Descriptions:
Video Description
Who matters more — the crowd or the single human being? That question has shaped societies for centuries, and this lecture from Academy of Ideas brings in one of the sharpest critics of the crowd: the economist Ludwig von Mises. Mises argued that only individuals ever truly act, that every collective is an arbitrary invention, and that the lofty goals waved above the group are usually just the goals of the people holding the stick. Nietzsche arrives near the end with a colder warning: the state is the coldest of all cold monsters.
Full Video Transcript
Philosophers have long debated over whether it is the collective or the individual who should be viewed as superior and of more value, but rarely has a consensus been met.
This unresolved debate is important because the prevailing views on this issue often determine how a society organizes itself, and thus the quality of life for its citizens.
In this lecture we are going to examine a critique of collectivism by one of the most prolific philosophers of the 20th century, Ludwig von Mises.
Mises was born in 1881 in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and is best known for his contributions to the field of economics.
However, he also made important contributions to many other fields including epistemology, ethics,
political philosophy, social theory, and history. Throughout his life, Mises always showed a concern for defending individual freedoms, as
he saw them as essential for lasting peace and prosperity.
prosperity. Consequently, he was also concerned with combating collectivism. The meanings
of the terms collectivism and individualism, like many of the terms used in political discourse,
are quite ambiguous. However, when discussing them the issue which is usually of most concern
is whether the goals of the collective should be seen as more important than the goals of
the individual, which would be the collectivist position, or whether the goals of the individual
should be viewed as supreme, the individualist position. Integral to Mises’ critique of
the collectivist position was methodological individualism, a doctrine which holds that
only individuals act. To Mises the truth of this was obvious, only individuals act, and
any action by a collective can ultimately be reduced to the actions of various individuals.
In The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science, Mises has this to say about methodological
individualism. In denying independent existence of their own to the collectives, one does not in the
least deny the reality of the effects brought about by the cooperation of individuals. One
merely establishes the fact that the collectives come into being by the thoughts and actions of
individuals, and that they disappear when the individuals adopt a different way of thinking
and acting. While not denying the existence of collectives, methodological individualism denies
the ability of any collective to exist in an autonomous manner, independent of the individuals
who compose it.
Mises stressed the importance of methodological individualism because he believed that often
people who favor the collectivist position will try to assert some form of independent
existence to their collective in order to justify the elevation of its goals.
Mises has two main criticisms for those who want to elevate the supposed goals of a collective
above those of the individual. Firstly, Mises stressed a point which is easily overlooked,
that being, that the creation of a collective is always arbitrary. In other words, because
collectives virtually never include the entirety of mankind, criteria must be established to
distinguish between who is to be included and who excluded from the collectives. But
there is no set way to determine such criteria, and this is why throughout history collectives
have taken so many forms, whether it be collectives determined by race, religion, wealth, or country
of birth. As such, at any given time there always exists a plurality of collectives,
and each collective believes their goals are superior, not only to those of the individual,
but also those of all rival collectives. In his work Theory and History, Mises emphasizes
this point by saying there is no uniform collectivist ideology but many
collectivist doctrines each of them extols a different collectivist entity
and requests all decent people to submit to it each sect worships its own idol
and is intolerant of all rival idols the second criticism Mises put forth was
that the goals which are elevated over those of the individual are never
actually the goals of an autonomous collective, as no such thing exists, but rather are merely
the goals of those who exert power or influence over the collective at any given point in time.
Mises believed that this was why countries which become increasingly collective also become
increasingly unstable. As he puts it in his monumental work, Human Action,
It is true that every variety of collectivism promises eternal peace starting with the day
of its own decisive victory. However, the realization of these plans is conditioned
upon a radical transformation in mankind. Man must be divided into two classes, the omnipotent
godlike dictator on the one hand, and the masses which must surrender volition and reasoning in
order to become mere chessmen in the plans of the dictator. There is no need to point out that such
designs are unrealizable. In opposition to collectivist doctrines, Mises was in favor of
individualism, or in other words, the ability of each individual to choose his or her own goals
and act accordingly, whether that led to the starting of a charity to help the poor,
working construction, or just sitting on the couch all day contemplating the meaning of life.
However, in executing one’s plans, Mises believed that each individual should respect the rights
and freedoms of others. It is important to stress that Mises did not promote individualism because
he was somehow against society or other collective entities. Rather, his strong support for individualism
was based on his belief that the individualist position was essential for long-term peace
and prosperity. Mises believed that when individuals work to achieve their own goals, they readily
recognize the mutual benefits that arise from cooperation, voluntary exchange, and the division
of labor, and that these social phenomena are not at all incompatible with the individualist
position, but rather incompatible with collectivism. Mises conveys this by saying,
the customary terminology misrepresents these things entirely. The philosophy commonly called
individualism is a philosophy of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of the social
nexus. On the other hand, the application of the basic idea of collectivism cannot result in
anything but social disintegration and the perpetuation of armed conflict. Another philosopher
Another philosopher who was strongly against collectivism, but likely for different reasons than Mises, was Friedrich Nietzsche.
Nietzsche believed that only autonomous individuals are of any worth, and that those who are bound up in the ideals and goals of a collective, or what he called a herd,
are really individuals too weak to create their own goals and meaning for life.
To conclude this lecture, we will quote a short passage by Nietzsche from his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra,
which, in a much different style, puts forth a somewhat similar view to that of Mises.
Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not where we live, my brothers.
Here there are states. State? What is that?
Well then, open your ears to me, for now I shall speak to you about the death of peoples.
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters.
Coldly it tells lies too, and this lie crawls out of its mouth.
I, the state, am the people. That is a lie.
Behold how it lures them, the all too many, and how it devours them, chews them, and ruminates.
Source: Academy of Ideas
This reminds me of Apple’s famous “Think Different” campaign from the late 90s:
Are you a crazy one?
Predator or prey?
Roxz or brixz?