“For the many, not the few” said he as he trampled down upon the rights of ethnic, racial, religious, sexual, and every other minority present. I believe I must elaborate.
The aforementioned slogan was the title of the 2017 UK Labour Party Manifesto, headed by erstwhile Leader of the Party and far-left socialist politician, Jeremy Corbyn. The manifesto elucidated the Labour Party’s methods of creating an economy that works for all (except if you believe in liberalisation, privatisation, denationalisation, decentralisation, paying a flat rate of tax, free trade, meritocracy, epistocracy, technocracy or market solutions to economic problems).
Now, I won’t be critiquing the content of the manifesto; rather, I’ll focus on the choice of its title and our society’s enduring tendency to succumb to frivolous collectivist ideologies. Collectivism, as an ethical philosophy, entails prioritising the interests of a group (the many) over those of the individual (the few). This stance directly opposes individualism, which underscores the inherent value of each person. Throughout the history of politics, various political parties and ideologies, spanning the entire political spectrum, have often criticised the “selfishness” of individual thought and today, I, like many before me, aim to illustrate the significance of individual greatness while offering examples of the inconsistencies within proponents of collectivist thinking.
To begin with, economics. In modern politics, it is generally the left-wing of the political spectrum, which prioritises collectivist economic policies. Aspects and manifestations of collectivism in economic thought, for instance, the advocacy of social welfare programs which aim to provide services to all citizens irrespective of their productivity, or progressive rates of taxation, or the public ownership of key industries, along with extensive regulation and unionisation are fervently supported by left wing political parties around the world notwithstanding substantial economic repercussions and significant statistical evidence demonstrating their negative consequences, such as minimisation of social surplus, disincentivization of economic transactions, and susceptibility towards government corruption.
In recent political atmosphere, such rigid indoctrination of economic collectivism has reached a point where major left-wing politicians, who represent socialism on international stages, such as French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon have felt comfortable in sharing nonsensical policy preferences such as 100% income taxation, clearly elucidating the immense and adamant support of collectivism in the left wing of the political spectrum around the world.
Inversely, culture. Within the political spectrum, the right wing has frequently aligned itself with culturally collectivist policies, such as nationalism, regionalism and the promotion of national and religious unity. Right-leaning factions often advocate for safeguarding domestic industries through measures like protectionism, controlling immigration, and preserving cultural heritage as means of upholding national coherence. Conservative viewpoints have at times justified the curbing of rights for minority groups in the interest of preserving specific ethnic or cultural identities. Additionally, right-wing administrations have shown a tendency to endorse measures like language restrictions and exerting regional influence on educational systems to maintain cultural collectivism. An example which hits closer to home would be the fact that recently right wing politicians have openly delineated their majoritarian tendencies of favouring the 80% over the 20%, standing as an explicit specimen of cultural collectivism.
Despite comprehensible historical evidence suggesting that the flourishing of societies generally occur through the promotion of individual rights, the right wing of the political spectrum have turned a deaf ear on the subject of society and culture, mirroring the attitude of left wingers and their economic dogmatism against free-markets and capitalism. As such, other than a few fringes of self-declared libertarian and objectivist political parties and organisations, a preponderant percentage of political discourse around the world has been hounded by believers of collectivist thought.
The susceptibility to embrace collectivism should come as no surprise, as collectivist inclinations often bring about a profound sense of support and empathy. The widespread promotion of slogans like “United We Stand” has progressively influenced members of our society to adopt the belief that individuals, even when possessing valid convictions, are doomed to fail when standing alone. Consequently, it becomes more convenient to be part of a collective or union rather than relying solely on one’s own abilities, and simpler to feign superiority within one’s own ethnic community than to acknowledge the reality that ethnicity does not determine one’s capabilities.
Some might consider this vulnerability of human society towards collectivism to be an unfounded threat, but one could just refer to history of the last century and the victims of collectivism to find evidence to the contrary. As presented in “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,” a 1997 publication authored by Stéphane Courtois and a group of other distinguished academics, which provided a comprehensive account regarding the history of political oppression under communist regimes which estimates that the total human death toll inflicted by communist governments surpasses 94 million individuals, encompassing fatalities resulting from executions, artificially induced hunger, famine, warfare, deportations, and coerced labour.
If we contemplate the countless victims of various totalitarian regimes, including Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, Francoist Spain, and others, the sheer magnitude of suffering becomes intolerable to comprehend. Ensuring that such horrific atrocities are never repeated is not just a necessity but a moral imperative. Ironically, I believe that it is only by discouraging collectivist ideologies and promoting individualism, despite often being labelled as ‘selfish,’ that individuals within a society can genuinely contribute to the greater good.
But not everyone agrees, and unfortunately, that has been reflected by the overtaking of most contemporary political movements – such the LGBTQIA+ movement – by left wing, collectivist organisations. Despite resting on the laurels of the third wave of feminism, which embraced diversity and individualism and propagated sexual liberation, current political movements have often found themselves embedded with left wing ideology.
After years of ambiguity of cultural and social liberalism, left wing politics has parasitically attached itself – and through ridiculous slogans such as the equating of the historic queer struggle with Marxist economic theories such as class conflict, “Queer Struggle is Class Struggle” – has swallowed the heart of individualism present in such political movements. At the same time, the far-right has begun endorsing left wing economic theories as evident from the acceptance of nationalist and interventionist economic policies by right wing politicians such as Marine Le Pen or Donald Trump.
The highly criticised, “horseshoe theory” by French philosopher Jean-Pierre Faye, which proposes a horseshoe shape of the political spectrum, asserting the far-left and far-right to be closer to each other, than to the political centre, has found itself vindicated, albeit limitedly, as of yet. And to anyone who believes in liberalism, observing this political shift is petrifying and alarming to say the least. I am one such person. To quote Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, “It is ugly and will get uglier.” If history does repeat itself, then illiberalism will foster again, collectivism will grow, humanity will be taxed, rights will be trampled and people will die. Tyrants will rise, democracies will fall, and all will be done in the most legitimate manner possible.
So, do we stop that or is that too selfish for us to grasp?
Article 19 