The evil doctrines of Marxism have infiltrated many institutions in the United States, leading conservatives to frame cultural and political battles as a contest between individualism and collectivism. On the surface, this makes sense. Marxism, as the ideology of communism, promotes state-enforced equality where individual agency is subordinated to a top-down notion of the collective good.
Many past conservative thinkers recognized this as a false binary, however. They understood that individualism, if left unchecked, can foster conditions that pave the way for tyranny. Lower-order organic identities — such as family, faith, and community — have repeatedly proven to be the only effective forces against the imposition of top-down despotism. The true battle is not between individualism and collectivism but between ordered liberty and disordered tyranny.
In his classic work “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville explored the rise of individualism during the democratic age following the American and French revolutions. De Tocqueville believed a democratic trajectory was inevitable for France and sought to understand how Americans had managed to curb its worst impulses.
He observed that individualism often led people to focus solely on their own lives and interests, leaving them indifferent to the well-being of their neighbors and their communities. This lack of civic engagement, he argued, made it easier for despots to establish tyrannical rule. A despot thrives on individual apathy and the absence of civic virtue. He wrote:
Despotism, suspicious by its very nature, views the separation of men as the best guarantee of its own permanent rule and usually does all it can to keep them in isolation. No defect of the human heart suits it better than egoism; a tyranny is relaxed enough to forgive his subjects for failing to love him, provided that they do not love one another. He does not ask them to help him to govern the state; it is enough that they have no intention of managing it themselves.
How did Americans preserve a spirit of individualism while avoiding its corrosive effects on civic life? For de Tocqueville, the answer lay in their impulse to build free institutions and engage in voluntary associations. He observed that Americans had an instinct to form committees, community organizations, and charities to address almost every problem.
In the United States, individuals did not need to be ruled by a powerful despot because citizens were expected to actively contribute to the collective well-being of their communities through voluntary efforts. This approach was individualistic in that it arose organically and was not compelled by the state. But it was also collectivist in that individuals felt a profound duty to their families, churches, and communities.
Even when problems required government intervention, governance in America was primarily local. The national government remained small, and local matters were handled by elected officials who were familiar with the specific character and needs of their communities. According to de Tocqueville:
American legislators did not believe that a general representation of the whole nation would be enough to cure a disease so natural to the frame of democratic society and so fatal. They also thought it appropriate to give each area of the territory its own political life so as to multiply without limit the opportunities for citizens to act in concert and to let them realize every day their mutual dependence. This was a wise plan.
Despite their individualistic tendencies, the American system encouraged citizens to recognize their interdependence and address issues affecting their communities at the local level. The collective identity of the polis enabled them to resolve problems more effectively without formal government involvement.
Even when government action was necessary, it was limited in scope, shaped by the community’s identity and political structure. The state did not need to enforce collectivity because communities formed naturally, allowing individualism to thrive without descending into tyranny.
The greatest evidence of this principle can be found in the tactics used by communist regimes to centralize power. Marxists routinely advocate the destruction of the family, church, and even ethnic identity because these lower-order bonds obstruct the centralization of authority. As de Tocqueville observed, the isolated individual is most vulnerable to despotism.
"When Western governments attempted to create biomedical security states in the wake of COVID-19, it was almost exclusively communities of faith that had the courage to resist. Religious groups possessed an identity and allegiance that extended beyond individual material benefit. This collective identity gave them both the courage and community support needed to stand firm against the dictates of the regime. These communities were able to defend their liberty because they exercised it collectively, united in purpose."
This isn't really about having a collective identity or not having one. This is about organization. Organized groups (even without a collective identity) are able to advance their interests, disorganized individuals are not.
One loyalty is the envy of the others.