An Alternative to Collectivism

There are many pragmatic arguments why restricting freedom of expression on topics like climate change can be harmful. We have already, and may continue to, make policies that cause the environment more harm than good.

There are also good psychological justifications why it is good to choose to think for yourself: it is the only way to make self actualization possible. The alternative is a ‘second hand life’. 

What was the historical and philosophical framework in which freedom of speech – the outward expression of people thinking for themselves  – first flourished?

For most of history, there has not been freedom of expression. Power has lain with a ruling group or class who have determined what it is permissible to say in public. 

The whole history of freedom is a huge topic but it is accurate to say that the period of History known as ‘The Enlightenment’ saw the flourishing of Liberal ideas and the growth of Science.  Empiricism, the use of measurement and evidence, and reason and logic – in other words objective thinking – was valued. 

It was also recognised that for this kind of thinking to flourish, people had to be free. 

If you start with the individual, and see each individual as precious, and understand that to flourish each individual needs to be free of coercion, you are operating within a framework best called ‘Classical Liberalism’. 

The best way to eliminate mistakes and erroneous thinking is to allow free debate: a well educated population can identify sound logical arguments, and a culture can be built up in which evidence is valued over assertion. 

The alternative to Classical Liberalism is all forms of Collectivism. Collectivism starts with the group, not the individual: and argues that what the group thinks is right. 

Historically the group was often identified with a ruling family or class (Kings claimed to be ordained by God). The Twentieth Century saw the flourishing of Collectivism in the Totalitarian ideologies of Socialism, Communism, Nazism and Fascism, and a further kind of Collectivism is the rule by religious authorities such as in Iran.  

In my view, despite the unprecedented misery and destruction brought about by Totalitarian ideologies in the twentieth century, Collectivist ways of thinking are on the rise again in Western societies. 

The twentieth century provided ample examples of societies run on totalitarian lines in which dissenting views were not allowed, and sadly there are many such societies existing today. They can all be seen as warnings of what happens when people are afraid to think for themselves. 

I am aware that today many people describe themselves as ‘liberal’ when really they mean ‘collectivist/socialist’. I don’t see any alternative to using the clumsy expression ‘Liberal with a capital L’ or ‘Classical Liberal’ to mark out the difference, with the hope of starting a conversation as to what Liberal actually means. 

If you start with and value the individual you end up with Liberalism. You value freedom of thought and speech, open debates, you tolerate differences. This does not mean you are ‘selfish’ because you recognise that we are all relational beings. 

If you start with the group then you end up with Collectivism. You are suspicious of freedom of thought and seek the group to enforce ‘what is right’.

The two really are opposites. If you are Liberal you don’t expect everyone to agree with you about everything. But if you insist there is only one politically correct and allowable view about every issue you are a Collectivist. 

There is something beautifully simple about Liberalism. If you value all people, and respect self determination, then OF COURSE there should be equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender, skin colour or sexual orientation. 

Martin Luther King’s statement that ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character’ is a Classical Liberal ideal. 

In the past, and in many countries today, there have been terrible injustices against certain groups of people. It is right to correct these injustices, but not at the expense of creating fresh ones. 

As a father I want my daughter to be able to self determine what kind of study and work she does. But this does not mean that I wish my sons to be discriminated against if they are competing for a position that is based on merit! 

The values of Collectivism seem to change from moment to moment, especially when ‘identity politics’ or ‘intersectionality’ is embraced. For example, whereas Liberalism is against all forms of discrimination Collectivism argues that it is justified if applied against ‘privileged’ individuals. 

It maintains that all white males are privileged when the data (and experience) shows that many white males are anything but privileged in their economic, educational or social situation. 

Likewise the suffragists and suffragettes can be seen as Liberal Feminists. They campaigned to end the traditional discrimination against women in work opportunities and the eyes if the law. In most Western countries it has, thankfully, largely succeeded, though some pockets of discrimination remain.  

The differences between Classical Liberalism and Collectivism can be summarized as follows: