Collectivism's Creed: The Revolt Against Biological Reality

Escape mechanism is defined by Merriam Webster as a way of behaving or thinking that is used to avoid unpleasant facts or problems

Applied to the world of politics, popular solutions to every known social ill have almost always been framed by the establishment in the context of some sort of utopian requisite conditions.

Think for example corruption, the idea of ‘good governance’ has always been associated with angelic or immaculate virtues that should be espoused by the political leader/s. But when shortcomings or the unfulfillment of expectations emerge, culpability will mostly be blamed on the leader’s individualistic flaws. Legal and or political institutional barriers and or knowledge limitations and or even incentives of political leaders (as human being) operating under the current political economic system itself will hardly ever been questioned.

Hence, the never ending circus of personality based politics; sell "change" by changing leaders.

Yet this penchant to solve society’s imperfections really represents the nirvana fallacy or perfect solution fallacy—the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.

And because popular politics signifies the politics of the economically uniformed, it’s easier to connect with the populace’s grievances by matching utopianism as remedy

Thus the escape mechanism-Nirvana fallacy approach serving as the foundations of the creed of collectivism 

At the Mises Blog Ryan McMaken explains:

From Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays by Murray Rothbard: 

“The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will—in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings. Surely this sort of infantile thinking is at the heart of Herbert Marcuse’s passionate call for the comprehensive negation of the existing structure of reality and for its transformation into what he divines to be its true potential.

Nowhere is the Left Wing attack on ontological reality more apparent than in the Utopian dreams of what the future socialist society will look like. In the socialist future of Charles Fourier, according to Ludwig von Mises:

“all harmful beasts will have disappeared, and in their places will be animals which will assist man in his labors—or even do his work for him. An antibeaver will see to the fishing; an antiwhale will move sailing ships in a calm; an antihippopotamus will tow the river boats. Instead of the lion there will be an antilion, a steed of wonderful swiftness, upon whose back the rider will sit as comfortably as in a well-sprung carriage. “It will be a pleasure to live in a world with such servants.”

Furthermore, according to Fourier, the very oceans would contain lemonade rather than salt water.

Similarly absurd fantasies are at the root of the Marxian utopia of communism. Freed from the supposed confines of specialization and the division of labor (the heart of any production above the most primitive level and hence of any civilized society), each person in the communist utopia would fully develop all of his powers in every direction.17 As Engels wrote in his Anti-Dühring, communism would give “each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions.” And Lenin looked forward in 1920 to the “abolition of the division of labor among people . . . the education, schooling, and training of people with an all-around development and an all-around training, people able to do everything. Communism is marching and must march toward this goal, and will reach it.”

In his trenchant critique of the communist vision, Alexander Gray charges:

“That each individual should have the opportunity of developing all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions, is a dream which will cheer the vision only of the simpleminded, oblivious of the restrictions imposed by the narrow limits of human life. For life is a series of acts of choice, and each choice is at the same time a renunciation.

“Even the inhabitant of Engels’s future fairyland will have to decide sooner or later whether he wishes to be Archbishop of Canterbury or First Sea Lord, whether he should seek to excel as a violinist or as a pugilist, whether he should elect to know all about Chinese literature or about the hidden pages in the life of a mackerel.

Of course one way to try to resolve this dilemma is to fantasize that the New Communist Man of the future will be a superman, superhuman in his abilities to transcend nature. William Godwin thought that, once private property was abolished, man would become immortal. The Marxist theoretician Karl Kautsky asserted that in the future communist society, “a new type of man will arise . . . a superman . . . an exalted man.” And Leon Trotsky prophesied that under communism:

“man will become incomparably stronger, wiser, finer. His body more harmonious, his movements more rhythmical, his voice more musical. . . . The human average will rise to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, a Marx. Above these other heights new peaks will arise.