Live After Quit

Why Do Western Celebrities Usually Support Collectivism?

It won’t be away from anyone’s knowledge not to observe the way many active celebrities favor collectivist ideology. Most probably the answer to why intellectuals favor socialism or collectivism is answered clearly. Unlike in the twentieth century, actors and athletes are more popular than scholars. Therefore, the new concern should be why these famous personalities in the majority favor one or the other way of collectivism. It’s not that this case holds for everyone but only those who are more actively involved in these topics.

To make confusion clear, this article is not talking about someone leaning to the left or right but simply to someone supporting any form of collectivism that is on both sides of the political spectrum. Obviously, some stars don’t tend to speak on these matters and avoid them to their best, and probably many of them might be individualist because all they do is, “Mind their own business.”

The obsession with collectivism amongst these popular names can be because of the theory’s aesthetic feature, to gain followers and a marketing strategy to attract the masses. In the West, there are so called “liberals” and in India, it depends mainly on which side of political spectrum is in power. But no matter what they show to support, their main aim is to portray themselves as wise and moral in front of the public. This reminds a popular quote by Thomas Sowell: “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.”

Celebrities are just like intellectuals. Though there are a few differences, a celebrity attracts those who are in their teenage or who have the mental capability of that level whereas Intellectuals attract people in power and students. Both are dangerous in their way as one attracts the masses while the other attracts power and in all this democracy becomes a joke.

Secondly (my friend raised this question to me that we are both trying to find the answer), it is important to understand why and how these people especially from the Left get to the conclusion that whatever they are doing or supporting is moral. In this dogmatic belief, they become intolerant. This applies to all collectivists, and they almost always present their thoughts forcefully.

This question might seem simple, but it isn’t, because even if everyone in their own belief considers themselves doing right and are not all intolerant, the individualists or the scholars advocating it aren’t like those on the other side. This seems to be the nature of the collectivists. This psychology might be of celebrities too who have self-confidence or overconfidence on their morality.

Thirdly, as mentioned how this can be a strategy to uplift the careers of people through publicity and more fan following, to add more, any form of collectivism is master of making cronies fatter. The established ones try their best to suppress the competitive environment to keep their dominance alive with a kind of monopolistic power. More government is better for them according to their benefit. It can also be a case that there is some political strategy involved in a political organization too. Anyone supporting anticapitalistic and progovernment approach with an anger and hate toward rich are actually making them more powerful and richer.

Lastly, which seems to be in most cases is the ignorance. Ignorance about the consequences of what they are supporting, about history, or about the crux of their ideology which has been judged from an overview.

Celebrities’ knowledge in these matters is just like that of every ordinary person and there is a possibility of being lesser too. It is not wrong to be involved in these matters or in their words “show concern for others” but, it is immoral when those who don’t want to be part of it are also dragged and when they refuse to be part of the campaign they are judged and falsely alleged.

Celebrities nowadays are so-called influencers who tell people to live and think like them. If someone is so capable of taking responsibility for society themselves then they can give it a try, but nobody gives them the right to take anyone for granted to believe them for no reason.

Someone can have information about happenings in his/her surroundings or country but getting involved in matters of other countries and causing a disturbance is what gets intolerable. There were popular personalities residing in the USA who not long ago supported farmers’ protest in India without knowing how much subsidies are given to those farmers who live a luxurious life off taxpayers. These people failed to even acknowledge what propaganda was involved in these protests and how many public properties were damaged.

After so long something good was going to happen in farming sector of the country but it was completely ruined as the government took back their decision seeing the elections approach. These celebrities played a major role in boosting the protests for their own benefit.

Though it is quite clear that the majority lean more toward socialism/leftism, but it doesn’t rule out the fact that their leaning toward any other ideology say, nationalism would be any better. Maybe in the West nationalism isn’t at a much higher degree due to high number of “liberals” and probably due to this they won’t understand how dangerous nationalism could also get but it is quite visible in India at present which earlier had a socialist past.