Individual Freedom

The choice between indvidual freedom and "the common good" is a false dichotomy.  There is no necessary opposition between an individual's interests and the interests of the community.  However, we live with a system that often forces us to apparently make a "choice" of deciding between the individual and community or family.  Examples are when we decide to emigrate, or sacrificing everything reaching for a dream, which invariably fails to materialise.  This illusion of choice is nurtured by a ruling class and their media who benefit from purporting the fallacy that the individual should work hard for themselves, that greed is good, and that good things will come to those who wait (and work hard in the meantime).  In this way, we become like Drogo at the Bastiani Fortress, trapped by the expectation that something will happen, that never does (1).

    Conversely, it seems obvious that what's good for us all is good for you and I as individuals; for example, that as members of the same community we should be entitled to appropriate healthcare, transport, housing, etc., that we should all look after the environment to ensure the well-being of our community and future generations. 

    Services that benefit a community, or a nation, are not "free" services, as they are portrayed by some, but services that we all contribute to and benefit from in various ways; we contribute to it by the work we do, we benefit from it by using it, we benefit from the thriving society that develops from it; this person a bus driver, that person a doctor, another a builder, she a software developer, he an artist... My work is used by you, your work is used by me.

    Far from having a community based on the concepts of liberté, egalité, fraternité, what has developed is a system which encourages the strong to dominate the weak for profit (2).  We call this capitalism, and it is not based on a theory of equality or individualism in the market place.  The poorer person, who is in a more vulnerable or desparate position, is forced to sell their labour at lower rates and buy products at higher rates than a wealthy person.  A wealthy person may not have to sell their labour at all, and can of course buy higher quality products at lower rates.  In short, a few rich get richer, and many poor get poorer.  Throughout these interactions, nobody is expressing their "individualism", rather they are forced into a kind of isolation - from family, friends and neighbours, often reluctantly and regrettably.  Even the wealthy individual is isolated, literally, from the rest of society, by gated houses, and a bureaucratic system that answers on their behalf.  The owners of corporations are uncontactable, and deemed unanswerable, often they are unknown or unknowable. 

    This is not "individual freedom" - at least not for most of us.  As individuals, we don't really have a choice in the events that deeply affect our lives.  Most of us make the most with what we have, and hope for the best beyond that.  We'd love to be with our old friends and family more, but we're "too busy" just "getting by". This is what's sold to us as "freedom" and "freedom of the individual". But it's just good old fashioned exploitation.  The results are cynicism and mental health issues. Many of us, having been sold this conception of "freedom" become depressed, self-loathing or bitter when as bit by bit our dreams and ambitions are eroded.  Many of us feel like failures as a result.  Unfortunately some seek scape-goats and become racists, others become suicidal.  Thankfully, many protest, rebel, revolt.

    

    Real individual expression is only possible if everyone can relate to each other on an equal, respected basis.  Imagine a community un-afflicted by the perceived need to make huge profits for some in order to slightly improve or maintain the lives of many (3).  Imagine instead a society in which we are all welcomed and encouraged to take part in discussions on how it is run, a society in which we are all stakeholders, shareholders, directors, owners, a society in which we all share responsibility for its future and our future.  In such a society we would share the mistakes as well as the success of our own democratic decisions - unimpinged by the fear of whether those decisions make profits, but rather spurred by the massive improvements created as a result of those decisions. The wealth created by such massive improvements in production would be reinvested in the society, instead of being absorbed in profits or gambled and wasted on stock markets, as wealth currently is.

    Capitalism traps and represses the individual.  The idea that our fate is based on some "good" or "bad" decisions we make is largely delusional.  All of us make good and bad decisions on a daily basis. 

    250 years ago, capitalism made much consecrated suppositions in favour of individual liberty against absolute monarchies; they're often lauded, rarely critiqued. But the capitalist, in general, has never argued that individual liberty should be accessible to all.  Invariably they have been against democracy for workers, against freedom for Blacks, against certain jobs for women, or certain rights for women, or votes for women. 

    

    Socialist aims, often criticised as being "dictatorial", and in favour of "tyranny" (or, self-contradictorily, "anarchy") etc., have long been the ones which struggled for individual rights against the capitalist who opposed it (4).  Rights for indigenous people and minorities, women's rights, workers' rights, have all been supported and led by socialist groups and opposed by the church, the political class, liberal and conservative establishments of various shades.

    "But", our libertarian friend might say, "profit-making is an incentive which spurs an individual to have ideas, create things and drives progress in society".  It may have been, once upon a time, but now, we live in an epoch where "science should not stand in the way" (5), whether in regard to opening schools during a pandemic or in regard to the continuous destruction of the planet for profits at the expense of our environment.  In fact, capitalism has used science mostly toward the destruction of our environment, from the 'satanic mills' of the 19th century, to nuclear power, farming and jet planes today.  Copyright laws are also used to hinder the ability of society to develop upon ideas or use those ideas, whether for the benefit of the individual or society at large.  The small artist benefits little, if anything, from copyright laws, but large pharmaceutical companies generally benefit greatly, and at our individual and collective expense. Besides, ideas alone don't create wealth, labour does.  But that's a topic for another day.

    "Individualism" and "community" are not mutually exclusive and opposed.  In a truly free society, there would be no conflict between the concepts of "individualism" and "community"; they would be mutually dependent, and we would take that fact for granted.

Footnotes:

(1) See the Dino Buzzati novel, The Tartar Steppe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tartar_Steppe)

(2)Trump suggested the army should "dominate the streets" in response to Black Lives Matter protests:  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-protests-trump/trump-suggests-governors-call-in-national-guard-to-dominate-the-streets-idUSKBN23C258

(3) Actually profit doesn't even do that - it creates the opposite race to the bottom situation in which things get worse for most and (much) better for a few.

(4) The ruling class always manage to create some spurious or unscrupulous argument for not allowing certain rights and freedoms.  Remember, the fundamental reason behind all of their cretinous arguments is the one thing they virtually never state - they want to increase profits and maintain the dominance of their ideology; progressive ideas have a tendency to undermine both.

(5) Trump stated 'science should not stand in the way' of schools opening during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Conversely, how many conspiracy theories have we heard or read about concerning climate change being a "hoax", or 5G being the cause of coronavirus, or "flat-earthers" etc. Generally, these conspiracies are conceived among deluded middle-class groups, who come up with various notions which, intentionally or otherwise, only serve to distract people from the one issue that matters.  The weaponisation of racism serves a similar purpose.