Rugged Individualism Vs Collectivism Vs Community: The Truth About 'The Right'
Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,
Much has been made over the past several days about a jarring line uttered by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani in his inaugural address last week.
“We will,” the city’s first “Democratic Socialist” mayor promised/threatened, “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”
Understandably—and rightly—most of the criticism of this line (and its speaker) has centered on its mortifying and inarguable whitewashing of the term “collectivism.” Collectivism—at least as it has been used for the last 150 years—refers specifically to the political manifestations of mass ideologies, mostly Marxist in origin, but including fascism and Nazism as well. Hence, its historical record is one of repeated failure and continual mass murder. In just six decades—from 1917 to 1977—collectivism in its various forms produced the deaths of upwards of a quarter of a billion civilian men, women, and children, from Russia to Germany to Cambodia. Add in the casualties of various wars, and the total is even larger and more abominable.
Given all of this, Mamdani’s use and attempted rehabilitation of the term were viewed by many observers (of all political persuasions) as either the height of ignorance or an expression of solidarity with true and profound evil.
Either way, that’s not a great look for the new, democratically elected leader of the largest city in the country and the center of global finance.
But while both traditional and social media are filled with comments on and repudiations of Mamdani’s embrace of collectivism, what concerns me more, but has drawn far less rebuke, is the false dichotomy he fabricates in articulating that embrace. Worse still, some of those who profess to oppose his ideology and the perniciousness of collectivism nonetheless accept that dichotomy, conceding his definition of the competing and conflicting visions. They thereby demonstrate both their ignorance of history and the challenges that confront civil society as it fights to prevent its destruction by Mamdani and his ilk.
To start, it is vital to note that the “individualism” that Mamdani decries is largely a mythological beast, no more real than the Scylla or Charybdis. Not only are societies today neither built around nor devoted exclusively to individuals, but they never have been. “Man is by nature a social animal,” Aristotle wrote, and “an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human… Society is something that precedes the individual.” And thus has it always been. To be clear, “rugged individualists” tend not to cluster together in groups of nearly 8.5 million just so they can be told what to do and how to live by a failed rapper who has never held a real job.
More to the point, individualism, where it does exist, is not exactly the opposite of “collectivism.” If anything, radical individualism is a precursor to collectivism, one of the many steps along the proverbial road to serfdom down which collectivism treads. In truth, man—being the social animal Aristotle identified—craves belonging. As a rule, he requires companionship and interaction. When he is deprived of them, on a societal level, by the dysfunction and haphazardness of the liberal order, he grows restless, lonely, and willing to do whatever is necessary to assimilate into whatever crowd will have him. This desire—multiplied by millions of “atomized” individuals—contains the seeds of “mass man,” of mass movements, of collective action, and, in time, of totalitarianism. As Hannah Arendt noted, “What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our century.” Individualism breeds atomization, which breeds loneliness, which, in turn, leads to that which those of us not named Mamdani know as the horrors of collectivism. Collectivist totalitarianism, Arendt continued, “bases itself on loneliness, on the experience of not belonging to the world at all, which is among the most radical and desperate experiences of man.”
Unsurprisingly but still unnervingly, in the wake of Mamdani’s comments on collectivism, some observers and commentators purportedly on the political right tried to use those comments as a cudgel against others on the right, those with whom they disagree about Donald Trump and the direction of conservatism.
Cathy Young, for example, a Never-Trump conservative/libertarian who writes for Bill Kristol’s Never-Trump The Dispatch, mocked the president’s supporters, writing that “What’s amusing is that much of the MAGA and MAGA-adjacent right…will nod right along to Mamdani’s broadside against ‘the frigidity of rugged individualism.’ The only difference is they’ll use some trad euphemism for left-coded ‘collectivism.’” And just what kind of euphemism would they use? Young continued, “If you replaced ‘collectivism’ with ‘community, family, and tradition,’ much of the current right would agree.”
This is a particularly peculiar criticism of “the current right,” if for no other reason than the fact that “much of the current right” absolutely should agree with that. It is, in fact, the reason the right exists.
I’ll cut Young a little slack here, in part because she later tried to correct herself by drawing a (largely imaginary?) distinction between “voluntary” and “involuntary community,” and in part because she was raised in the Soviet Union and may not be familiar with the niceties of American conservatism. Nevertheless, it is inarguable that American conservatism is more than a little preoccupied with the notions of “community, family, and tradition.” Together, these things are, as I say, American conservatism’s raison d’être. Moreover, they are its raison d’être specifically because they constitute the alternative to collectivism. They, not the strawman of “rugged individualism,” are the opposite of Zohran Mamdani’s ideology, and one need take neither my word nor that of “the current right” as proof of this.
The post–World War II conservative renaissance began in 1948, with the publication of a little book titled Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver. Russell Kirk, who is himself often described as the father of modern-day conservatism, called this book “the first gun fired by American conservatives in their intellectual rebellion against the ritualistic liberalism that had prevailed since 1933 and which still aspires to domination over this nation.”
Fast on the heels of Weaver’s ideas came Peter Viereck’s Conservatism Revisited (1949), Bill Buckley’s God and Man at Yale (1951), Whittaker Chambers’s Witness (1952), Kirk’s The Conservative Mind (1953), and Robert Nisbet’s The Quest for Community (also 1953). Each of these books was a warning cry that leftist collectivism, which had gathered a huge head of steam during the Roosevelt years and accelerated dramatically in the postwar period, represented a growing danger to American society. Weaver said this most directly in the opening sentence of the introduction to Ideas, where he announced quite simply, “This is another book about the dissolution of the West.”
Given this, each of these books was also “another book about the dissolution” of community, family, and tradition, as well as a plea to save what was left of these institutions as (ironically) a bulwark against collectivism.
George Nash, the author of the authoritative book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, described the thesis of the last of the books noted above, Robert Nisbet’s fittingly titled The Quest for Community, as follows:
The history of the West since the end of the Middle Ages was a story of the decline of intermediate associations between the individual and the state. The weakening and dissolution of such ties as family, church, guild, and neighborhood had not, as many had hoped, liberated men. Instead, it had produced alienation, isolation, spiritual desolation, and the growth of mass man. But men cannot live in Hobbesian isolation, and so, to satisfy his longings, he seeks out ersatz community—eventually finding it in the totalitarian state.
In many ways, this is the broad thesis of American conservatism. It is also the broad thesis offered by other anti-collectivists, who would undoubtedly bristle at being labeled “conservatives,” including Hannah Arendt, noted above, and the inimitable former Communist Alastair MacIntyre.
Collectivism is truly and inarguably evil. Community, in turn, stands as its rival—albeit a deteriorating rival. One needn’t be a “post-liberal” Trumper to recognize this. One need only be aware of man’s nature and his history.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.