Skip to main content

What is individualism and why do we need to fight it?

What is individualism and why do we need to fight it?


Individualism is a concept derived from the Christian belief of the 'soul'. The concept of the soul divided humans into separate units that are separately judged by God for their actions and deeds as opposed to being judged by any collective structure like a family, tribe, nationality etc. It atomises people and makes them think only of themselves as being responsible for their actions and severs the link that they previously innately had with their communities.

This concept was too mystic, so during the enlightenment the soul got all of its mythological elements removed, this was the birth of an 'individual'. In essence though, the individual is the same as the Christian concept of 'soul'. It relies on free will, people choosing whatever they want to do with no obligations to anyone but themselves.

Human rights also came from this same concept because human rights are there to protect the individuals. Even if these individuals as a class harm the collective, the judicial system is designed to protect the individual despite collective justice. A small minority oppresses the majority, top 40 richest people have more wealth than half of the planet and legally nothing can be done lest it be decried as mob rule.

When one considers themselves an individual, they loudly proclaim that they are an atomised unit, not beholden to any collective concerns. They are the masters of their destiny, they can do whatever, take whatever, it's *their* life!

We need to oppose that because as leftists it is our duty to abolish this concept and focus on the collective. The collective in typical Marxist literature is the ‘class’, the proletariat, the interests of the whole are taken to be above the interests of the individual. In fact it is well understood that only united can the proletariat really win.

The collective, unlike the individual, changes the perception of people in that they don't see themselves as single units, but rather as a continuous stream within a collective, their interests and those of others are mutual. Feelings, mental states, desires as well as duties and responsibilities are shared within the collective.

This rightly oppresses the ‘individual’; the more power you give to the collective, the more you have to repress individual rights, but that’s not as bad as it sounds! We want to challenge the concept of the 'self' as atomised units and instead we want to make people act as a whole.

This isn’t a day dream by the way, this concept was put to practice under Mao, the collective power manifested itself against the individual capitalist roaders, Dazibaos (character posters) were put up by the people to shame members who cared about their own self interests over the collective.

The people felt empowered, the people felt like they belong and that their best well being is inseparable from the collective well being.

During the Great Leap Forward in Maoist China, (*) a representative of the communist party Wu Changxing refused to eat more than the villagers as he worked with them on the irrigation sites day and night. He later died from a combination of exhaustion and malnutrition, this collective ideology was so powerful that it transcended death itself.

This may sound extreme, and maybe a bit alienating to an American or European mind, but that’s because we live and grew up in a liberal system where the individual and its interests are to come first so the idea of a person dying for the collective and its wellbeing may sound extreme.

However, what about families? In the western world, the family structure is a collective one, and if I was to tell you that a poor father worked himself to death to feed his family, sacrificed his life for the good of the whole, that doesn’t seem so strange. Does it?

It makes sense within our culture why this is excusable, hell, we look down upon those who don’t do anything for their families and we don’t apply the same individual logic to them. A father loves his family, they are a part of him and he is willing to sacrifice his own health and immediate well-being for them, Why?

Shouldn’t he just care for himself, consume what he wants, take whatever he wants? Why do we preach individualism but then think that a father who goes on heroin binges, leaves his family in poverty, is bad, why?

You may say because when he started a family that he then entered a sort of imaginary social contract whereby he is obligated to serve them, but then, can we not say that the communist official also entered a social contract with the peasants and workers, the people who he was sworn to help and serve?

What if the official loves his own collective the same way that a father loves his family, they are a part of him and he wants to do whatever he can to improve their conditions even if it will sacrifice his health and life, is that really so different?

Yet if we think about it, when applied to the western world, this sounds cultish, a politician elected by his constituents sacrificing himself for the good of the whole? Sounds so odd, doesn’t it?

We know that family structures care for each other and there’s a collective expectation for them but at the same time we deny that connection among non-family, why? Why should we feel estranged from others, why should we learn that outside of the family we need to compete, to step on the enemy while inside we are to do the opposite? Sounds like a contradiction.

Is it then really so strange to visualise that Eastern cultures don’t just stop the collective mindset with the family (**), but extend it to the whole society, that it’s us in western nations living in a contradiction.

Shouldn’t it also be then, our job as leftists to create that bond between people beyond family. To find what connects us to each other other than family ties? After all, our political strategy is precisely collectivist, power for the masses, one for all, all for one!

That it is through unity of the oppressed that we can end oppression by the minority! Yet our western political concepts reflect the need for an individual more than for the collective, we really need to change that!

So, let’s strike fear in those who want to harm us as a whole! Give way to collective over individual rights! Power to the
masses, end the individual!


Bradley Gabriel -

Sources:


Farmers-Mao-and-discontent-in-china*


Political economy - decollectivisation in China**

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Started a Substack!

Dear Readers of this blog, We started a Substack under the name of New Wave Atlas , it is wholly run and operated by the New Wave Syndicate collective. From now on, we will be writing our articles there and cross-posting them here a few days later, so subscribe on Substack to get to read our future posts as soon as they appear! For this occasion, we started a five part series about 'Neo-Liberal adjustments', it is about how the system and actors within it change our perception of the world for the benefit of capitalism. How we are being played and how the left is stuck with tactics and strategies that are very outdated by modern standards. The system has moved on to new levels of repression, more clever and advanced, and as such, if we want to challenge capitalism effectively, we need to always be the first to use state-of-the-art technology for revolutionary purposes! We cannot just assume that what worked in the past, is always going to work, it won't, these days are ove...

The Trump Neo-Liberal Twitter Ban

The recent banning of Trump is a good example of the Neo-Liberal adjustment. Twitter and other social media platforms didn't just start to censor now, this was a precedent for some time now already. However now, the new, updated Neo-liberalism is solidified into precedent. Compared with the old version which initially tolerated major figures like Trump, the new alteration will attempt to banish them. The system readjusted itself, even major figures are not allowed on if they are to be disruptive to the system in any way. And while we know that the MAGA mob, even if they realised their ambitions, their revolution would really lead to pretty much the same old just with different faces and maybe extra amendments regarding gun laws that would get scrapped 20 years after anyway. The days of the wild west social internet are over, there was a time where on YouTube, you could access everything and even have your content promoted because it was all about getting views. Don't think that...

Why Learn a Language for Revolution!

So, why learn a language to read theory as intended? Especially given multiple translations which more or less do the job? Well, reading a piece in its original allows you to discern any hidden meaning along with better understanding the culture of the author. Poetry is especially difficult to translate and should really only be appreciated by the speakers of the original language. Goethe doesn't sound so epic in English as he does in German . Access to another world of research materials, news and information: If you only know English, then you're really limiting yourself in terms of the sort of research that you can do, you practically are limited to Marxists.org , libcom.org or other sites however there exists another world of modern theoreticians, especially from Russia and China that are simply not available to the English speaking audience. Examples of such resources are: http://difangwenge.org/ http://maoflag.cc/portal.php http://redchinacn.net/portal.php http://www.wy...