Collectivism is a kind of indicator of moral education of а individ. At the same time collectivism reflects the level of individual and collective consciousness, including making personal and social goals, the formation of social responsibility, self-development and self-development. Since collectivism contributes to normal human interaction, this feature of morality should be formed in the upbringing of the growing person.
History shows that the collective is a specific way of human existence, and collectivism is one of the leading symbol of morality. Considering that morality (morality) is a means of social regulation, a form of human relations, we note that collectivism in this relationship manifested as unity and cooperation of people united by a common social and meaningful purpose, a common activity that is characterized by measure value attitude to society, work to individuals. The natural character and public nature of collectivism give grounds to assert that this feature of morality is eternal human values. The content and nature of collectivism changed, enriched as the historical development of society.
Collectivism as a feature of morality is clearly manifested in the pre-class society. Yes, Homer in the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” showed that the behavior of epic heroes because of their real social relationships were the actions, proceedings, during which the individual is not opposed tribe as a team. As the researchers such A.F.Losev said in the early stages of social development, which represents the latest stage of Homer, there was a unity of interests kinship group, “personality there is a hero who selflessly devoted to his people and it is a constant advocate and organizer”.
In this society collectivism features, including company, friendship, formed mainly as mutual military obligations. In the oral folklore reflected in the formation of primitive collectivism.
Collectivism family, tribe, community manifested in the care of his other life members, mutual aid in labor, to defend the terrible forces of nature.
Decomposition community or clan ties, the emergence of classes and the state has reduced the bonds of kinship. Creating groups did not coincide with family associations. It is now carried out on the basis of public affairs, actions, common good. Combining the team was of the election and rational. Collectivism focus on human emotions, spiritual community, social significance. These views are reflected in the philosophical writings of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle.
So, Plato argued the idea that man is moral only when it goes beyond the livelihoods of happiness, filled with socially significant motives. Aristotle recognized the teamwork, friendship perfect virtue, which is something beautiful that reflects the interests of the policy as a whole. Ancient philosophers considered an expression of friendship completeness integrity of the individual. Being second was to be a good person. Make friends included such relationships that are inherent virtuous person.
During feudalism in the early Middle Ages in Western Europe there was a shift from understanding morality as a system of virtues of understanding as a set of rules that are against the person. This was due to the religious understanding of morality. Interpretation of collectivism in ethics had become religious orientation.
In the Christian religion expresses the essence of collectivism disclosed in terms of the interests of a state. This was manifested in the choice of persons included in the association, the content team relations. There are three types of relationships: the feudal knight, domestic (covered peasants, artisans) and spiritual and monastic. Rural community as a specific group of feudal society based on common employment objectives and had direct personal. Inside functioning community groups, uniting relatives, neighbors. Characterized feudal society and such groups like stray companies (knights, artisans, students), association-family youngsters related to socialization.
Combining clerics constituted mainly emotional contacts with a view to spiritual self-disclosure. There were also “brotherhood of prayer.” The content of their activities were common prayers, holy things for each other. Common to the Middle Ages in the interpretation of the essence of collectivism was that the idea of collectivism seen the light display love for God. In the near neighbor and a person loves God. Hence the conclusion: the relations in the team, all communication should be directed at developing love for all people.
The thinkers of the Renaissance personality erected to the rank of absolute values. They proclaimed the cult of the individual as a free universal rights, building their relations on the principles of humanity and cooperation. In these circumstances, the criterion of bringing people declared respect for human dignity, common interests related to humanistic values. The deep sense of love as heroic acquired organizational basis for bringing people a new social synthesis. Thus, universal social person in the philosophical system Bruno – a person who overcomes individualism and strengthens social ties, calling for life and work and acting in the name of homeland, humanity, and this requires concerted joint, collective efforts of free people .
In philosophy, ethics XVII century paid much attention to the moral basis of life socially active person. In this respect, friendship and teamwork considered as a form of moral human activity, including its free communication. Thus, Montaigne described collectivism as relations within the “human association”, based on shared interests and beliefs. He argued that the unity among the members of such associations to be really friendly. Such a union, “being truly perfect, deprives them of the ability to feel that they are so-and-so is obliged to one another and causes them to reject and expel from its use words that mean the division and difference, such as: kindness, commitment, gratitude, requests, etc. gratitude. Because all they really common: desires, thoughts, opinions, property, wives, children, honor and life itself – and because their union is nothing like – for a very successful definition of Aristotle – one soul in two bodies – they do not can not lend or give something to one another. ”
Today, all seek to be individualists, it’s very popular, and the concept of collectivism identified with the passage of the crowd and the lack of expression of individuality. Is this true?
I do not think so, you simplify a task. This is an abstract of the question. In response to this formulation contained in the question – which, of course, individualism – is so bad, but really I think the question of the identity of individualism usually put separately, that is, not placed as such opposition. For if it is put, it is clear that there will be very few people such cynical who say here that I ‘spit on staff “or” staff – a sure crowd, and I – alone. ” It is clear that these people will be a bit drastic – in the sense that those who say so. What are the so – of course more. Whether the dispute is mainly about it. They will say that the team – this is certainly good, and say that no one can be a leader if he will not command. And then reduced sense of individualism at all clear what. At least, this “maverick” clearly look like anti-social element.
Usually, talking about the team, and it may seem that this is teamwork, if not, then at least – a substitute collectivism. Command, team spirit, corporate ethics, corporate culture – that you will find everywhere is plenty. But in fact the opposite of this – this is not the opposition between the individual and the collective, but just the contrast between collectivism and team, corporatism. I think the opposite is here first that corporatism and сommand – this is precisely the true expression of individualism.
That, and the team and the corporation – is not nothing like the connection of individuals, in other words, a contract between individuals that they “will be friends against someone.” Clearly, the most difficult to overcome the outside world, because wolves (I mean “man is wolf to man” – the main principle of bourgeois society), then get in a flock, and thus they immediately increased competitiveness. And at the same time also for people indiscriminate it will look as if “they are normal”, “they are in the team,” they work for themselves, they work for the company.
This immediately raises the question of who the owner of the company – it is, of course, a very profitable “collectivism.” This was largely built by Japanese management, the use of another medieval corporatist traditions (for a corporation, of course, was not born under capitalism, but mainly in the Middle Ages, that at the dawn of the individual commodity production) to achieve fully capitalist goals.
Here, I think, the most difficult issue and confuse these things can not. I think the main difference is that if a corporation or a team – a sum of individuals, which makes it certainly a synergistic effect (even purely mechanical – the amount is more than made up all the individual parts), the staff – it’s something equally contrary. It begins not with individuals. On the contrary – the product of the collective is the individual – or rather identity. And besides, the person can not be anything but here in such a way that, being a product of teamwork, teamwork.
Ultimately, you say – social work, because at this point the team is not the primary focus of some, he, in turn, on the one hand, the product, and the other – a body of something bigger. This unit can be national, for example, as collectivism, of course, on the way of development is through some form, including the converted form. But, ultimately, this may be the only society in general. But society as a whole is, of course, also means not the sum of individuals or the amount of people.
It should be understood as socialized humanity. And easy, of course, when a socialized humanity already has in reality smarter whole situation where the team actually has to provide its own beginning. That is, as the teams would still appear that generates them. This is of course very often, but rarely noticed theory.
Although Aristotle actually talked about collective, that is the ultimate cause. I think it is just a collective question – is not the central issue now for humanity: in which way it will go. Will go it by the path where the interests of the whole are above the interests of any of its parts, or vice versa, where the interests of a fully obey the interests of its individual parts, and ultimately – of individuals, that is, by the way in which it now is and goes straight for disaster.
Is it possible still today a real team? If not – is there a way out and what to do to people?
We must do something!
Because it is not a question of “I want to do – I want to – do not do”, it is a matter of life and death, especially for young people, because we are now in a situation where it is really a matter of one or two generations: whether humanity will find valid forms of collectivity and thus come to a new stage of its development, or the younger generation did not become old, in a sense, and die young. From that someone can be fun, but I think even sometimes very young generation thinks about the future. It may be the last – so for him it is a very important issue.
I must say that it is not a question of some individuals, the scientists very, sensitive or who act for justice. This is a common question today. If we look – all over the world people are looking for some form of confrontation madness private interest. Tries forms of collectivity today – as they want. People try to “stray” in groups (“stray” in this case to use good sense and not “stray in the pack”) to meet their true human needs on a variety of characteristics, interests. Because real life is inhumane, people try to find some outlet out of life – that is, in such groups, the general content of which is that they are “excluded” from the general flow of life.
They are people trying to find themselves a refuge where they could feel people. It may be some association of people interested in art who are interested in philosophy (especially with all sorts of exotic philosophies, oriental, for example), in the end, this is largely due to the success of today’s religion. It’s success unnatural religion, of course, because capitalist society kills everything holy, and religion in general it has long since killed, but a religious form here gives such outbreaks.
The secret of these outbreaks lies in the fact that people trying to somehow escape from individualism and find something as they think collective, that in such forms where they can be treated as they think the other person as a person. I’m not talking mass anti-capitalist social movements of nature, which has recently become widespread as ever. Of course, they were mass before, but usually they are limited beyond a single country. And now – just start something in one country as it rolled immediately worldwide. Unfortunately, this too is not yet valid forms of collectivity.
This converted form, yet seeming collectivism, for real teamwork is not possible outside real real historical life. As I said, very directly separate private group has its source unit of a higher order, that is, ultimately, a historical entity. And for this reason these forms tend to quickly fall apart or come to a standstill. But the fact that these attempts themselves are positive, progressive – is indisputable. It is another matter that they will never be able to unite in a single stream. The formation of this flow is another way – not individual streams, not with individual groups consist staff as a whole. With the same success can be thought that the society – an association of individuals. Clearly, this can not be, because everything exactly the opposite – the individual from society, not a society with the individual. So it is here.
This problem is even impossible at first, because even if there is a team which develops real collective movement, initially it will look just like all the other converted form. To distinguish it in some way, of course, impossible. So the only guarantee of “authenticity” of the collective can only be consistency in carrying out his ideas. Then even quite hopeless at first glance, the idea with proper persistence, consistency, its supporters annex them all forces to implement it may be just the one that is needed.
Because modern society, in my opinion, not just “fraught” Behold the true collectivity and is “long in hope.” Just needed a push, an excuse that she was born. But then it will begin what will be a push – it might not be so important. So here plays a big role mass movement, that is, if the movement is massive, it is at least the material strength. Bo may be very correct groups, united by some common idea, but there is no way to correct connection of ideas with the hopes of the masses. But if the mass itself in motion, then, even if the idea of initially incorrect, actual movement can fix these ideas and it can provide what you need, in other words, the world-historicity.
And the problem of collective, teamwork solved for ordinary people, such as socialism?
The difficult questions, of course. It probably should not talk about socialism and revolution. If you want to – the socialist revolution because, most likely, and it only gives valid form of collectivism, that is not perverted nor converted. Any other revolution is limited in the sense of collectivity. It is limited, usually national – not ethnicity, and interests of the nation. As for the socialist revolution – it gave very interesting examples is true collectivity, despite the fact that it is not always able to buy the right form at the level of private teams. What was most surprising in this revolution – a peasant collective, because farmers can not by definition be collectivist.