If the "left" is truly pro-collective...

...then why does it encourage so much identity-based sectarianism?

It's common to think, even among those who oppose the beliefs and policies of the "left," that they are pro-collective, even to the point of condemning them, in the sense that they favor the individual always submitting to the will of a majority*, a dystopian scenario of democracy that I have called democracism. But not even that, since, at least in countries that once declared themselves socialist and the remaining ones, not even this simplistic and problematic logic of democracism has been instituted, if these countries have functioned politically as one-party dictatorships, in which the ruling party itself determines their course, without true popular participation.

* A moment of selective amnesia for the "right," if that is precisely what it has also done throughout its long history of cultural and political hegemony.

But the question in the title of this text calls into question the validity of this thought or statement, since, if they were truly in favor of the "collective," aka the people, and their multiple intersectional identities, they should not promote certain groups over others, as they have done. Being "in favor of the collective" conditions "all" identity groups as favored, especially, and rationally, those that are vaguely categorized, without direct moral implications, for example: men, white, tall, heterosexual...

So, again, the "left" cannot be considered "in favor of the collective" because they promote very unequal treatment among human groups, in which some groups are treated as inferior (usually, broadly defined as oppressors) to those treated as superior (oppressed), even more so when they seize power, in this case, specifically the radical "left," and gain complete control over a society. China, North Korea, Cuba, and the former socialist countries behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe are notorious and constant examples that the "left," in practice, has been as much or even more of an executioner of the people as the "right." Even if it has contributed to social improvements, it has often been accompanied by tacitly oppressive policies against groups it condemns as "enemies of the state's interests," whether in a scenario of absolute control or relatively predominant control (as has happened in Western countries currently, in the 2020s, where the identitarian "left" has become dominant in several key sectors, such as culture and education, but also, albeit not absolutely, in government).

But "being pro-collective" also implies being pro-individual.

The dichotomous idea that positioning oneself as pro-collective implies sacrificing the individual seems to me potentially problematic, since a collective is always composed of individuals, its raw material, and therefore, its most visceral expression. "Being in favor of the collective," then, should also mean "being in favor of individual rights." The only relevant point of disagreement would be precisely when a dichotomy is imposed: whether the collective is used against the individual, or the opposite, when it is the individual who, under a herd effect, can sacrifice the collective, as has actually happened in "modern" societies. Furthermore, the final conclusion is that being in favor of the collective does not automatically imply being in favor of collectivism, if it is also possible to think along the lines I proposed in this text, in which being in favor of collective well-being inevitably implies the well-being of the individuals that make up the collective, but without one canceling out the other—that is, the paradigm of reconciling their interests, strictly in the sense of "harmonizing."