Collectivism is a social and political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of the common good — what’s best for society.
If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), writing a century after John Locke, is the foundational Western philosopher of collectivism. Rousseau starkly contrasted John Locke’s individualism (see John Locke: Ownership of Self, from last week).
While both critiqued the absolute authority of monarchs, Rousseau, in his 1762 The Social Contract, introduced the general will, which posited the community and not the individual was the basis of political legitimacy.
Rousseau’s main points:
General Will: Rousseau’s concept of the general will is central to his philosophy. Rousseau theorized that legitimate political authority doesn’t come from individual consent but from the “general will” of the people. Rousseau theorized the general will is about the common good – what’s best for society.
Social Contract Theory: Rousseau’s social contract theory differs from Locke’s in its orientation to an individual’s relationship with the state. Rousseau saw the social contract as an agreement between individuals to form a collective body, after which individuals surrender their rights to the general will for the common good. In contrast, Locke’s social contract represents individuals agreeing to form a government that protects their natural rights (life, liberty, and property, which Thomas Jefferson expanded to the pursuit of happiness).
Freedom and Autonomy: Rousseau saw true freedom as adherence to the general will. In Rousseau’s view, when one aligns with the general will, one is not being coerced but is instead participating in self-legislation.
Natural Human Goodness and Corruption by Society: Rousseau posited that humans are naturally good, and society’s structures corrupt this innate goodness.
John Locke’s ideas, not Rousseau’s, outline our US Constitution. But even though we didn’t structure our Constitution using Rousseau’s ideas, America hasn’t ever been able to wholly refute them either. On the surface, Rousseau’s argument seems beneficial. We might hear it described by some with a positive spin as “a rising tide lifts all boats.” It implies that policies or actions that help the greater good will benefit everyone, not just a specific group. Sometimes this is true.
If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?
A key point of divergence is the term “general will.” Rousseau argued that the general will of the people, as opposed to the sum of individual wills, represents the true interest of the community.
James Madison and many founders of America wholly disagreed. They feared collectivism could suppress individual rights and lead to a tyranny of the majority.
Madison, writing Federalist No. 10, urged protecting the individual from the collective. He used the term majority twelve times in the short essay. He outlined that dividing power between groups protects the rights of individuals from the majority or general will of the people. This division of power included checks and balances at the federal level, power divided between states and the federal government, and a representative form of government rather than a direct democracy.
In sum, Rousseau’s concept of the general will represents the common good – what’s best for society. While this sounds good, this same concept can potentially oppress the individual.
Though American founders didn’t agree with Rousseau’s views as he wrote them, we should consider a couple of points about collectivism.
First, Rousseau’s theory that the general will is about the common good — what’s best for society — is sound when we acknowledge that the common good is preserving our rights as individuals.
Sometimes, Americans try to take a collectivist approach and strip rights away from other Americans, such as the right to demonstrate free speech by some who would wear different clothes or read different books than others. Eventually, this gets resolved. Issues often get resolved in favor of the individual rather than the majority (represented by the government.) This process is not straightforward or swift. For example, the history of civil rights in the United States illustrates that protecting individual rights for marginalized groups requires prolonged legal and social struggles.
The crux of the matter regarding Rousseau’s general will begs the question—who decides what’s best for society?
When we give the majority, represented by the government, the power to strip rights away from some individuals, we give the majority the ability to strip rights away from us all. When we fight for the rights of other Americans to maintain their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including the right to make decisions that support those rights, we retain our own rights.
Second, individualism fails when individuals collectively fail. When individualism fails, society calls for collectivism.
This dilemma is the strongest argument in support of Rousseau’s theories. For instance, a US Federal Reserve study from 2018 titled, Are Millennials Different?, found young American generations have lower average earnings, fewer assets, and a different financial landscape compared to what previous generations experienced at similar stages in their lives.
These conditions faced by young American generations have individualists and collectivists posing solutions. A Roosevelt Institute position paper from 2015 titled Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy outlines various approaches to redirect the American economy. The paper includes ideas such as strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, and awarding government contracts only to corporations that meet high labor standards.
While some might disagree with the proposals, these are individualist ideas. They are not collectivist policies. Individuals need to be able to succeed economically. We must pay workers high enough wages so they can provide for their own needs from the effort of their work. This premise supports individualism. If we can’t set conditions enabling individuals who go to work every day to have heat in the house and food on the table, the call for collectivist approaches will get louder. Collectivist approaches might be Universal Basic Income and more debt transfer from Americans into the federal deficit.
We don’t need to agree with all of the Roosevelt Institute’s ideas to recognize that the call for solutions results from real economic challenges.
Conservatives and progressives alike can build consensus around raising American workers’ wages. Improving the ability of individual Americans to provide for themselves strengthens our individualism society. Higher wages for workers reduce the need for social programs. Higher wages preserve American’s ability to demonstrate their rights to liberty.
Suppose we are going to set conditions that enable Americans to provide for their own basic needs, help individual self-motivated Americans to be great no matter their upbringing, and reduce the social program taxation burden on the American taxpayer. In that case, we must enable individual Americans to succeed economically.
If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?
Because collectivism can suppress individual rights and lead to the tyranny of the majority.
If we want to maintain the individualism that is the foundation of America, we need to enable individuals to succeed.
May God bless the United States of America.
Share this post