Diverging Paths: Reflections on Individualism, Collectivism, and the Modern World

Diverging Paths: Reflections on Individualism, Collectivism, and the Modern World

Being the smallest minority, the minority of one, I’ve always approached the utopian ideals of socialism and collectivism with a healthy bias. These notions are woven into Europe’s political landscape and are now echoed by prominent progressives like Senators Elisabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from across the pond.

These enlightened minds, backed by the progressive left wing of the Democratic party, find representation in the US Congress through figures like Alexandria Ocasio Cortes. They proudly declare themselves as protectors of the common people against the self-interest and greed of the affluent. Historically, progressives have felt compelled to defend the less fortunate against the perceived vices of capitalism.

In Senator Elisabeth Warren’s words, who seems to have a plan for everything, only constrained by human ingenuity and imagination, millionaires, billionaires, and Wall Street are singled out as the root of all evil in society. This minority is criticized for being self-centered, materialistic, and lacking in community spirit. However, Senator Warren is onto something when she emphasizes that for society to function, all members must contribute their fair share to maintain order.

Despite corporate taxation being today at a reasonable level, the problem of tax evasion looms large mainly due to excessive taxation in the past and the inefficiency of the tax system. Senator Warren proposes a wealth tax as a solution, aiming to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots in the name of the public interest and preserving the national community.

Progressivism, born in the late 19th century, has sought to address economic, political, and cultural questions arising from the Industrial Revolution and the growth of modern capitalism. Their vision is to create a new economic order, deemed fairer for the post-industrial age. However, the concept of “fair” remains open to interpretation, and phrases like “the public good” and “the public interest” are among the most misused in history. They often involve sacrificing the interests of the minority to satisfy the wishes of the majority, who might proclaim, “The public, c’est moi.”

Progressives have rejected the long-favoured ideas of neo-liberalism, natural rights, or natural law, redefining freedom as the fulfilment of human capacities, with the state taking on the primary role. In this shift, individual achievements are under attack, and the unlimited right to the fruits of one’s intellectual labour is disregarded. This perspective implies that intellectual products are fundamentally social, suggesting a vital dependence of the individual on society and advocating against suitable individual property rights to intellectual work.

These altruistic ideas are steering society away from individualism towards collectivism, a philosophy incompatible with capitalism and lacking in realism. It mirrors the collectivism seen in autocratic China and Russia, where the state’s supremacy overrides individual liberties and property rights. Today, this conflict plays out on a global scale—collectivism and authoritarianism versus individualism.

On one side, there’s the free liberal order, embodied by the European Union, the USA, and like-minded nations. These nations were founded on certain values like human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights—a framework aimed at fostering peaceful coexistence and prosperity.

On the other side, we find Russia and similar countries, characterized by a blend of authoritarianism, corruption, and nationalism. Despite a stagnant economy and significant repression of civil society, their ideology and policies enjoy both elite and popular support. However, it’s a delusion for the Russian leadership to consider the free liberal order as “absolute,” as suggested by President Vladimir Putin. Such words evoke memories of 1930s fascists proclaiming the demise of liberal democracy.

Individualism, the pursuit of personal achievements and wealth by the enterprising part of society, is rooted in a mentality that contributes to its success. Therefore, the ethical principle must persist that individual ability is not a freely distributable social asset and is incompatible with a free and just society.

It’s disconcerting to hear some endorsing practices seen in the former Soviet Union and present-day Russia, where the state claims entitlement to the fruits of others’ work or possessions they had no role in establishing. To them, I would pose the question, “Who is John Galt?” or, more aptly, what would Alice O’Connor say?

Ayn Rand, born as Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum (1905-1982), better known as Alice O’Connor, has been a part of my library since the late 1960s—an inspirational writer for many. Growing up in Saint Petersburg under collectivist ideology, she witnessed how communism turned Russia into a dictatorship. Rand’s novels consistently explore the central conflict of individual versus collective, a tension fundamental to her moral and political philosophy, which I appreciate within certain limits.

The first novel I read by Ayn Rand was “Anthem,”  a novella set in a dystopian future where individuality is suppressed, and the concept of “we” is prioritized over personal identity. The protagonist, Equality 7-2521, rebels against the collectivist society in which every aspect of life is dictated by the state, seeking to rediscover individualism. The novella explores themes of individual freedom, the power of the human spirit, and the consequences of collectivism.

Collectivism, in Rand’s view, subjugates the individual for the common good—an evil she vividly portrays in her books. Rand continued her exploration of the struggle between the Individual and the State in her semi-autobiographical “We the Living,” and further delved into the theme in “The Fountainhead,” “Atlas Shrugged,” and “The Virtue of Selfishness”—a collection of essays co-authored with Nathaniel Branden.

This critique on collectivism is rooted in the postulation that the individual has a moral right to live for their own sake, pursuing personal identity, freedom, and happiness based on self-reliance and self-responsibility, not in the name of the common good or sacrificing self-interest for a higher cause. Known as Objectivism, this philosophy, while valuable as a thought experiment, is viewed by some as problematic due to its extreme form of individualism.

In the ongoing struggle between collectivism and individualism, I align myself with the corner of individualism, albeit in a more moderate and nuanced form than Ayn Rand envisioned.

A society in which the delicate balance is struck between personal freedom and collective responsibility. A society where individual rights are respected, but collective well-being is also safeguarded, in order to create a fair and functional society. This involves continuous dialogue, adaptability, and a willingness to reassess societal structures as circumstances evolve.

WJJH – 27.01.2024

Diatribe: on the diverging path of individualism and collectivism in the modern world. Delving into Ayn Rand’s opposition to collectivism and her promotion of individualism. Aligning with a moderated form of individualism and advocating for a society that balances personal freedom and collective responsibility.