Collectivism vs Individualism and Slavery Tolerance

[Daddl]

As I see it, highly individualist people acknowledge everyones rights to do whatever they want, not restricted by anyone, while themselves of course are just doing what is best for themselves. Opposed to that, collectivist people don't even think about individual right or will, as they take it as granted everyone has just to obey to the "greater good". So it makes total sense to me individualists oppose slavery a lot more. There's a difference between ideals and actual acting. From an individualists mind, a slave should be freed, but he is ultimately responsible for his fate himself. Whereas from a collectivists mind, slavery is perfectly justified if it serves whatever they think is the "right" thing to do.

Ultimately, this is an ideology discussion. Whoever thinks collectivism opposes slavery more compared to individualism is in real life propably more inclined towards socialism/communism than others as well.

 

[Yenzen]

You're mixing them up, it's the opposite.

 

[Korashy]

Wiki does not have any info about which gov type they unlock, just about which they lock. Individualist fanatics f.e. LOCKS Military dictatorship, divine mandate, despotic hegemony, enlighten monarchy and despotic empire.

>.> okay I read that wrong. Even stranger that collectivist would be against democracy and republics. Oh well.

 

[RoboticManiac]

The wiki...


http://www.stellariswiki.com/Ethos

That's still the exact opposite of what the wiki says..?

Edit; Emu'd.

 

[IIWW]

>.> okay I read that wrong. Even stranger that collectivist would be against democracy and republics. Oh well.

nah, it fits. Historically colectivist ideologies (Communism, nazism) were dictatorships, not democracies. INdividualist, believing that everyone should have same rights, and a right to influence the government, fit perfectly for democracies. i'd say that "fanatic individualist" is a libertarian, and fanatic colectivist is a commie/nazi type.

 

[Botox]

>.> okay I read that wrong. Even stranger that collectivist would be against democracy and republics. Oh well.

Is it? I'd say both are highly individualistic types of government. Everyone has a right to vote what he wants, just by his own feelings and what he thinks is best. A decision is made by a compromise in most situations so that everyone gets at least a bit of his will and sometimes those are not the best for all but would hurt the common good.

 

[Korashy]

nah, it fits. Historically colectivist ideologies (Communism, nazism) were dictatorships, not democracies. INdividualist, believing that everyone should have same rights, and a right to influence the government, fit perfectly for democracies. i'd say that "fanatic individualist" is a libertarian, and fanatic colectivist is a commie/nazi type.

Wouldn't Communism in it's ideal be democratic though? I mean the countries it came into power in, it came through violent revolution, and was then guarded strictly by the military. China is at least to a degree democratic as well.

(just going to point out, I'm not some dreaming communist ready for the marxist dream, but i'm genuinely curious, as I seem to have a unique view on collectivism).

 

[Botox]

Wouldn't Communism in it's ideal be democratic though? I mean the countries it came into power in, it came through violent revolution, and was then guarded strictly by the military. China is at least to a degree democratic as well.

(just going to point out, I'm not some dreaming communist ready for the marxist dream, but i'm genuinely curious, as I seem to have a unique view on collectivism).

In theory communism would be the "purest" form of direct democracy where everyone would have a vote and every voice is heard. Going from small circles of a couple of people to larger ones. Quite an interesting system on paper.

The countries where it was formaly the type of government used it to camouflage some kind of oligarchic dictatorship that didnt have much to do with socialism or communism at all.

 

[aitaituo]

Wouldn't Communism in it's ideal be democratic though? I mean the countries it came into power in, it came through violent revolution, and was then guarded strictly by the military. China is at least to a degree democratic as well.

(just going to point out, I'm not some dreaming communist ready for the marxist dream, but i'm genuinely curious, as I seem to have a unique view on collectivism).

Ideal communism is the dictatorship of the people. Like many elements of Marxism, it flips conventional understanding of economics and government on its head. Nonetheless, with the abolition of private ownership and the necessity to either execute or liquidate the bourgeoisie, I'd put it as more collectivistic than individualistic. Marx didn't talk much about individuals being able to opt out of the global revolution, after all.

 

[IIWW]

Wouldn't Communism in it's ideal be democratic though? I mean the countries it came into power in, it came through violent revolution, and was then guarded strictly by the military. China is at least to a degree democratic as well.

(just going to point out, I'm not some dreaming communist ready for the marxist dream, but i'm genuinely curious, as I seem to have a unique view on collectivism).

Well, ideal, maybe. a weird democracy without opposition, so more of an oligarchy (there is no base for opposition, since all wealth is controlled by government). But power corrupts, so in practice it would be just as it was always. it's not a coincidence that every communist country ends up as dictatorship with starving people.

 

[ParagonExile]

The usage of "collectivism" in the game seems to indicate that it means "subservient to the group", which is one usage of the word. There are other ways to use it, and in fact every government is collectivist to a greater or lesser extent, it's sort of unavoidable.

It's not the more idealistic "collectivism" of Spock or socialists. It's more in line with fascists.

 

[vyshan]

Should individualists have trouble with rebels and law enforcement of their edicts(ie events that happen saying "people on planet x are telling you to f-off about edict banning slavery") since after all, individualist socities hate the law getting in their way telling them what to do. They like to make it on their own, don't like others telling them what to do!

The thing is for my species(Raksasa) I had been envisioning them having collectivist 1(along with pacifist 1, and xenophile 1) and a constitutional monarchy sort of government(a Parliamentarian model was what I am currently envisioning). Though it seems like that doesn't seem to be possible now.

Borrowing from Mass Effect a little, this is how I am currently imagining the Raksasa's view of Collectivism:

While Raksasa are individuals with personal desires, their instinct is to equate the self with the group, and set aside personal desires for the good of all. Personal accomplishments that benefit one's group tend to be celebrated. Raksasa are taught to own every decision they make, good or ill. One of the worst sin they can make in the eyes of their people is to lie about their own actions; that doesn't mean they are not capable of treachery or deception they certainly are.

 

[ParagonExile]

Oh boy this thread is getting political really fast.

 

[IIWW]

Oh boy this thread is getting political really fast.

well, Stellaris (and HoI, and Victoria) are pretty political games after all

 

[vyshan]

well, Stellaris (and HoI, and Victoria) are pretty political games after all

You could say all paradox games are political

 

[Botox]

Well, ideal, maybe. a weird democracy without opposition, so more of an oligarchy (there is no base for opposition, since all wealth is controlled by government). But power corrupts, so in practice it would be just as it was always. it's not a coincidence that every communist country ends up as dictatorship with starving people.

That could be argued with
There wasnt one country in the world that could rly develop communism without some dickhead rebuilding it from scratch to a dictatorship/oligarchy. Buts thats not the essence of the idea, its just it doesnt work with limited resources and human beeings.

 

[REDDQ]

No. From colectivist point of view slavery can be accepted if it benefits the group.
Form individualist point of view, slavery can be accepted because it makes some individual's position stronger

FTFY

I mean be at least honest, it can and it did work that way. And more often then what it is said about collectivism.

 

[Botox]

FTFY

I mean be at least honest, it can and it did work that way. And more often then what it is said about collectivism.

Its a model how it could be. Sure one can find arguments for either side, but after all its a game and if you accept slavery with both sides, what would be the point? You accept slavery with every ethos?

 

[dogblues]

The way I see it, individualists value individual rights and freedom. They believe each individual matters, and should have the right of choice. They believe in free migration, for instance, because every citizen is its own being and may follow his own will, so they should have the right to come and go. The same applies to slavery: a society that believes in personal freedom would not tolerate the submission of others to the their own will, it goes against their morals. Remember: individualist isn't the same as selfish. Individualist doesn't mean they don't consider others. It just means each person, each individual in this society has their own thoughts, ethics, beliefs and desires. And with that comes the necessity for freedom.

As for the collectivists, they believe everything and anything is fair game if it's for the good of their empire. So, even morally questionable things, such as slavery, aren't a concern, since the prosperity of society as a whole is what matters. Also, in collectivist societies, all of the common pops are almost like slaves, although willingly so. They have no sense of self, so all they do is work for the greater good. Because they don't see themselves as individuals, but rather just part of a larger organism, they don't demand rights, they don't have a concept of freedom. They have a slave-like mentality, so the speak.

It's worth noting that species of hivemind insects on earth, like ants and bees, have slaves in their society (it's true, look it up on wikipedia).

 

[Fourthspartan56]

The way I see it, individualists value individual rights and freedom. They believe each individual matters, and should have the right of choice. They believe in free migration, for instance, because every citizen is its own being and may follow his own will, so they should have the right to come and go. The same applies to slavery: a society that believes in personal freedom would not tolerate the submission of others to the their own will, it goes against their morals. Remember: individualist isn't the same as selfish. Individualist doesn't mean they don't consider others. It just means each person, each individual in this society has their own thoughts, ethics, beliefs and desires. And with that comes the necessity for freedom.

As for the collectivists, they believe everything and anything is fair game if it's for the good of their empire. So, even morally questionable things, such as slavery, aren't a concern, since the prosperity of society as a whole is what matters. Also, in collectivist societies, all of the common pops are almost like slaves, although willingly so. They have no sense of self, so all they do is work for the greater good. Because they don't see themselves as individuals, but rather just part of a larger organism, they don't demand rights, they don't have a concept of freedom. They have a slave-like mentality, so the speak.

It's worth noting that species of hivemind insects on earth, like ants and bees, have slaves in their society (it's true, look it up on wikipedia).

Ants and bees aren't any form of hive mind, they obey pheromones but they sill are individuals.