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.

[Kuruharan]

That's going a bit too far. Tolkien wrote monarchys to be beleivable

I have to disagree with this to some extent. Some of Tolkien's writings bear the stamp of a genuine preference for monarchy.

See especially Letter # 52

[Lalwendë]

Interestingly (to me at any rate ) Tolkien's political preference seems to be for monarchies, with an associated class system - yet he still shows how monarchies are ineffective systems of government. It's shown to be good for the people when a King such as Aragorn is in charge, but he also shows how a greedy, lazy or simply power hungry monarch can wreak havoc - in both the appendices about Gondor in LotR and in Numenor. He also goes one step further to show how unelected officials can be incredibly corrupt, as seen in Grima's actions. Notonly does Tolkien show us these shortcomings, but he also shows us the fragilities of monarchies, how the 'line' can become confused or even lost altogether.

I'd say his 'ideal' was the monarch as demonstrated by Aragorn, but he realised that the system itself could be problematic. Though I do have to ask whether any of the political systems we see in the modern world would 'fit' in the world Tolkien created.

[Bêthberry]

Well, the man was a medievalist and was a devout Roman Catholic. He would not be unacquainted with the concept of The Divine Right of Kings , which is also discussed here and here also.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bergil

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

No offense taken, my friend.

Originally Posted by Bergil

That's going a bit too far.

Actually, as Kuruharan says (thanks for that reference, Kuru), Tolkien's Letter #52 demonstrates his preference for monarchy:

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) - or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could get back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people. If people were in the habit of referring to 'King George's council, Winston and his gang', it would go a long way to clearing thought, and reducing the frightful landslide into Theyocracy.

Yes, there's a lot of tongue-firmly-in-cheek sarcasm in this; yet his meaning is clear.

Collectivism isn't a philosophy written somewhere, like democracy or communism, but more of a mindset.

Really!?!?!? Don't forget about Karl Marx.

[Lalwendë]

Even democracy itself could be seen to be a collectivist system - where the will and needs of the majority are paramount. As to what Tolkien intended, he may have been against one type of collectivism, but he was not against all, as there are many different ways of interpreting and using the theory. I think we are in danger of equating collectivism solely with Communist states and believing that this was the only thing Tolkien mistrusted. However, this is only one kind of collectivism, controlled by 'the State' (and Tolkien was clearly against this); another kind is that exercised by large companies where the workforce are dispensable, faceless resources according to the wishes of the collective of shareholders. Tolkien was against any of these forms of collectivism which exploited and controlled the individual, this was his 'machine'.

In one sense, Tolkien has Utopian ideals (though I'm not so sure his books are exactly Utopian!), he certainly has a purist, Utopian vision of what Anarchism means. He dislikes the idea that a small group of people can control the population, and can see that a hierarchy and a complex state can lead to loss of individuality. Though I do doubt how far he really does like the idea of Anarchy. It would mean that there would be no rulers, no class system, and it would mean the introduction of...collectivism. But this would be collectivism as seen on Kibbutzes, where the community works together to achieve what it needs for survival (in modern terms, if we had it, we might all take it in turns to empty the bins, care for the elderly, teach the kids, mend the roads etc). However, it does appear that in The Shire there could be such an idea in practice at its most simple level, community spirit.

Tolkien's political ideas seem confused at times to me, in one letter he mentioned that it was good for the ordinary man to doff his hat to the squire, which does not sit with the idea of the abolition of control! But we must be fair, he was not intentionally writing a political work (though some say that nothing can be created that is without politics), and we have gleaned information on his own views from his letters, private documents. Tolkien's ideas are no more confusing than anybody's views!

Interestingly, an important influence on Tolkien (and on Lewis) was William Morris, a famous Socialist at the centre of the late Victorian Arts and Crafts movement. Morris himself was a writer, creating new versions of Icelandic sagas, and he wrote the Utopian novel News From Nowhere. The Arts and Crafts movement had the philosophy that craftspeople should enjoy their work, that they should create objects themselves, instead of having factories make objects; this tallies strongly with Tolkien's own dislike of the 'machine'. Morris felt strongly that traditional crafts should be kept going, and that craftspeople were important people, 'art'isans. That is reflected strongly in Tolkien's reverence for craftspeople, and hatred of people like Saruman who used technology to move towards soul-less mass production and control; it is also reflected in Tolkien's creation of The Shire, a rural society where a humble gardener like Sam can be 'important'. I think it is to Morris we should look if we want to find Tolkien's own ideas of how society should be.

[littlemanpoet]

Some of what you seem to be trying for, Lalwendë, could be handled by distinguishing between:

• collectivist - a socio/economic philosophy
• collectives - a socio/economic entity based on the philosophy
• collections - or group; in this case, of people; at best when functioning as community . . . which is what it does in The Shire

[Bergil]

[quote]Really!?!?!? Don't forget about Karl Marx.[/quote}

that's called either communism or socialism, depending who you ask. I fear I have nothing of impportance to say, except that I agree with the "winston and his gang" quote.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

In one sense, Tolkien has Utopian ideals (though I'm not so sure his books are exactly Utopian!), he certainly has a purist, Utopian vision of what Anarchism means. He dislikes the idea that a small group of people can control the population, and can see that a hierarchy and a complex state can lead to loss of individuality. Though I do doubt how far he really does like the idea of Anarchy. It would mean that there would be no rulers, no class system, and it would mean the introduction of...collectivism. But this would be collectivism as seen on Kibbutzes, where the community works together to achieve what it needs for survival (in modern terms, if we had it, we might all take it in turns to empty the bins, care for the elderly, teach the kids, mend the roads etc). However, it does appear that in The Shire there could be such an idea in practice at its most simple level, community spirit.

I agree in most of what you are saying.

I belive that Tolkien was fond of the idear of anarchisme in it's final form. Where you live in small comunities (like the Shire) with no regualation from above. The communeties will probalby be ruled by direct democracy, wich means that everybody decides what to do. When all of the world is devidet in these small comuneties, you might ask your self what is to stop these comuneties from trying to attack each other. Well the same reson nations in the EU does not want to go to war against one another: Economical interdependency if they are all dependent one another you really don't want to risk anything by going to war. I dont know if Tolkien wantet to remove the monetary system, but that would normaly allso be a part of anarchism.

What I find funny is that Tolkien clearly is not thrilled about Comunism, but the mather of fact is that when comunism reaches it's final state and there is no more capitalism and socialism in the world. Then according to theory the communist the state will move one to the next stage Anarchism. ( Because when differentiation between classes disappear, so too will the state disappear.)

P.S: I don't think that any anarchist theory has statet that people had to take turns at doing the differen activities.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Bergil

that's called either communism or socialism, depending who you ask. I fear I have nothing of impportance to say, except that I agree with the "winston and his gang" quote.

It is both !

As you know Karl Marx wrote (with help from Friedrich Engels) the communist manifesto. In wich he describes the way to Communism (and eventually anarchism). The path start's at the Feudal society wich is then removed by a bourgeois revolution leading to capitalism, then the Communist revolution, but a society does not become communist just like that and until you have real communism you are only at a stage of soicalism.

Another difference is that Comunisme can never be reached by reforms, Socialism on the other hand can.

(look at Scandinavia we are democratic socialists/reformed socialists. Even the conservative and liberals have to accept this otherwise they have no chance of winning the elections)

EDIT: POST 700 YAY !