Inputs

Title

Prompt 1. The "greater good" comes at the expense of personal freedom. 2. The concept of collectivism means greater control under the guise of equality. 3. To put the group ahead of the self is a noble act. 4. Society is made up of individuals, not groups.

Essay There are fewer more debated terms than collectivism; which involves the members go the group acting in the interest of the group as a priority if against the individual interests. Collectivism has been around for as long as civilisation as inherently we all have different interests and has been conflated with lack of freedom, as many believe that collectivism must involve limiting the freedom of some for the greater good. However, in our hyper individualistic societies, collectivism is needed more than ever. Firstly, collectivism can be effective in raising the standards of living for all. Secondly, lack of collectivism leads to a society in dysfunction and in crisis. Lastly, collectivism is not the nemesis of freedom but can empower freedom. Collectivism has shown to be an effective tool to increase the standards of living and fulfilment of its members. Our society is comprised of more than just “individuals” but dynamic, interactive groups collective with different needs, wants and variety within the individuals of the groups themselves. With so many people having such a variety of needs and wants, it can be difficult to attend them all if everyone is allowed to do as they please, as some people’s needs may involve putting down another’s - for example, one ethnic group wanting more rights and privileges than another ethnic group within a state. Thus, society needs a philosophy that prioritises the wellbeing of the whole group so everyone can get their needs met - and this is collectivism. For example, collectivism helped the Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia from a rural, technologically backwards and impoverished society to one of Europe’s largest manufacturing, prosperous and educated nations in less than 50 years. They were able to achieve this partially by prioritising the needs of all south slavs over that of specific groups wether religious, cultural, class or otherwise. After the USSR fell apart and Yugoslavia’s economy was dealt with sanctions from the US, it lost suddenly two of its major trading partners and people began adopting a non-collectivist mindset, focusing on their needs or their close group’s needs, eventually leading to the dissolution of Yugoslavia. While the breaking up of the country is complex, it’s hard to ignore how collectivism helped it flourish, with living standards much, much higher than the start of the 21st century. Without collectivism, Yugoslavia’s various power brokers and groups would still be focused only on their needs at the expense of all. Overall, collectivism can boost the quality of life for all. Second, the lack of collectivism leads to societies in dysfunction and crisis. Our globalised world has become more hyper-individualistic with values from generally individualistic nations like the US becoming common. While many understandably fear the “concept of collectivism means greater control under the guise of equality”, they fail to realise the lack of collectivism is leading their society to disarray. For example, look at US from the 21st century and compare it to the US of the mid 20th century. For the last forty years, the US’s culture has undergone rapid neoliberalism and hyper-individualism as world renowned economists and writers such as Jeffery Sachs explains. With policies such as disproportionally favourable taxes for the wealthy, defunding of public institutions and entertainment promotion of the individual and freedom, this has led to a more hyper-individualistic society fearful of collectivism. Now, the US is polarised politically, and unable to effectively adapt to crisis, such as the climate change crisis. Compare this to the 1960s US, where collectivism was seen as noble. The government had a larger productive role in society, with higher proportional spending to public institutions and welfare while conversely, much more adaptable to crisis - such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, where presidential leaders like JFK were able to put aside individual interests such as gaining support from the military and strike Cuba first to instead prioritise the needs of society - at that time, meaning avoiding nuclear conflict at all costs, even if it makes JFK look weak. Thus, the US exemplifies how a society can be impacted by collectivism both ways. Overall, collectivism can profoundly shape society’s ability to function and adapt. Lastly, collectivism is actually necessary for people to individually have more freedom in the long term. Despite collectivism’s ability to help society prosper or even function and adapt, as explained above, many people still believe collectivism “comes at the expense of personal freedom”. For example, many popular campaigns against collectivist ideologies and ideas, such as communism, have ads such as the famous “You won’t even own your toothbrush” McCarthy era vintage poster. However, without collectivism, personal freedom is limited long term. For example, look at present day Libya. Under the government of Gaddafi, Libya went from an absolute, poor and isolated monarchy to Africa’s wealthiest, most developed and prospering states. Even in this extreme example where like many individualistic neighbouring states, Gaddafi’s Libya was also a dictatorship. Unlike other neighbouring dictatorships like Chad or Algeria, Gaddafi’s government had a collectivist approach, focusing on empowering the economic freedom of individuals via reallocation national wealth, such as petrol extraction from Libya’s state company and funding schools, diversifying the economy and providing welfare for all. This led to Libyans having more freedom long term than their individualistic neighbours whose dictatorship did not have a collectivist ideology but a power hungry “every man for themselves” mentality, which is the result of societies without collectivism - everyone attempts to increase only their or their close group’s freedom at the expense of everyone else, leading to overall less freedom. This is even more clear after Gaddafi was overthrown, and more than a decade later, Libya is still in civil war and the common folk have lost the freedom, especially economic, from the collectivist approach. They lost the ability to live elsewhere, because it’s dangerous to move and they can’t afford it for example. Overall, collectivism is actually needed for long term freedom. In conclusion, collectivism is needed more than ever due to the three key reasons: it allows societies to prosper, to function and to even be more free. As a society, we need to shift framing the conversation around collectivism as binomial to freedom when in reality, they are two sides of the same coin.