The evil tenets of Marxism have permeated many American institutions, leading conservatives to frame cultural and political battles as conflicts between individualism and collectivism. On the surface, this makes sense. Marxism, as a communist ideology, promotes state-enforced equality where individual agency is subordinated to top-down notions of the collective good.
However, many conservative thinkers of the past recognized this to be a false dichotomy. They understood that individualism, if left unchecked, could foster conditions that paved the way for tyranny. Subordinate organic identities such as family, faith, and community have repeatedly proven to be the only effective force against the imposition of top-down despotism. The real battle is not between individualism and collectivism, but between ordered freedom and disordered tyranny.
It is a mistake to frame our current opposition to Marxist doctrine as a conflict between individualism and collectivism.
In his classic work Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville explored the rise of individualism in the democratic era following the American and French Revolutions. De Tocqueville believed that a trajectory toward democracy was inevitable for France, and sought to understand how Americans could contain their worst impulses.
He observed that individualism often causes people to focus solely on their own lives and interests, and to be indifferent to the well-being of their neighbors and community. This lack of citizen involvement, he argued, made it easier for autocrats to establish tyranny. Despots thrive on personal indifference and lack of civic virtue. He wrote:
Despotism is suspicious by its nature, considers the separation of humans to be the best means of guaranteeing its permanent rule, and usually goes to great lengths to keep humans isolated. Of all the flaws of the human mind, none is more suited to man than egoism. A tyranny is perfectly tolerant of its subjects failing to love themselves as long as they do not love each other. He does not ask them to cooperate in governing the state. It's fine if you don't plan on managing it yourself.
How did Americans maintain a spirit of individualism while avoiding its negative effects on civic life? For de Tocqueville, the answer was by creating free institutions and voluntary associations. I felt an urge to participate. He observed that Americans have an instinct for forming committees, community organizations, and charities to deal with almost any problem.
In the United States, individuals were not required to be ruled by a powerful tyrant because citizens were expected to contribute positively to the collective well-being of their communities through voluntary efforts. This approach was individualistic in that it arose organically and was not imposed by the state. But it was also collectivistic in that individuals felt deep obligations to their families, churches, and communities.
Even when problems required government intervention, American governance was primarily local. The central government remained small, and local issues were handled by elected officials familiar with the unique characteristics and needs of local communities. According to de Tocqueville,
American lawmakers did not believe that representative representation of the entire population was sufficient to treat a disease so natural to the framework of a democratic society and so deadly. They also considered it appropriate to give each region of the territory its own political activity, in order to increase without limit the opportunities for the people to act together and to give them a daily feeling of interdependence. This was a wise plan.
Despite its individualistic tendencies, the American system encouraged its citizens to recognize their interdependence and address issues affecting their communities at the local level. The collective identity of the polis allowed them to solve problems more effectively without formal government involvement.
Even when government action was needed, the scope was shaped by community identities and political structures. There was no need for the state to force collectivity, as communities formed naturally and individualism was able to flourish without descending into tyranny.
The greatest evidence of this principle is seen in the tactics used by communist regimes to centralize power. Marxists routinely advocate the destruction of families, churches, and even ethnic identities. This is because these subordinate ties prevent the centralization of power. As de Tocqueville observed, isolated individuals are most vulnerable to despotism.
Totalitarian regimes seek to ensure that all human relations are mediated between individuals and the state, with each person becoming dependent on a central authority for support and conflict resolution. In contrast, people bound by organic ties of faith, family, and community are much more likely to resist the arbitrary orders of a tyrant.
When Western governments attempted to create a biomedical security state in response to the coronavirus pandemic, it was almost exclusively faith communities that had the courage to resist. Religious groups had identities and loyalties that transcended individual material interests. This collective identity gave them both the courage and community support necessary to stand firm against the regime's orders. These communities were able to defend their freedoms because they were united in purpose and collectively exercised their freedoms.
The American tradition embodies individual freedom practiced in the service of the collective good. It is freedom commanded toward a higher purpose and pursued through the establishment of free institutions and voluntary associations. It is a mistake to frame our current opposition to Marxist doctrine as a conflict between individualism and collectivism.
Rather, we should understand that we can avoid the tyrannical conditions prescribed by Marxism by practicing individual virtues that serve the organic community. This ensures that freedom is not just an individual right, but a shared responsibility to maintain the well-being of families, faiths, and communities.
