In large, communism promotes equality and codependence with one’s government and fellow countrymen, thus making it a cornerstone of communist ideology. Collectivism is any type of philosophy or method that encourages interdependence within a group and allows individuals to build off of one another in order to reach a common goal. In communist China, Mao Zedong used collectivism in the form of agriculture. After 1949, Mao and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) created communes, which bound people together by combining farms. People worked side-by-side in large fields, in hopes of creating more crops. In China’s case, collectivism was a complete failure. It encouraged laziness, and eventually caused widespread famine and death. Collectivism was part of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, in which about 20 million people perished, largely due to famine and drought. In the Soviet Union, Stalin also promoted collectivism, and in the Ukraine’s case about 6 million people died due to famine. In addition to being present in the Soviet Union and China, agricultural collectivism was implemented during the Cambodian Revolution (1975-1979) by Pol Pot. Like in the Soviet Union and China, collectivism caused the death of millions and greatly damaged society.
Although seemingly detrimental, collectivism is a large part of Western Society today. Collectivism is seen in welfare, where (largely through) tax redistribution; the government helps those who make a certain income attain food, and other necessities. Furthermore, trade unions have many collective characteristics, such as collective bargaining, where employers and employees can openly negotiate. Also, those in trade unions, receive various benefits also included in taxes. Another example of collectivism in many societies is universal health care. Similar to welfare, with universal healthcare, those who can afford healthcare are provided it through tax redistribution.
Welfare can often be a topic of dispute, especially in places like Ireland (welfare is called the dole) where one can be on it for life. Like in China, knowing one can slide by; by doing the bare minimum is often a counter motivator. This is also a large part of the dispute with health care. Those whose taxes would help pay for healthcare believe that they worked hard for their money, and therefore they deserve it, not people who they assume don’t work as hard. Collectivism has the ability to fuse a society together through relationships, but it also has the power to tear people apart. The only way collectivism can be flawlessly successful is if everyone works equally hard, thus alleviating any tensions. In a society like the present, it is very hard to say that collectivism can ever be fully triumphant.
You're certainly correct that the track record of collectivist societies in the countries you mentioned is a poor one (to put it mildly). But is the alternative a free-wheeling, laissez-faire libertarianism? In other words, if we reject, say, communes a la Mao, does that mean that government or society cannot/should not care for the needy in society? Is there a difference between policies that redistribute income, and policies (such as collectivization) which impose certain forms of work on people? And is private health insurance collectivist if I, a healthy person, end up subsidizing the health care of my less healthy colleagues? It seems to me that we need to define "collectivism" very carefully because the examples you give here, while they have certain similarities, also have significant differences.
ReplyDelete