Sauron and collectivism - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

littlemanpoet · 12-19-2005, 09:08 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Really!?!?!?

Don't forget about Karl Marx.

Lalwendë · 12-21-2005, 05:09 AM

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 · 12-21-2005, 03:27 PM

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 · 12-21-2005, 05:03 PM

[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 · 12-21-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

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 !

Rune Son of Bjarne · 12-21-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

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.

12-21-2005, 05:09 AM	#2
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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. __________________ Gordon's alive!

12-21-2005, 03:27 PM	#3
littlemanpoet Itinerant Songster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Edge of Faerie Posts: 7,066	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

12-21-2005, 05:03 PM	#4
Bergil Wight Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the Lepetomaine Gambling Casino For The Insane Posts: 157	i seem to have dropped a "Grenade" (see flamewarriors) on the board [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. __________________ I support...something.