The Collective Is the Enemy of Community

Whether reflecting on the impersonal essence of “virtual reality” and the incessant stream of demands and anxieties it imposes upon our diurnal, increasingly alienated existence, or listening to the concerns of one’s fellow citizens, one hears a persistent leitmotif: the longing for true community, especially among the youth.

One aspect of this longing has been well bruited: people’s gnawing sense that the myth of “virtual community” is an alienating illusion that increasingly leaves them numb and pining for personal engagements—the flesh-and-blood amities, intimacies, and sundry other encounters of true community.

Exacerbating this sense of loss, especially among the young, people are very concerned about “affordability”—such as the inability to purchase a new home, rent an apartment, find an entry-level job, or keep the one they already have—due to the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and inflation. But too often overlooked is how the diminishment of these opportunities has reduced people’s personal interaction and the sense of community it brings.

Indeed, when people, notably youth, talk about wanting to “shop locally,” support small businesses, or even reject “corporate” entities and their culture, it is not a complete rejection of capitalism. Indeed, one can clearly recognize young people’s embrace of free markets and small businesses. Yet, it is a practical complaint regarding its failures—one of which is its eclipse of community beneath an impersonal corporatism. (One can make the argument that today’s youth are essentially the political descendants of Jeffersonian Republicans, but I digress.)

Naturally, one group that has not overlooked young people’s yearning for a greater sense of community is the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). They exacerbate youth’s disaffection with the economy by equating corporatism and capitalism and proffer socialism as a virtuous panacea for economic ailments. And, for alienated people yearning for community, the DSA conflates and substitutes the collective for community.

But the truth is the collective is the enemy of community.

As Robert Nisbet warned in his seminal work, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom:

Marxism, like all other totalitarian movements in our century, must be seen as kind of secular pattern of redemption, designed to bring hope and fulfillment to those who have come to feel alienated, frustrated, and excluded from what they regard as their rightful place in a community. In its promise of unity and belonging lies much of the magic of totalitarian mystery, miracle, and authority.

It is a false promise.

Under socialism, the “warm embrace” of the collective is created by an omnipotent, centralized government. It relies upon coercion, not consent. In addition to crushing an individual’s agency and ability to dissent, it destroys the voluntary intermediate institutions that form a community and insulate and protect the individual from the domination of the centralized government.

As Nisbet explained, the destruction of these intermediate institutions is imperative for would-be authoritarians:

We may regard totalitarianism as a process of the annihilation of individuality, but, in more fundamental terms, it is the annihilation, first, of those social relationships within which individuality develops. It is not the extermination of individuals that is ultimately desired by totalitarian rulers, for individuals in the largest number are needed by the new order. What is desired is the extermination of those social relationships which, by their autonomous existence, must always constitute a barrier to the achievement of the absolute political community. The individual alone is powerless. Individual will and memory, apart from the reinforcement of associative tradition, are weak and ephemeral. How well the totalitarian rulers know it. (…) To destroy or diminish the reality of the smaller areas of society, to abolish or restrict the range of cultural alternatives offered individuals by economic endeavor, religion, and kinship, is to destroy in time the roots of the will to resist despotism in its large forms.

The antithesis and antidote to the collective is community.

Community requires individual consent, agency, voluntary associations, and governmental subsidiarity. This is decidedly different from the strawman argument proffered by socialists that the choice is between the collective and a calloused “rugged individualism.” While deceptive, such an argument makes a cynical sense, because subscribing to the DSA’s agenda would leave someone just a coerced cog in the collective, not a consensual member of a true community.

Once more, Nisbet writes in his book, The Sociological Tradition:

There must be in any stable culture, in any civilization that prizes its integrity, functionally significant and psychologically meaningful groups and associations lying intermediate to the individual and the larger values and purposes of his society. For these are the small areas of association within which alone such values and purposes can take on clear meaning in personal life and become the vital roots of the large culture.

And is it not the aim of all radicals, including the DSA, to destroy root and branch the foundations of an established civilization?

Is it not to fundamentally eradicate all individual agency and consensual, intermediate communal relationships to impose their radical ideological dictates to perfect humanity and create Utopia?

Is it not, as Nisbet avers, to make sure “man’s alienation from man must lead in time to man’s alienation from God,” and from community into the chill grip of the iron fist of the collective?