“We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” socialist New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani pledged in his inaugural address.
Etymologically, “collectivism” has its roots among late-19th-century Marxists. The collectivists were the ones who ran the gulags. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn will tell you there was nothing warm about the winters in Ekıbastūz.
Critics instantly pounced, recalling the past horrors of Stalinism and the current evils of North Korea. And in condemning the socialist idea of collectivism, Mamdani’s critics rushed to embrace the “rugged individualism” he was rejecting.
Gov. Jim Pillen (R-NE) took to social media to proclaim that “much of America, and especially Nebraska, remains and will forever be a place where rugged individualism and freedom are prized.”
Bishop Robert Barron declared on X that “Catholic social teaching has consistently condemned socialism and has embraced the market economy, which people like Mayor Mamdani caricature as ‘rugged individualism.’ In fact, it is the economic system that is based upon the rights, freedom, and dignity of the human person.”
The race to reject everything Mamdani is unsurprising. He is a self-avowed socialist whose mantras include radical pablum like “Queer liberation means defund the police.” His favored policies are immoral and would make people’s lives worse, even outside of the city.
But those who reject Mamdani’s conclusion should also reject his premises. Specifically, we should not accept his false dichotomy between “collectivism” and “individualism.” These are not really opposites.
Sure, if “rugged individualism” means that ranchers can be ranchers, it’s a great and necessary part of America. And if “rugged individualism” is just a codeword for a market economy, then yes, we should celebrate this great boon to our prosperity.
But when individualism becomes a philosophy of life and a central part of our anthropology — when we come to understand the human person as fundamentally an autonomous, free-floating bundle of rights — then individualism and collectivism are the two sides of the same coin.
To see this, consider the rest of Mamdani’s speech.
In laying out his vision for New York, Mamdani never mentioned the words mother, father, or parents (except to thank his own). When he did list different groups, such as Muslims, Jews, Christians, blacks, Palestinians, or Trump supporters, it was just to try and diminish those identities in favor of a more universal identity.
This was the heart of Mamdani’s speech, the part he delivered exactly halfway through his remarks:
“For too long these communities have existed as distinct from one another, we will draw this city closer together. We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism. If our campaign demonstrated that the people of New York yearn for solidarity, then let this government foster it. Because no matter what you eat, what language you speak, how you pray, or where you come from, the words that most define us are the two we all share: New Yorkers.”
This nice-sounding unity talk offers some details about Mamdani’s collectivism. The words that “most define” you should not include your family name. It should not be your role as a father, mother, brother, or sister, nor your role as a teacher, police officer, or nurse. Nor should your identity be mostly defined by your faith, heritage, or neighborhood.
Mamdani runs the city, and so that’s where he wants you to find your identity. That’s where he wants you to place your solidarity.
Yes, this is a sort of collectivism, but it’s also a sort of hyperindividualization. Earlier in his speech, Mamdani invoked Dickens to make a somewhat clumsy metaphor: He promised that the tale of New York would not “be a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor. It will be a tale of 8 and a half million cities, each of them a New Yorker with hopes and fears, each a universe, each of them woven together.”
That’s radical individualism. And yet it looks just like his radical collectivism.
Imagine a city that is totally collectivized, where the individual is melted down, and all 8.5 million become indistinct.
Now, imagine a city that is radically individualized. Nobody is characterized by their race or religion or borough or neighborhood — those are all collective identities, after all. Now zoom out from one of these individuals to a whole block, then a bunch of blocks, then all of the individuals in Manhattan. Then zoom even further out until you see all 8.5 million individuals of New York City, all stripped of their group identity. They are 8.5 million little atoms.
Although each one might be different, from this higher altitude, there are no patterns, no patches, no distinct regions. It has become a massive blur. The 8.5 million different colors look like a muddy brown, the same as the collective.
Alexis de Tocqueville made the case convincingly nearly 200 years ago: The despot, if he wants complete control of the people, needs to dissolve their bonds with one another — weaken their ties to their neighbors, their families, and the little platoons that make up a healthy society.
The enemy of the totalitarian state is not the rugged individual, it’s civil society.
Look around at our cultural problems today, and you will see clearly that one of our main cultural maladies is an overdeveloped sense of individualism. This individualism is not just a right-wing thing or a libertarian thing, either. The Left is preaching a sort of hyperindividualism.
Marriage and family formation are collapsing in America, and the problem is worse on the Left than the Right. One reason: a worship of personal autonomy. Read the monthly New York Times op-eds against marriage or in favor of divorce, and you will see the arguments: Marriage deprives you of the ability to define yourself and actualize your existence. Family is an unchosen obligation.
In the words of Mamdani’s recent predecessor: avoid attachments.
Nobody would love it more than the government that wants you dependent on it if you avoided attachments.
IGNORE EVERYTHING TRUMP SAYS ABOUT VENEZUELA
Mamdani’s socialism appeals most to those who see only two sources for worldly goods: the market and the government. The rest of us know we can turn to our neighbors, the parish, or the book club for support. The atomized individual will likely think that Mamdani is their only source of support.
Those who reject Mamdani’s vision should reject his rhetorical framing, too. To counter the power of an overbearing state, we need a dense and overlapping network of churches, synagogues, mosques, neighborhoods, schools, and clubs. Each one of these will give collective support to the individuals, and each one of them will keep the socialists at bay.
