Revisiting 20th Century Collectivism and the Rise of Neo-Collectivism

The failures of 20th-century collectivist movements like socialism, communism, and fascism are well-documented. In each case, the top-down, centralized control that defined these ideologies led to the suppression of individual autonomy in the name of the "greater good." As a result, what began as attempts to equalize or improve societies often devolved into authoritarianism and social control. This legacy casts a long shadow over contemporary political thought, and yet, in the 21st century, we are witnessing a resurgence of collectivist thinking in new forms.

This neo-collectivism—marked by social-engineered consensus around issues like climate change, public health, and economic inequality—reintroduces the idea that certain collective goals are so important that they justify coercive means to ensure compliance. Whether we are talking about mandates, restrictions, or surveillance measures, these top-down approaches rely heavily on social conformity and are often framed as necessary for the collective welfare.

The Enduring Argument for Collectivism Over Individualism

The debate between collectivism and individualism is not new. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas argued that the end of law is the common good. His legal philosophy asserted that a just society requires laws designed to benefit everyone, not merely a subset of individuals. In this view, the collective takes precedence over the individual in legal and moral reasoning. This line of thinking laid the groundwork for much of modern jurisprudence, particularly in welfare states where policies are justified based on their collective impact.

However, a crucial nuance in Aquinas's thought is his famous dictum, lex iniusta non est lex ("an unjust law is no law at all"). By this reasoning, laws must be reasonable, just, and in service of the common good—otherwise, they lack moral legitimacy. If a law is unreasonable or unjust, it should not be obeyed. This introduces an important tension: while the law should serve the common good, it cannot do so at the expense of fundamental justice or human dignity.

Neo-Collectivism and Its Tensions with Aquinas's Legal Philosophy

Building on these ideas, we can examine how contemporary neo-collectivist trends conflict with the moral underpinnings of Aquinas's philosophy. Many of the policies associated with this new wave of collectivism claim to be in service of the common good but often rely on methods that undermine individual rights and liberties. These measures—whether justified by environmental concerns, public health crises, or social equity—create a scenario where the ends (the common good) are used to justify otherwise coercive means (mandates, censorship, and restrictions).

When seen through the lens of lex iniusta non est lex, we can question whether such measures can be considered just. If they infringe upon fundamental human rights, such as freedom of speech, movement, and association, they may constitute unreasonable or unjust laws, thus losing their moral legitimacy. In essence, Aquinas would argue that while the common good is crucial, it cannot override individual rights and justice.

The New Challenge: Navigating Between Neo-Collectivism and Individual Autonomy

The challenge of our time, therefore, is to navigate a path between the dangers of neo-collectivism and the legitimate needs of society to address global issues. There is a need for balance between individual autonomy and collective responsibility, but the balance must be struck without descending into the authoritarianism that plagued past collectivist movements.

One possible solution is a renewed emphasis on subsidiarity—a principle that decisions should be made at the most local level possible, respecting individual autonomy while still allowing for collective action when necessary. This would reduce the likelihood of sweeping, top-down measures that ignore the diversity of individual needs and contexts, while still enabling coordinated responses to global challenges.

Another path forward may involve strengthening legal and ethical frameworks that ensure the common good is pursued without violating individual rights. Here, Aquinas's principle of unjust laws becomes particularly relevant: governments and institutions must be held accountable for ensuring that their policies are just, reasonable, and proportionate, lest they lose their moral authority.

Conclusion

By revisiting the lessons of 20th-century collectivism, drawing on the insights of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, and applying these ideas to the challenges of the 21st century, we can build a more nuanced understanding of the tensions between the common good and individual autonomy. The question is not simply whether we should prioritize collectivism or individualism, but how we can design a system that respects both while avoiding the pitfalls of authoritarianism. In this, Aquinas’s moral reasoning provides a crucial guide: collective welfare is essential, but unjust laws and unreasonable policies are no laws at all.

WAIT