Individualism Needs Collectivism

 An individualist utopia sounds like a great idea, right?  It would be the pinnacle of progress in a world where collectivism suffocates liberality.  But unfortunately, the great tragedy of life is that progress cannot be attained without the individual succumbing to the tenets of a community.  History has repeatedly shown that collectivism is ultimately what changes things, not the individual.  Even when individuals without a leader or a social hierarchy get together, very rarely can they cause any social change.  Many men and women have tried and failed to bring their utopias to the world, out of a false belief that liberality only depends on the individual, that individuality is the only thing that can transcend the traditions of the community to which they are bound.  Freedom however cannot be won by individuals; society will remain static as long as individuals are acting alone.  Though an individual may break free from the bonds of society, it can only be temporary because he or she cannot permanently change it without having any followers. 

In order to really change society, an individual only has the power to rise above the ranks of the community and stand for something greater than their self.  They can lead their followers to greener pastures, so long as the bonds of their community remain tight.  A slackening of the mythologies, legends, and traditions that keep a brotherhood strong causes individuality to poison the structure of ideas that the community had built.  Peripheral liberties that defy convention allow each individual to drift from the cause, because each individual has their own version of the cause they'd like to see fit.  Their version taints any collectivism created by bringing the group together in the first place. 

Back in the 1840s, before the spread of communism in Europe, utopian socialism was experimented on in several communities of the United States, including Fruitlands, Brook Farm, Oneida, and New Harmony.  Each of them failed in their own bizarre way, but what links them all together seems to be a lack of cohesion sponsored either by a lack of rules, or rules that were too strict for the community to function.  In essence, too much individuality was given to several of these communities while too little of it was given to others.  It's unrealistic to expect a community to thrive without using animal products (as was the case in Fruitlands), and equally unrealistic by allowing complex marriages to thrive (marriages where members of the community can have sex with anyone they please, as practiced at Oneida).  The most famous utopian community, Brook Farm, which was a haven for the transcendentalists, suffered from a combination of both.  They had a rule that young people had to perform harder jobs, which caused a lot of dissent.  Yet they had no rule that would protect the most important buildings in the community in the event of a fire, ultimately leading to its demise. 

A recent comparison can be made with the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, and why it was so short-lived.  Its power rose dramatically in a short period of time, yet it seemingly left the spotlight as soon as it hit its peak.  The reason for this downfall is that there was no leadership whatsoever; the movement was entirely based on individual desires and ideas.  Nothing was called for collectively and therefore nothing got done.  The only purpose it served was to intimidate bankers on Wall Street, which would ideally force politicians to recognize the threat of rising unemployment.  Unemployment soon fell after the movement, which undoubtedly had an effect on its demise, but if the movement had any semblance of being organized it would have made a lot more noise, and might still be around today. 

Make no mistake, I am not disavowing individualism with these statements.  Communities also fail when there is too little of it (not to mention entire nation-states, like the Soviet Union).  I am only saying that an excess of individuality can be just as disastrous as too little of it.  The organizers of those socialist utopias thought they were creating strong communities by getting everyone involved, but any rule they made which contrasted sharply with the nation surrounding it seemed to accelerate its demise.  It seems that no community or movement should ever expect to succeed if its influence can't spread abroad.  The individualists of communities like these only become choked by their own isolation, never realizing that the society they'd rejected might have already been the most ideal, considering the nature of humans and all their habits.  The world will never be perfect; sometimes we have just have to accept the things we don't like about it.  There are moments when challenging the social order should definitely be called into question, but they won't be successful unless a majority of the nation is capable of being transformed by the reform group.  The reform group must organize itself in such a way that only minor changes can be made, one step at a time.  Too much change at once tends to radicalize the opposition.