and the freedom to be you
4 minute read
No to collectivism.
Yes to unity.
Some of the groups to which we belong like to argue that we benefit from their existence.
In some cases this is true, but not all.
There appear to be clear and inherent dangers in most ideologies. Not least because they tend to exist at one end of a spectrum, not uncommonly in seeming conflict with those at the other.
Even those who seem to seek a synthesis between both ends can sometimes become militant in the pursuit of balance.
Collectivism and Individualism are often held as opposite ends of an ideological spectrum.
Individualism, without the context of some higher order, can be said to act without accountability or responsibility. It's critics argue that without the collective to guide them, individuals will run rampant, consuming the world in pursuit of satiating their desires or destroying it while preserving their fears.
Collectivism on the other hand seeks to order and control as much behaviour as it can for the sake of a common good. Its critics argue that in doing so it diminishes and destroys accountability and responsibility of those it seeks to serve, diminishing and even seeking to destroy the natural expression of a person's soul.
The collectivist argument is not wholly unfair. Individuals left to act on impulse and instinct alone can have devastating effects and people in the world around them, and yet it is not without irony that when groups attempt to organise and control individual expression from the top down it is clear that certain desires are being satiated in the process and the life's of many destroyed in the preservation of fear.
