Does socialism allow for individuality?

High street shopping offers the illusion of choice

The right constantly recycle the accusation that socialism will crush individuality. They champion “rugged individualism” and “personal responsibility,” which they contrast with slothful reliance on welfare.

There is nothing original in this—it runs back from Margaret “There’s no such thing as society” Thatcher, to the founding fathers of free market economics.

The market appears to offer us an unlimited choice of clothes, entertainment, lifestyles and experiences—for a price.

But this illusion of choice is filtered through huge corporations that increasingly dominate world markets. Choice is limited to McDonald’s or Burger King, Levi’s or Wranglers, Pepsi or Coke, Nike or Adidas.

The empty streets of every city or town in Britain are virtually identical to one another.

Everything sold online is remarkably similar. People seek out original items offered by independent sellers. But successful pop ups and independent shops get swallowed up by corporations.

This centralisation is constantly taking place across the world, as big corporations take over their competitors.

And even this limited, corporate “freedom of choice” is only available to those who can afford it.

The rich minority, those who own the massive corporations and their hangers on, can express themselves with bespoke gear, commissioned art and homes designed to suit them.

The rest of us are expected to work for these firms, doing humdrum jobs where any expression of individuality is punished.
Capitalism could only grow by deliberately destroying the individuality of its workers.

When the first factories developed in Britain, the capitalist class made its workers as much like each other as possible. Workers were forced to regard work as their only aim in life, to sacrifice their small personal pleasures to endless toil.

The commodification of our personalities is structured into capitalism. Karl Marx explained how the existence of money submerges our individuality.

“The properties of money are my—the possessors’—properties and essential powers. Therefore, what I am and what I can do is by no means determined by my individuality.

“I am a wicked, dishonest, unscrupulous individual, but money is respected and so also is its owner. Through money I can have anything the human heart desires.

Do I not, therefore, possess all human abilities? Does not money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their opposite?”

Modern capitalism continues this process. In schools what matters is not children developing their interests—it is testing them.

Children dress in the same uniforms and have the same “disciplined” behaviour. Expressions of individuality are punished.

Massive resources have been poured into developing the micro-management and surveillance of workers, destroying their individuality.

So why does the idea that socialism crushes individuality get any traction?

A cramping of individual development marked countries that claimed to be socialist, such as the Soviet Union.

This was the basis of a popular image of socialism. But these countries were not socialist.

They were dominated by bureaucratic ruling groups that wanted to develop their economies to compete with the West.

Real individuality, the full and complete development of the distinct capacities of the individual, will only be possible in a completely different sort of society.

Genuine socialism means the individual and society would no longer be in opposition. People would stop having to compete with one another and would not be under pressure to work ever harder.

Real human individuality will only be possible when workers across the world come together and use their collective power to overturn the capitalist class.

They can then reorganise society so that it is based upon developing human abilities and not the demands of competition.