in Collision. Today there are two major views, two major philosophic positions that are in head-on
confrontation. It is important for us to know what those views are. Obviously there are many
divergent views that cover the area in between the two extremes, and it will do us very little
The Middle Good to examine the middle ground where all kinds of compromises and adjustments
have been made, or are being made, until we understand what the extreme positions are.
Always a philosophy is based upon an extreme assertion. An axiom that arises, presumably
from nature, is not provable, but nonetheless appears to be a self-evident truth, an ultimate
Given. We have two extreme philosophies warring today for the minds of men. One of them is
the view that the social group is the important unit in so far as human life is concerned,
and everything must be subordinated to that group in the final analysis. In this area
It is presumed that whatever should be done should be done with the group in mind. That
is to say, the individual who does not fit in to this overall group view must be either
trained and conditioned until he fits in, or must somehow be excluded or possibly even
and Eliminated so that the good of the group is not disturbed.
The other view, and it goes clear across the field to an opposite point, is that the real
viable and important element in human life is the individual. It is the well-being of
the individual that counts, and that if you take care of the well-being of each individual,
and of course the total group good would be best served by that process. In the individualist
view it would not be proper to try to correct or change any individual because each individual
would be at liberty to decide good as he sees it for himself. In examining therefore these
These two extreme views, I am going to provide two names that are proper names for each position,
but it is unfortunate that the names I use have emotive overtones. I don't mean to awaken
an emotional response. I am simply using the words because they are the correct words to
deal with this area, and I trust that whether you like or dislike one or the other of the
and Socialism, and Individualism.
When we use the suffix ism in conjunction with the word of this sort, we know that we
are talking about a system of belief, a philosophy, a dogma, if you like, which is organized and
and Predicated Upon a Particular Position.
And so we have two particular positions here, socialism and its antonym, individualism.
Now there are many persons who presume that the opposite of socialism is capitalism or
something of this sort. That's not true. The opposite of socialism as an ism is individualism.
In a socialist framework of reference, good would be good determined for the benefit of
the group. And in an individualistic context, good would be something that each individual
would have to arrive at for himself.
How would this work out in practice? Let's imagine a community containing, say, 100 persons
and let us suppose that the socialist ethic is involved here, that the people in this
community accept and operate a socialist type of arrangement. Then it would follow that
any particular practices that would be adopted in this community of 100 would have to be
practices that were deemed to be good for the social whole. No other practices could
be tolerated. Well, how would you arrive at finding out which practices were good and
which were bad? Actually, here there would be a number of methods. Various types of socialism
exist, all of them dealing with methods as to how you arrive at the concept of the social
good. With some, all you need is a dictator, and he can declare what the social good is
is arbitrary. Or you could have a kind of an elite. That is, you could have a council
of workers or a council of autocrats, call them what you will, who make a decision in
their own little committee which decision would be binding upon the total number in
the community. Or you could arrive at it by popular vote. You could take a policy, offer
Let us suppose in this particular instance, with our prototype group of 100, that this
is the method that we are following, which would lead to a kind of democratic socialism.
And we will suppose that policy X, whatever it may be, is thought of and suggested to
the people.
And let us suppose that after this policy is suggested, all 100 approve of it. Well obviously
there would be no question policy X would be adopted as the social good for that group.
And there would be no conflict because everyone agrees in the first place. But let's suppose
that we not only had policy X to consider, but let's suppose that we also had policy
Policy Y and Policy Z to consider. And we offered these three policies for our little
group of 100 to consider. Let us suppose that in voting for these policies, 45 of the 100
Favour policy X. However, we'll suppose that, well, let's say 25 favour policy Y. Now that
makes 70. We'll suppose that another 20 favour policy Z. And then there are 10 who don't
favour any policy at all. They'd rather not have one. What will the result be? Assuming
Following that we are following the socialist ethic, Policy X will win the day because
Policy X has been accepted by more people than except any other policy, even though
it is merely a plurality. You see, there are really more people in this situation that
favor something other than Policy X. That is, forty-five favor Policy X, whereas fifty-five
favor something else. But that doesn't matter, because there is a unanimity of view, insofar
as policy X is concerned, that is larger than any other unanimity of view. And the consequence
would be that policy X would be accepted. Additionally, and characteristically,
Basically, all 100 must accept Policy X, even though 55 don't want it. Now that is the practice
of democratic socialism. You arrive at the concept of the social good by the democratic
process. But the key factor is that once you have arrived at it, whether it is done by
Now let's go over to individualism and see how the same thing would work. Remember that
in an individualist ethic, each individual selects his own concept of good, and no one
One is to bind anyone. Let's suppose that we now have a community with 100 individualists
in it, and let's suppose that policy X is introduced, and let's suppose that all 100
approve of it. Well, then you would have the appearance of exactly the same thing that
you would have had in the socialist community when all 100 agreed there, because there is
nothing in individualism that says that you have to disagree, although many people suppose
It simply says that the decision-making function is retained by the individual. So in this
case, in the individualist community of 100, since all 100 happen to like policy X, it
would be adopted. And superficially, you might not be able to detect the difference
between a socialist community and an individualist community when everyone has arrived at unanimity
in any case.
And yet, in point of fact, the positions would be opposite, because in the socialist community,
the policy is adopted because of unanimity.
But in the individualist community, the policy is adopted because each one wants it.
So there's a completely different framework of reference, although it might appear to
to be identical assuming unanimity is reached. Obviously, whenever unanimity is reached,
you never have any problems. Problems arise when unanimity is not reached. And we rarely
arrive at unanimity, I might point out. Get two people together and it is very difficult
for them to arrive at a constant view of anything. Get a hundred people together and you can
In our second case, we have the same type of finding that we had in the first case.
That is, 45 favor policy X, 25 favor policy Y, 20 favor Z, and 10 would prefer no policy
at all. What would happen in the individualistic community? What would happen would be that
The 45 who like Policy X would get it, and the 25 who want Y would have that, and the
20 who want Z would have that, and the 10 that don't want anything wouldn't get anything.
Now that's the difference. In an individualistic community, no one has any rightful power over
any other person, nor could he get it. You either explain to the other person and get
In this country, we are practicing both ethics, and we are in a state of confusion because
because of that fact. You see, where we demand unanimity, at least of action, if not of opinion,
is in the political arena. Political decision-making is always aimed at a monopoly. It is aimed
at one point of view. No others will be tolerated. It is simply an academic nicety as to how
you arrive at the one point of view. In an individualist community, and we also practice
this, each person gets to make his own choice. And that is the kind of practice we have in
this country when we go into the marketplace. I can go into the market and essentially vote
for any product that I wish to. I vote for it by buying it. The minute I do so, I am
I'm voting against all the competitive products that exist. I'm choosing product X instead
of Y, Z, or whatever, and that means that X gets my vote in a very practical way. But
note that my vote in the marketplace does not inhibit anybody else who might not agree
with my choice and would want to vote for another product, and he's at liberty to do
So, in fact, put it that way. Let's suppose we're talking about soup. Just take a very
common item. We have, let us suppose, four brands of soup, X, Y, Z, and zero. And we
are operating in a marketplace which is the individualistic way of making choices. What
What would happen? Forty-five people have chosen X brand, twenty-five people have chosen
Y brand, twenty people chose Z brand, and ten people didn't buy soup. But nobody is
inhibited and next week you can go back and make the same choice as you did this week
or an entirely different choice and no one's choice inhibits your choice. You are still
are viewed as uneconomical and foolish to provide brands of soup that are obviously
not as good as one particular brand which has one popular support. So all of the other
brands would be ruled out, and from that time on, if you wanted soup, you'd get X brand
or you'd go without. Now that's the fundamental difference. And as I pointed out, we do both
in this country. Politically, we insist on communal and socialist decisions, and in the
market, we insist on individualistic decisions. And it's no wonder we get ourselves into confusion
in this area.
Now, I've been talking at the area of ethics. Let me drop down to another area. Let's talk
about economics. Assume the same communities now, 100 persons in each, of our socialist
Socialist and Individualist Communities, and let's suppose that we're going to have a socialist
economic system. What would that mean? Well, it would mean that we would have to have an
economy that is predicated upon the socialist ethic. And the socialist ethic calls for good
to the total group. What would that mean? Well, it would mean that there would have
to be a central plan. There would have to be a managed economy. The economy would be
He managed all the decisions made concerning it by some central figure. Now, whoever that
is, or it could, of course, be a small group, but it would have to be an elite of some sort,
or preferably possibly one person, an economic czar, and he would make all of the decisions.
Because you see, in a socialist arrangement, you couldn't permit individuals to make separate
decisions because some of them might be selfish, and would be making decisions that might benefit
And if there were another person in that community that didn't have that item, then he would be
deprived. And so the only time private property could be tolerated in a socialist community would
be when there was enough of a given product, good or service, so that each member of the community
could have exactly the same amount as any other person. And if there are certain
products where that wouldn't apply, for example, automobile manufacturing
companies, certainly everyone wouldn't want one. There would be no point in that.
So you couldn't have that owned by one party because that would create imbalance.
You would have to have something like that owned by the collective, by the
The political czar or the economic czar, who would in essence be making the meaningful
decisions concerning it. So this would be characteristic then in all socialist communities,
there will be a reduction, if not a total elimination, of all private ownership, especially
of the tools of production and distribution, and there will be a centrally managed economy
with somebody at the top making the decisions for everyone else. Now how would it work in
and Individualist Economy.
Well it would be quite the reverse.
In an individualistic economy you couldn't have one man making plans for everybody else
because in individualism it is presumed that each individual has a right to make his own
decisions.
Therefore in this community each person would be at liberty to make whatever economic decisions
he wished.
Now some might like to set up a factory but others would prefer to work in one and fine
In a socialist situation, they would have to be restrained. They would have to coincide and all their actions would have to fit in with the plans of the economic
Let's suppose that you have a socialist economic system and a famine develops. What would you do?
Well, if you have a famine developing so that there isn't enough to go around,
the immediate action of all pure socialists would be to take whatever it is that you have
and divide it equally, so that no one has any advantage over anyone else. Let's suppose
there's a meat shortage. Well, fine. Then you take whatever meat is left and you cut
it up in small pieces and everybody gets his share. This would be imperative because there
has to be somebody making the decision and then distribution is the major idea. I might
The symbol of division is the mathematical symbol that always accompanies all socialist efforts.
You take whatever you've got and you divide it on an equitable basis because that is the whole morality,
that is the whole ethics of socialism. Let's suppose the meat ran out entirely
in your socialist community. Then what would you do? We know what has happened in communities
where Socialism has been prevalent. In such a case, when there is no food at all, what happens is
that the czar turns around and selects the fat man in the group and puts him in the pot.
And, of course, at this point the chances are very good that the fat man in the pot will
begin to be a little bit dissatisfied with Socialism. And as the water warms up, he will
And now you'll find the most important socialist argument that there is. It is this. The economic
czar now approaches the man bubbling in the pot and says to him, Sir, shame on you for
complaining. Are you trying to suggest that your rights are greater than the rights of
of the Group? Wouldn't it be better for you to die so that the whole group could survive?
Shame on you! Boil in joy and think of the good that your death is bringing to everyone
else. Now, that would be typical. I might point out that economic socialism could be
expressed as dietetic cannibalism. Of course, today we don't hear very much of cannibalism,
And it's the kind of thing that does happen periodically when human beings find themselves
in this kind of a situation. Sometimes they become socialists very much in a hurry, and
they proceed to use their power over perhaps the fattest or possibly the most helpless
member of the group, and they simply take him or his assets, as they may demand, and
they simply take them away from him and divide it up for the good of the group. Today we
We hear much more of financial cannibalism than we do of dietetic cannibalism. But fundamental
is the idea that the group has rights in itself that individuals don't have, and always some
individual could be sacrificed for the good of the group which is superior. Now put it
in an individualistic framework, and what would you have? Assume a famine. Incidentally,
I could point out that the chances are rather good in an individualistic community that
you wouldn't get a famine because everybody in there is going to be doing his own thing
and the minute it looks as though there's going to be a food shortage somewhere in the
future, somebody there will see that this is an opportunity for profit if he can do
something about it so the chances are that he's going to do it and instead of having
one economic czar doing all the thinking, you've got a hundred different people doing
thinking.
And even though the one man may be very brilliant, he can't possibly be as brilliant as all
100.
And so you've got 100 times the chance of avoiding famine in an individualistic community
than you would have in a socialist community.
But let's say it happened anyway.
Say some natural catastrophe occurred and it simply wiped out all the food supplies
and here you are.
Well, say there's just a little bit left.
Well, what would you do?
Well, I'll tell you the first thing you wouldn't do is divide it unless the owner of it happened
to want to. Now, there's nothing to prevent him doing it. If the owner happens to be very
kind and generous in his own mind and wants to hand it out, fine, that's his decision
and he would be at liberty to do so. There's nothing in individualism opposing charity
or generosity or kindness or anything of the sort. It's just that he doesn't have to.
The chances are rather good if you had one man left with a bag of seed that he wouldn't
divide that up so everybody would get it.
He'd go out and plant it so there'd be a better crop next year.
Certainly there would be nothing to compel division, although it could happen if the
owner wanted to divide.
Well let's suppose there's nothing left, it's wiped out as in our socialist experiment.
What would happen?
Well, I don't know what would happen.
One thing that would not happen would be the idea that you would take one of the men and
make him a victim of the circumstance. If a man wanted to step forward and volunteer,
there wouldn't be anything to prevent it. But he would be the one that would have to
make the decision, not someone else, imposing his will upon him. That would be characteristic
of the Difference in the Two Systems.
As you have begun to see already, socialism provides a closed system. When you adopt it,
you cannot tolerate anything else. And the interesting thing about individualism is that
in an individualistic community you can even tolerate socialists because there isn't anything
you could do to prevent a person from believing in socialism if he wanted to. You might argue
Let's go down one further level. We've talked of ethics and economics. What about politics?
Well, of course, you're going to have politics in socialism. This is implicit because in
In order to have a central czar managing everything, you've got to have a man making decisions
for the general good.
And that's what politics and government is all about.
You have to have a central agency that is imposing its will by force on the body politic.
And so some political method and some agency of force is implicit.
Of course, you could have a kind of voluntary socialism in which people were willing to go
along with it, but nonetheless somebody's got to make the decision for them. And if they
ever objected, they'd either have to be ousted or they'd have to be suppressed some way.
Now put this, put politics into an individualistic framework of reference and you would see that
if you had true individualism, you couldn't have a government because it would have nothing
to Do. You couldn't have a central agency making decisions over other people who in themselves
have the right to make their own decisions. It would be impossible.
So these things are antithetical. I know some people today who feel that Republicans are
individualists and Democrats are socialists. Actually, that's not true. Both political
parties are socialists. You merely have the conservative socialist, who is the Republican,
and the Liberal Socialist who is the Democrat, but in essence they are all going along with
the idea of central control and just how it's to be managed becomes an academic point.