The Perils of Collectivism

I sometimes come across a certain view that the necessary information to live out ideologies is openly available; all one needs to do is to follow the doctrines set-forth, articulating and defending dogma for the best results in their personal lives.

An obvious example of this in action is from the various religions, though any mode of thought or what's called "ism", can be prone to this mindset; it's inherent in most ideologies. Religion is of course a particularly powerful case, stretching back since the beginning becoming increasingly important through the Middle Ages and the rise of the Church. Eventually, places of learning where created for the young to uphold these uniform traditions.

Over the last couple hundred years different forms of political doctrines have become popularized; liberalism, fascism, socialism, communism, nationalism, are only a handful out of what seems like an endless list of the same thing except for the flavoring.

What all these belief systems hold in common is they are institutionalized creating followers who have accepted the so-called established rules, often from an authority, for the sake of some imagined collective unity. Thinking about how these beliefs come to be and whether one person has the ability to have their own understanding about them, is seen as blasphemy or in opposition to the collectivist agenda.

The rare individual who cares primarily about seeing the reality of things must ultimately fend for himself and have a gentle, yet courageous approach when dealing with the perceptions of others. You become a de facto individualist once you stop thinking about ideologies in institutional terms.

Collectivism breeds the outlook that what is true is what the majority accepts as true; it takes for granted the fact that individuals are not omniscient of everyone's underlying values.

Even though it's in the nature of things for ideas especially spiritual and philosophical ones, to be interpreted differently by each living being, many people regardlessly choose to go along with what's widely accepted by the majority. Perhaps, it's easier and less work to go off of conventional or prevailing attitudes.

If someone claims they are a Christian, does that mean they have to attend church or believe in the teachings presented by Luther, Saint Paul, or another denomination? Maybe they just have to be a follower of Jesus as a role model? What is the criteria and who decides this?

As we know there is also dangerous consequences with affiliations even if they are untrue. Political factions have been solely responsible for bringing down civilization from it's highest potential; the last century, I think saw the climax of what the philosophy of collectivism amounts to.

The trend for this century has been further decentralization, so while factions may persist, they will be split up into smaller and scattered units essentially loosing their source of power and control.

So whenever I hear someone say they are < insert grouping>, I first pause and reflect what they mean by that and secondly try to understand if the label accurately encompasses what they believe in. Most of the time I will give the other person the benefit of the doubt as that's only fair; but still, I can hardly take any of it very seriously, apart from the extent that it might push me to think clearer.

img src