The Moral Case Against Collectivism

Collectivism is one of the single greatest causes of violence and death in all of history. Whether we look at the Crusades, the rise and fall of the Third Reich, Maoist China, or Leninist Russia we can see the obvious harm collectivism brings. Collectivism over time erodes personal liberties handing them over to the community at large and given long enough collectivism by its very nature evolves into a more sinister despotism. This is directly a culmination of falling moral values and the disregard for individuals in the face of the community.

The principled man carries out his duties in life within a certain moral code and each person has their individual beliefs about what is virtuous. These principles act as a moral compass guiding oneself down the righteous path. In order for these principles to be held true the man must universally apply them in all aspects of life. If violence being used as a means to attain something is perceived to be wrong then it must always be wrong. A man cannot preach about the evils of violence while making exceptions when it becomes the simplest means for reaching one’s goals. Rarely are men truly principled; rarely do men truly apply these moral beliefs absolute. Exceptions to our principles plague every sphere of society.

Fictional institutions such as the state are nothing more than granted exceptions to these guiding principles. Men who would ordinarily not advocate theft use the state as a means to extract wealth from their neighbors in the name of social justice. With the intention of breaking up private monopoly through nationalization people merely centralize more power in the hands of an even greater state monopoly. For the sake of ending violence we the people have offered only one solution, a monopoly of violence.

However, the power of collectivism is derived directly from collective ownership of the individual. The single greatest crime within a collectivist society is individualism itself. Once the exceptions within our moral compass allow for unlimited justification of state power there is no moral argument the individual can make against the state. Any attempt to secure individual thought is met with accusations of selfishness and greed. He is now a cog in a much larger system expected to perform his duties with the only the aims of the state in mind. He is nothing more than an expendable widget that can be sacrificed in the name of the collective good. All this justified through the moral exceptions we give to the monolithic state.

Larger does the collectivism grow so does its coercive influence. Although the small state uses force on a local level holding hostage the individual, as the state becomes more central such as that of the nation state the subjugated population amasses into communities. Once the coercive power of the state cultivates to international scales entire continents are held captive. For each and every man who wishes to use the power of the state for his owns ends fails to discern the conflicting goals between one and other. The same holds true for entire peoples. The state within its position must in fact exercise its power and adjudicate on these conflicting goals. In the end only one aim can be realized, thus unquestionably oppressing all opposing views. The oppressed within the reach of the state have but one choice, use the state themselves. In conclusion the monopoly of the state contrary to popular belief does not prevent force on behalf of the people, but is in fact the main perpetrator.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: