Collectivism is a form of morality with Confucius being a classic example and Taoism championed by Lao Tzu providing a more anarchistic perspective on the subject. I'm not that familiar with Confucius myself, but I'm sure you can find any number of good books that contrast the two authors.

Its basic left wing politics which are comparable to the distinction between Jeffersonian democracy and that of Lincoln. Like Jefferson, Lao Tzu supported the peasantry and middle class forming a nation of farmers and tradesmen while, like Lincoln, Confucius argued for a more bureaucratic state, growth and progress. Eventually the superior numbers and guns of the north defeated the south and the same happened in China after roughly two thousand years of conflict between the Taoists and Confucians, but the victory was short lived with the rise of communism. Among communists today this is still a hugely divisive issue and, for example, on secular communes in the west it is common to refer to their politics as the "Stalinists" verses the "Anarchists".

It's a subject in its own right. Called 'politics'.

How does one go about balancing the needs of the individual vs. the collective? — Nick Sousa

It starts by recognising that there are two complementary needs that both ought to be maximised. So the balance is about doing justice to both sides - both sides being inherently positives, and so that makes the calculation more complex than if one side is the positive, the other the negative.

So the two positive values - as recognised by standard social science - is the balancing of individual competition, or creative freedom, and global co-operation, or collective constraints. A flourishing system is rich both in integration and differentiation.

So the dynamic is easy to describe. It is what normal moral codes seek to achieve. And complexity theory would allow you to model it. It would be the basis of modern theories of community resilience or "third way" political reforms for example.

How does one go about balancing the needs of the individual vs. the collective? — Nick Sousa

Ah, I forgot to answer this question. My own view is that, currently, the world is ruled by the money and the guns doing most of the talking worth listening to. For example, the US military is equal to the next six or seven largest combined and we pay half the costs for both NATO and the UN all "supposedly" for defense purposes as if we are defending ourselves against the entire world. The sad truth is, we install dictators like Saddam Hussein and supply them with money and outdated weapons if we can't think of a better way to control the region or make more money off them. Its empire baby, and this train ain't stopping until she derails.

That's what Lincoln established in the civil war, that the money and guns are unbeatable, which is only becoming more of a reality as the technology advances. The latest push at the Pentagon is for robotics that can allow the US to police the world with drones, like the Predator, merely being the beginning and the Navy recently declaring they are no longer making manned aircraft and have plans to put 30-40 thousand drones in the oceans that don't even need to be recharged for a year.

Anyway, it means that what we owe society is rapidly becoming more of a question of what society owes us with all the wealth accumulating at the top precisely because the money and guns are doing all the talking worth listening to. As far as I'm concerned, both our presidential candidates should be in jail, the billionaire mayor of NYC who arrested 26 reporters should be in jail, the bankers who caused the economic collapse should be in jail, and so on and so forth and unless society has more to offer than the best justice that money can buy I don't owe them a damned thing and I certainly don't have any money anyway.

The only way I see around the problem is to develop a systems logic that makes this timeless brute force approach outdated which is exactly what I'm writing about in my book. Civilization is currently organizing using the most primitive systems logic and that has to change before we destroy the whole planet. Improving communications just doesn't mean much when brute force is the more effective way to get what you want and need and what humanity requires is better ways to organize than either laze fare capitalism or communism can provide.

How does one go about balancing the needs of the individual vs. the collective? . . . — Nick Sousa

What's the assumed problem? Collectives as well as individuals thrive on shared infrastructure, shared built environments, division of knowledge and labour, shared cultural or sports facilities, shared languages and so on. What is it that should be balanced? Tax rates?