Over the past few years, and certainly in the last few months, much has been said about the political philosophies known as Socialism, Marxism, and Communism. Two years ago, Newsweek magazine famously published their cover story "We're All Socialists Now" where they argued that the United States is more of a socialist state than most people realize.

Since then, I've personally observed an increase in the number of people who are willing to openly admit to supporting these philosophies, despite their legacies tainted with stigma. There's no question that more people are warming to the idea of being socialist or communist and there are more people coming out of the woodwork as apologists for all the bad things that have been done by past socialists and communists. See film director Oliver Stone for example.

Because of the sensationalism surrounding the terms associated with these philosophies, I'd like to take a bird's eye view of them with a more general term applied: Collectivism. I think most people would agree there are fewer negative connotations with that term than with Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or even Progressivism.

What is Collectivism?

First, let's look at the basic premise behind collectivism. Enter: Wikipedia:

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals.

It goes on to say that collectivists usually associate collective groups with "community, society, or nation." I'd add "world" to that as well.

I have to admit, collectivism sounds great. I mean, who doesn't want everyone to get along and be one, big happy family?

When it comes to politics, we see collectivism all over the place and many examples have come to be accepted as natural domains for the way governments should operate. For example, speed limits on roads. Speed limits are set and enforced for the safety of all who travel on the road. There may be individual drivers who can safely drive 10, 20, or 30 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, but the collective judgment is that the posted speed limit will deliver a better result for the bulk of the people subjected to it.

It's much easier for law enforcement to enforce one speed limit than individual speed limits for each person.

Individualism - the opposite of collectivism

As seen in the speed limit example above, the alternative to subjecting everyone to one rule is subjecting each person to an individual rule. The rights and abilities of the individual are affected by collectivist policies.

This doesn't seem like a bad thing. Consider how most group health insurance plans work: You get health insurance through your employer as a member of a collective -- a group of employees in the same insurance policy group. As a result, you usually pay a much lower insurance premium than you would if you went to an insurance company as an individual.

Another example is labor unions. Through collective bargaining, labor unions are able to negotiate better wages, better working conditions, and other benefits for union members. It's unlikely that an individual worker could negotiate these things for him or herself.

Class action lawsuits are a mixed bag when it comes to benefits from being in a collective. It's certainly easier to not have to sue someone yourself who has wronged you. Instead, you let the lawyers representing the collective group behind the class action lawsuit fight for everyone. The downside, however, is that compensation or your portion of the settlement amount in a class action lawsuit is typically much, much smaller than if you had brought the litigation to court yourself.