-based culture, one is overlooking individuality and judging people based on a group-mentality. The true individualist would respect every individual’s interests and unique habits; or their individual culture, if you will. Man is both a social being and an individual; the state is a rational and orderly organization of human society. In any scenario, man is a social being in that he is dependent upon others – be it private owners, the state or any other organization – in order to survive. Another form of social collectivism is the attempt to legislate trivial and unharmful practices or activities. Policies based on social collectivism and moral authoritarianism is often ineffective, as such laws attempts to legislate ethics. The issue is that humans are individual beings with their own values; such concepts are subjective and therefore the more laws one tries to pass limiting actions or certain practices, the more crimes one unintentionally produces. It is intrusive for the government to ban an act, or grant government agencies excessive rights to invade the privacy of individuals, whereas having the state produce or control the distribution of a product is not nearly as intrusive to the individual. The reason the latter scenario is opposed so heavily in the name of “preserving liberty” far more in comparison to the former is because the business classes seek to control and profit off of all economic activity. This is coupled with the ideology of economic liberalism, neoliberalism and more recently, market fundamentalism which elevates market activity as almost being sacred, reducing the state to a mere “intervention” to the operation of the market.

The liberal (the ideology of capitalism) mindset, when it refers to “individualism”, refers to socially and mentally / ideologically similar conformism and is only partly individualistic in the sense that people act as independent actors in a market economy – essentially relying on and acquiring goods and services from others. This definition of individualism is clearly most beneficial to those with business ambitions, or to the existing business-class. If the liberal defines economic individualism as competition amongst individuals, it is indeed a ridiculous assertion that individuals would only compete or be motivated to better themselves or society if they live in a society that is characterized by private ownership of capital. Human history has demonstrated that humans are capable of being motivated by various different factors. In some cultures, people have been motivated more by national pride and doing what is best for their empire. In a socialist economy, individuals would likely still compete with each other for positions of power or influence that have higher financial bonuses or social prestige, or simply the fact of having the opportunity to implement one’s own unique method of administration or management in a branch of the state could be sufficient enough motivation and allow for flexible individualism. Furthermore, various branches, departments, agencies or state-owned enterprises could compete with each other. Yet even these means of competition only represent a small percentage of the various historical and possible ways in which humans or organizations would compete with each other. The supporter of such an ideology faces the difficult question of how acquiring services and products through state or cooperatively owned and controlled institutions infringes upon one’s individuality any more than acquiring them through privately-owned businesses. Social individualism is true individualism; economic individualism is merely the glorification and societal focus on business activity.

Comrade Robson did indeed post. Perhaps he or a mod deleted it. He didn't really say anything though, just that he was going to do a critique.