The Collective

When I hear that term, I must admit I think of the Borg in the new Star Trek Universe, half-human, half-machine individuals fully subordinant to the will of the whole, emphasized in the first encounter by drones totally ignoring the invading boarding party, apparently because they didn't pose an immediate strategic risk, and perhaps comparable to visions of the British Empire and its disciplined soldiers who would systematically stand in full view, rows and columns, shooting in peak efficiency to the army, even at the cost of safety of the individual soldiers.

Individual freedom inhabits our entire being, at least for most modern peoples. Only specialized military or religious training can tear down these walls of self-protection. Was it always so? I mostly expect so, at least in times and places of peace and abundance. Only when faced by danger or change we want to avoid do we look to the whole for guidance and collective security.

I suppose we're all basically already within a collective system, one that constrains our freedoms in some ways (You have to have money to live), and empowers individual choices in others (Money as a universal value system - status doesn't give the same money more value to some over others.) The promises of security for food and shelter come from overall modest money demands and wider consumerism is driven by surpluses, which creates new jobs to expand the system over more of the natural world and resources within our reach.

Perhaps the repulsiveness of the Borg collective is from a wider perspective not too much worse than the repulsiveness of our system - one which rewards workers with trinkets for the present, but incapable of long term planning that can keep prosperity available for the masses.

I keep thinking that we can and must do better, and I see the first step is always the hardest - individuals must find a way to find a middle alleigence between immediate family and the vast incomprehensible whole that keeps us alive. We must somehow band together in common purpose against common dangers and help pull our path away from guaranteed destruction.

It's a tricky issue, at least I can't really see, stuck in my own defenses that don't trust others to equal my devotion, or willingness to sacrifice, but equally in my own unwillingness to further abandon the "mother culture" that keeps me fed and full each day.

I mostly imagine progress comes from building a circle larger than immediate family, and using this collective power to strengthen our self-determination, and do more than could be done individually. In other words I tend towards communistic thoughts, maximizing shared wealth, minimizing the value of individual wealth.

I see a number of different components, but ultimately it comes down to work for me, for "creating jobs" that make a difference, and empowering our daily effort to work towards a goal we set. I don't easily know how to escape the idea of "income sharing", at least that I expect that many participates will be best empowered by earning money by outside jobs, and such jobs will within the current "cheap energy" system earn much more than "internal jobs". Well, I mean in a classical sense, you can imagine a parent or teacher as a "job" that is planting seeds that require long term investments without immediate income. How can a collective balance the needs and power of individuals where some can be compensated by grossly offensive results to the collective, and others effectively working "for free" in terms of immediate value? The "compromise" that comes from capitalism exists by the fact some really will work "for peanuts" because its something they love, but others, perhaps equally inspired compromise to other occupations that have higher compensation.

In a nuclear family, at least with children, its assumed all external income will go into a common fund to pay for bills, but pretty much in all other collectives, individuals hold the money and constribute fractionally. The only communistic compromise comes out in policies like "progress tax rates" and such, although I've always thought in a household collective "progressive rent" made sense at least.

Daniel Quinn and his "new tribalism" says his approach isn't "communism", that people will live separate and form associations for collective work that offers lower compensation in exchange for doing things they love. It's a good vision, and the only weakness I see is that it perhaps doesn't exploit the current abundance as well as it could - specifically the idea of mixing work - basically some participates subsidizing the living of others to do what they love which may not even "break even" in terms of short term profits. It's just like parenthood, or a large corporation subsidizing new development from older development profits.

Anyway, these thoughts seem both very hard, from the point of view of an isolated individual in a world that is infested by short term greed and self-advantage, as well as other "costs". The biggest cost I fear is time-requirements of community - meetings are not my favorite place to be, and yet a collective requires larger participation in decisions and building a collective vision.

I have hope, but mostly I know there's many skills needed in collective action, and no promises for success. I too easily retreat from grand visions that require long term devotion and uncertain results, whether individual or collective goals. I'll as well take the easy life, exploit what's available to me, just like everyone else. My only virtue is I can sometimes say NO to what I don't need, and that frees both time and money to explore other things...