Is leftism really collectivist?

[NosPortatArma]

it's "common knowledge" that leftism puts the collective before the individual. But is that really true?

case one: raising children is hard. it costs much, in monetary terms, emotionally, psychologically, possibly also affects your career, limits your freedom to "live life". more and more young people today don't ever want to have kids for these reasons, and the left cheers them on. But there is probably nothing which is more important to the collective than raising children. without children there is literally no future.

case two: being overwiehgt has many negative health effects. A society which is healthier is more productive. Also, in a society which has some kind of collectively funded healthcare system, it is also cheaper if more people are fit. yet, the left is opposed to fat shaming. They seem to value more that people should be free to "be who they are", even if that comes at the expense of the collective.

So, is it really fair to say that the left is collectivist? There are more cases to show this same pattern, where they promote the individual at the cost of the collective. superficially it might seem that the left is collectivist, since they want the individual to contribute with taxes for a big welfare system, but there is clearly more to it than that.

conversely, it is "common knowledge" (atleast in the USA) that the right is individualist. but i'd argue that is also reversed. The right typically supports things like the draft, and there is no better example of the individual being sacrificed for the collective than that.

thoughts?

[antaeus]

If we're going to delve into the left vs right paradigm, then we should acknowledge that this thread is going to contain plenty of wild generalisms...

I think perhaps the OP should also be asking outright if the right is individualist in the title. Which plainly is also an over simplification. If this question isn't asked outright, then this is going to turn into a I'm right, no I'm right tug of war between politically polarised people throwing about more generalisms.

The relationship also varies greatly between countries. Left leaning politics in the United States is still fairly right relative to the left politics of other countries.

[Iskar]

I've recently seen a pretty good distinction which adds the further dichotomy of values vs. interests.

As such we get:

The right of values (national identity, law and order, security, traditions)
The right of interests (property, entrepreneurship, low tax burden)
The left of values (diversity, tolerance, cultural liberalism, human rights)
The left of interests (wages, work conditions, public services, social security)

(taken from Le Monde Diplomatique, Mai 2017, "Metamorphoses des classes populaires")

You can now easily resolve the apparent contradiction of the left:
The left of values is naturally individualist in emphasising every individuals rights, tolerance towards others, etc.
The left of interests is naturally collectivist to organise strikes, make social security systems work, etc.

On the right, it is funnily the other way around:
The right of interests is individualist, trying to protect private property and economic meritocracy as much as possible.
The right if values is collectivist, supporting a common national identity, family structures, shared traditions, cooperation for military and police service.

PS: If you allow me side remark, it now also becomes apparent why the newer nationalist movements (belonging in the right of values) tend to adopt social(ist) economic policies (belonging in the left of interests) - both are collectivist in nature. Their natural adversary is political liberalism (in the European sense) - left of values and right of interests, both individualist in nature.

[RedGuard]

On the right, it is funnily the other way around:
The right of interests is individualist, trying to protect private property and economic meritocracy as much as possible.
The right if values is collectivist, supporting a common national identity, family structures, shared traditions, cooperation for military and police service.

PS: If you allow me side remark, it now also becomes apparent why the newer nationalist movements (belonging in the right of values) tend to adopt social(ist) economic policies (belonging in the left of interests) - both are collectivist in nature. Their natural adversary is political liberalism (in the European sense) - left of values and right of interests, both individualist in nature.

isnt this basically the application of fascism? I know thats a loaded word, but basically what I mean is corporatism i.e. socialism when it comes to private interests but austereity as much as possible in government. Combined with nationalism and a sense of duty to the state.

"The right of interests is individualist, trying to protect private property and economic meritocracy as much as possible." This in a way too leads to collectivism because of the size of the state required to provide security for individuals always ultimately leads to less individualistic values.

[NosPortatArma]

I've recently seen a pretty good distinction which adds the further dichotomy of values vs. interests.

As such we get:

The right of values (national identity, law and order, security, traditions)
The right of interests (property, entrepreneurship, low tax burden)
The left of values (diversity, tolerance, cultural liberalism, human rights)
The left of interests (wages, work conditions, public services, social security)

(taken from Le Monde Diplomatique, Mai 2017, "Metamorphoses des classes populaires")

You can now easily resolve the apparent contradiction of the left:
The left of values is naturally individualist in emphasising every individuals rights, tolerance towards others, etc.
The left of interests is naturally collectivist to organise strikes, make social security systems work, etc.

On the right, it is funnily the other way around:
The right of interests is individualist, trying to protect private property and economic meritocracy as much as possible.
The right if values is collectivist, supporting a common national identity, family structures, shared traditions, cooperation for military and police service.

PS: If you allow me side remark, it now also becomes apparent why the newer nationalist movements (belonging in the right of values) tend to adopt social(ist) economic policies (belonging in the left of interests) - both are collectivist in nature. Their natural adversary is political liberalism (in the European sense) - left of values and right of interests, both individualist in nature.

interesting, but i'd disagree, for behind support for things like low taxes, private property, and even things like freedom of speech or voting rights, there is a collectivist justification.

private property is supported because it is the basis of a free market system which is beneficial to the collective. As adam smith puts it: "By pursuing his own interest he [the individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it". So property rights aren't about the individual: it's about creating a system in which individual's self-interest serves the collective.

same goes for freedom of speech. free speech creates a free market of ideas, which allows a society to analyse ideas better. again it's not about the individual, but about the societally beneficial system that is the effect of granting these rights to individuals.

[Iskar]

@RedGuard, NosPortatArma: You're both looking at the goals and their implementation, and of course the implementation of individualist goals in a large society necessarily attains a collectivist element, but it's driving force would still be an individualist conviction about personal rights and freedoms.

As regards the association of "fascism" (probably in a bit of a stretch) I'd in fact agree. Far right ideology with collectivist policies is probably a very good abstract description of it.

private property is supported because it is the basis of a free market system which is beneficial to the collective. As adam smith puts it: "By pursuing his own interest he [the individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it". So property rights aren't about the individual: it's about creating a system in which individual's self-interest serves the collective.

same goes for freedom of speech. free speech creates a free market of ideas, which allows a society to analyse ideas better. again it's not about the individual, but about the societally beneficial system that is the effect of granting these rights to individuals.

You're already using a rather centrist interpretation of the purpose of property and free speech there (and in that preaching to the choir to me), but I'd say an American libertarian would object to that interpretation and contend that his freedom and property are first and foremost meant to serve himself, not the community.

PS: Adam Smith was a tad too optimistic in his claim. In fact there are lots of scenarios where pursuing personal gain leads everyone to be worse off than if they had actively cooperated in the first place. (cf. prisoners' dilemma, tragedy of the commons, etc.)

[NosPortatArma]

You're both looking at the goals and their implementation

indeed. for clarification, when i say something is collectivist or individualist, I am referring to their goal, which shapes their implementation.

You're already using a rather centrist interpretation of the purpose of property and free speech there (and in that preaching to the choir to me), but I'd say an American libertarian would object to that interpretation and contend that his freedom and property are first and foremost meant to serve himself, not the community.

heh, this is probably the point at which i have to denounce american libertarian conservatives as not being "real" conservatives. Quite frankly, i do not think many of them actually understand their ideology at the deeper level. I have read and listened extensively to libertarian conservatives, like thomas sowell and milton friedman, and to a lesser degree other likeminded scholars. going back to goal v. implementation, i know for sure that sowell is by goal a collectivist and by implementation libertarian, and friedman has said he was a consequentialist libertarian.

it is my view that "conservatives" who by goal are individualists are not conservatives at all, but usually anarchists. you know that non-agression principle crowd, the anarcho-capitalists. so not anarchist in the socialist sense, but in the literal absence of government sense. The logical consequence of the non-agression principle is anarchism, but it doesn't seem they realise this (i've had a lot of discissions with such people).

PS: Adam Smith was a tad too optimistic in his claim. In fact there are lots of scenarios where pursuing personal gain leads everyone to be worse off than if they had actively cooperated in the first place. (cf. prisoners' dilemma, tragedy of the commons, etc.)

indeed, but it is in these cases that the right in question is restricted. If a right will become damaging for the collective if taken beyond a certain point, then the right will be restricted at that point. free speech doesn't allow you to incite to illegal acts, to cause panic in crowded places, to disturb people in the middle of the night, et cetera.

this is what the above-mentioned anarchist so-called conservatives do not understand. for example arms rights, i support them to the extent that lawful citizens being armed can deter criminals and be of use in case of invasion, but i don't see why they should have access to really heavy weapons. I have seriously heard people argue for private nukes, but the point is that the concept of rights with restrictions seems alien to them. I suppose it's less mental effort to just accept a number of absolute principles, rather than having to actually consider things on a case by case basis.