Something I have noticed about a lot of the protests and anger is the idea that the people involved want the power, but not the responsibility. I'll use women as my example, but I have spoken to others. I asked them if they knew all of the responsibilities men grow up with. The idea that paying for a wife and kids seemed kind of foreign and surprising to them. The job is so important to the male psyche that they often look at themselves as their job. So many women have been raised that the man pays for things, they don't understand the concept of balancing a budget, or how much a dinner costs.
I expect some maliciousness, but I also suspect the majority of people who are saying things have honestly never known about the responsibility and identifying with it. They haven't been told, and most people assume they have. The malicious are specifically making sure this information doesn't spread.
I also suspect the reason why is Men were trying to show kindness by praising women and denigrating themselves. This attempt to look at the greatness of the other can be very humble and good. It leads to problems when the reality isn't explained to the women involved.
Have you seen this pattern? What signs and ideas go along with it?
All forms of collectivism are this.
True collectivism, the kind that you occasionally glimpse in the military, is brutal and dehumanizing. Most people do not want, and do not enjoy, being in a situation where they are required to take responsibility for everyone's failures, and where success is disseminated to the group.
When you personally succeed, your personal success is irrelevant compared to how much the group actually improved. Literal heroism is normally required to steady a situation where everyone else is fucking up. On the other hand, your personal failure, is a direct threat to the entire group, and the entire group will make an effort to un-fuck you. If someone else succeeds, everyone demands you rise to his level. If someone fails, it's your fault for letting it happen, as if you did it yourself.
True collectivism requires so much personal responsibility, that it's more than most people could bare, let alone would ever chose to. True collectivism doesn't ever diffuse responsibility, it makes everyone your responsibility. But that aggressive personal responsibility is exactly what makes true collectivism beneficial to anyone at all.
However, most forms of collectivism exist to diffuse responsibility, while stealing praise. Someone else's success is automatically your personal success because that person is a member of your tribe. It doesn't matter that you didn't contribute, didn't work, or maybe even undermined that guy; because he's your tribe, you get to claim his success as your own. This is the essence of the "We was kings" mentality, and that goes for the White Nationalists too. Someone else did something great, therefore you claim that you have the right to feel better about something you never once contributed to, and never will. Even if you have to hide in delusions and warlords like Black Nationalists.
At the same time, you never have any responsibility for failure. Not even in a communal sense. A member of your tribe did something wrong? Well: "that was just an enemy tribe making us look bad", "that guy deserved it", "that story is out of context", "that guy wasn't a real tribesman", "that's just one incident and you can't take it out on the rest of us", insert whatever fucking worthless excuse you want. No one takes responsibility for something going wrong, and everyone gets to steal responsibility for things they never earned. All collectivists are just lying individualists, the way most religious zealots and prophets are atheists who are lying to your face when they say they talked to God.
Individualism requires responsibility, otherwise it will destroy the individual and lead them into the waiting arms of an authoritarian. A collectivist is a useful idiot to an authoritarian who wishes to remove any sense of personal responsibility for their own failures. And an authoritarian is an individualist who gleefully lies to the useful idiots while taking away everyone's responsibility to use them as cannon fodder.
You must seize your personal responsibility, and then add to it (not remove it) in order to achieve contentment, let alone greatness.
Sounds like sports when the fans are blaming the ref for the team not scoring as well. It's not a collective, it's a tribal false collective.
I like your response to how it should work. Any other examples?
There are some 'true' collectives, but they are still typically rare.
Very close family units are a good example. Sometimes this can include tribal families or Clans. Size is a huge problem for such collectives because relating only on kinship as a collectivizing feature becomes very weak the larger your clan group gets (whether the racialists and ethno-nationalists understand this point or not).
Small religious sects, not whole religions but specific communities, may do this for one another because they've associated using a shared value system. These can grow wider than families, but because the collectivizing feature is still based off an idea, any loss of support for that idea breaks the collective. When things go wrong, they tend to become totalitarian.
For the most part, that's as big as genuine collectives can get without things beginning to really break: small, tight-knit communities.
The military is only good at getting close to true collectivism because they institutionalize that standard as ideal, push individualism as selfish and potentially damaging concept, and regularly let people leave. The military ends up having high turn-over, even among good individuals, because the collectivism is stifling. Even a small failure in leadership can destroy large segments of a collective, so your collective's leadership typically has to be excellent. Literally: "above reproach", which is also a nearly impossible task.
That's really the only way true collectivism can work at any larger scale than a close knit community: short, temporary, stints. Once again, this is based on the concept of an activated militia, which the military (particularly the US one) tends to idealize.
You, as an individual, can choose to temporarily collectivize to deal with a particular issue for a short period of time, and the damage will be minimal to moderate. Doing it for too long causes huge problems as people get resentful or damaged and demand the right to leave.
The bigger your true collective is, the smaller your time frame. The longer your time frame, the smaller your collective is... until you approach an infinite time frame with a collective of 1, at which point you are simply an individual again.
This would explain why some religions make sure to have small congregations. It keeps the group working together.
Very much so. It can also protect the integrity of the religion-at-large.
One of the reasons the US has never had a true religious war (outside of Mormon aggression, and a Christian split over slavery), despite founding multiple religions in it's own borders, is because the refusal to allow the government to regulate religion has turned it into a mostly free market. This means that no religion is allowed to coerce people to stay within the religion outside of basic bitch social pressure. It also means that congregants have the right to chose which religious community best suits their needs.
So, some religions will have many churches and small congregations that keep the religious community tight. And if there are any problems (like if a the priest gets replaced by a priest who's an asshole), the congregants can always chose to go to a new church (with less assholes). Or, if it's a tight enough community, they can always put social pressure on the priest to improve.