by Barry A. Liebling
Individualism and collectivism are incompatible. The conflict is documented in their perennial battle in the arena of philosophy and politics. It was formalized several hundred years ago by the best ideas of the Enlightenment and by the most toxic fallacies of Marxism. But the core issues have been argued for a much longer time.
At his inauguration the new mayor of New York City – a committed socialist – reminded everyone (or informed them for the first time) where he stands: “We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-warmth-of-collectivism-zohran-mamdani-new-york-city-socialism-3714babc?msockid=2d433b4bb5b76cb42f4f2fcab43f6d1b
What is wrong with collectivism? The short answer is – everything. Previously I have described how collectivism is a foundation for identity politics. Its boosters advocate judging, rewarding, and punishing each person according to which “oppressed groups” or “oppressor groups” the person belongs in. In this framework group membership is supremely important, and individual thoughts and actions are a minor detail. Note well – in the real world individual thoughts and actions are essential for human life.
https://www.alertmindpublishing.com/data/2025-columns-2/ditch-collectivism-2025-jan/
Now consider another durable feature of collectivism. It is a system of slavery. Each person is required to behave according to the rules set by the official bosses. How widespread are the rules? How much autonomy is removed from the individual? This varies widely. In the most well-known collectivist societies ordinary citizens are controlled and compelled to comply in nearly every aspect of their lives. Think of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and other places where “warm collectivism” is everywhere.
Sometimes collectivism is much more limited and impacts on minor behaviors. But once it is in place its supporters do what they can to expand its reach. Full-blown collectivist societies are generally the product of growing the power of the state bit-by-bit until the citizens are completely restrained.
Here is an example of an attempt at “warm collectivism” that did not succeed.
In 2013 the mayor of New York City – in collaboration of his busybody cronies – proclaimed that people should not be able to buy sugary drinks in restaurants that were larger than 16 ounces. After all, the meddlers argued, 16 ounces is enough (and probably too much) for a person to drink. Beverages with sugar can cause weight gain and might be bad for your health, so the “warm collectivists” decided to put an end to a behavior they did not like.
The local government passed a law making it illegal for “restaurants, fast-food establishments, delis, movie theaters, sports stadiums, and food carts” to sell sweet beverages in cups larger than one-half liter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule
I recall that opinions were split on the new regulation. Boosters were elated. They said it was about time society did something about the disgraceful practice of selling large containers of sugar-laden beverages. We (as a collective society) have to regulate commercial practices (and all behavior) to conform to the directives of anointed experts. And anyone who objects on the grounds that it violates personal freedom is not justified to complain. There was nothing in the new rules that prevented an establishment from selling multiple containers of sweet drinks to the same person.
And of course there was a faction that understood the implications of the new collectivist rules and condemned them as unpalatable. Why should the government have anything to do with the size of beverage containers? In a free society everyone should have the authority to decide how large or how small drinking cups that are bought or sold should be. The proper role of the government is to protect the natural rights of individuals – full stop.
It turns out that in the legal proceedings of 2014 the regulation was repealed. There is no question that had it survived it would have been followed by additional rules about the permissible size and content of other foods and beverages. When meddlers are not stopped they are energized and ramp up their mischief.
And today, more than 10 years later, we have a new wave of “warm collectivism” mania. Some critics of this baleful trend assert that people who crave collectivism do not realize what the consequences of their policies are. The reasoning is – if only they knew they would not endorse it. Undoubtedly, some are not aware. But many people who tout “warm collectivism” fully understand and approve of where it will lead.
Some people really want to be controlled and dread personal autonomy. They do not want to expend the effort required for figuring out what to do. They do not want to be blamed for making wrong choices. So they are eager to submit to an authority (or authorities) that will decide how they must behave.
Of course in a free society people who want to be dominated can always connect with other people who are happy to boss them around. But they have no right to force their unhealthy cravings on others.
And this brings us to the bad actors who lust for power over others. They delight in violating personal autonomy and forcing people to obey. This can be done efficiently by illegitimate government policies and regulations. Note well that this is collectivism and it amounts to slavery.
What can be done to make things right? We have to explain to more people why respect for individual liberty is the proper way for humans to deal with one another. We have to help them understand that managing your own life is not an unreasonable burden. It leads to authentic flourishing. And violating personal freedom, via collectivism, should never be tolerated.
See other entries at AlertMindPublishing.com in “Monthly Columns.”