“The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.”
Please explain to me what exactly has caste (or for that matter any ethnic or tribal) violence got to do with the idea of collectivism?
The way in which I use the term “collectivism” is indeed correct. Take a look at the following Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
“Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are often related to holism or organicism - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. Collectivism is widely seen as the antipole of individualism.”
Does the caste system stress the importance of a collective rather than the importance of individuals? Yes. It considers individual membership in a caste as more important than that individual’s personal qualities.
Does the caste system focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals? Yes. Individuals have been murdered in India because their goals and aspirations contradict the “caste goal” of rigidly adhering to one’s station in life.
Does the caste system entail seeing society as a whole as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society? Certainly it does. This is why advocates of the caste system are ready to brutally sacrifice those who rebel against it.
Collectivism, as I use it, is fundamentally a view of morality and of man’s place in the world that is diametrically opposed to individualism. The Wikipedia definition is entirely in agreement with such usage.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/46796/g_stolyarov_ii.html