Sauron and collectivism

[Bergil]

I may have finally found the (possibly unintended) point to Tolkien's works. All of Tolkien's important villans (Sauron, Melkor, Nazgul, Saruman especially) share one thing, they're all collectivists. For those who don't know, collectivism referrs to the philosophy that a person should be part of a group, rather then a thing of himself. (It is also, to my mind (and I think tolkien agrees), the politically correct way of saying evil, and can be said to encompass any system of government where a person who is (hint:not) "deciding the common good", is unremovable, unchecked, and bad, and people are told that they are only a gear rather then a whole machine untill it becomes true.) My evidence is that I once said that the ultimate goal of collectivists is to turn people mindless, like ants who have no minds save for queens, and Tolkien compares the orcs after Sauron's fall to ants whose queen had been stepped on. Also, people often point to the Scouring's ruffians' comunism (a faecet of collectivism). In brief, I think orcs have been propgandized into being automatons, and helping try to do the same to anyone else. Am I right, wrong, or stupid?

[Kuruharan]

While I agree with you that Tolkien found the reduction of people to "cogs in a machine" status as a bad thing to be fought against, I don't think he was really making a comment on collectivism in his books over any other particular type of system. I don't think it is supportable to say he made any comment on this in LOTR or the Sil.

[littlemanpoet]

Collectivism is one extreme on a continuum, the other being radical individualism. The healthy medium in between these two is community.

Those in LotR who reflect Collectivism are Orcs and the Nazgul.

Those who reflect radical individualism are Gollum, Saruman, Denethor, and Sauron.

Those who reflect community are the Hobbits, the Fellowship of the Ring, and all the Free Peoples.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Well for one I don't agree with your analesys of collectivism. I see at as a system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively. So it is a mather of who owns what and all of the top evil persons is as LMP says despots and there way of governing really has nothing to do with collectivism.

The orcs may be symbol to the masses in such a system, but that depends on Tolkiens view on collectivism. (By my view it could not be further from the truth)Some people think that people are turned into mindless slaves in collectivism, I don't.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Well for one I don't agree with your analesys of collectivism. I see at as a system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively. So it is a mather of who owns what and all of the top evil persons is as LMP says despots and there way of governing really has nothing to do with collectivism.

The orcs may be symbol to the masses in such a system, but that depends on Tolkiens view on collectivism. (By my view it could not be further from the truth)Some people think that people are turned into mindless slaves in collectivism, I don't.

True, it doesn't have to be that way. The critical issue in the real world is that where a collectivist system is put in place, someone must be appointed (whether by the collective or by oneself or one's supporters) to the role of caretaker of the system, since the collective itself needs some form of administration. Even Democratic socialism places the administration in the hands of a small group of administrators. The potential for corruption in a democratic form of collectivism is the least, but still there; when a small group of people is given the power to appoint an administrator, it gets worse. And when one individual appoints himself, by force, to be that administrator, that is of course despotism, and the form that wreaked the most havoc upon the world during the 20th century in the persons of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and a host of African, Asian, and Central American and South American despots.

As for Tolkien, he preferred monarchy to democracy, and distrusted any system that was even newer than democracy, including collectivism, because he didn't trust the will of the people to rise above the lowest common denominator.

[Bergil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As for Tolkien, he preferred monarchy to democracy, and distrusted any system that was even newer than democracy, including collectivism, because he didn't trust the will of the people to rise above the lowest common denominator.

That's going a bit too far. Tolkien wrote monarchys to be beleivable (possibly among other reasons), and made his monarchys free of the problem of real monarchys (royal parents not teaching their children about the responsibility they hold) so we could cheer for them, and no-one but a complete conformist would argue that this monarchy would be worse then the half-democraceis of today (my perfect government would be somthing unheard-of, a council of 23 randomly selected people changing every 10 years backed by a good constitution that clearly states that it cannot be changed, among other things, or failing that a democracy with no parties and a limit of 1 term in office, but that's beside the point). Collectivism isn't a philosophy written somewhere, like democracy or communism, but more of a mindset.

EDIT: I am not insulting you or saying that you are unarguably wrong. just clearing that up.