On Individualism, Once Again

My recent column in Mint, “In Defence of Individualism,” has attracted some critical responses – which is a good thing.

Aristotle the Geek has lambasted one such criticism, here.

In this post, I would like to answer to another response, which appeared in the “Letters to the Editor” column (scroll down to the bottom of the page). This letter, from one Surendra Mohan, reads as follows:

Sauvik Chakraverti’s article, “In defence of individualism” (Mint, 5 March), is beautifully written. But human life cannot just be compartmentalized between “we” and “I”. There are innumerable shades of grey that lie between black (“we”) and white (“I”). Individualism is eminently successful in our economic life but beyond that, an emphasis on community (“we”) is surely desirable. In a way the current crisis sweeping the world is because of the total reliance on “I”-minded thinking.

Actually, the idea of “community” lies at the root of Communist romanticism – the “commune.”

In reality, there is no such thing. Even the “joint family” has disintegrated, long ago. The Ambani brothers are at war with each other, and the same is true of most business families. Indeed, the term “sibling rivalry” – which goes back to Cain and Abel – emphasizes the fact that life is competitive.

We must therefore choose between the real Self – the “I” – and the mythical commune, the “we.”

Of course, Mr. Mohan is dead wrong when he says that “the current crisis sweeping the world is because of the total reliance on “I”-minded thinking.” The US Fed, which caused the crisis, is a part of the US State – “wee the sheeple.” All central banksters are the same. If “we” was abolished from legal parlance, and only the “I” was recognized, every individual would choose to accept as money whatever hard commodity he wanted, and money would always be sound. Recessions would never ever recur.

It is therefore noteworthy that a senior economic journalist has confirmed our worst fears – that central banksters have no Theory to back them. Theirs is a Practice that is not based on Knowledge. This is the emptiness of “We.”

Another person who has delved into these matters is Sitaram Yechury, the communist MP. In a column in the Hindustan Times today, titled “Our Singularly Plural Ways,” Yechury adopts a line made famous by Amartya Sen, that we Indians possess “plural identities.” Utter hogwash.

The word “identity” signifies something unique and individual – the “I.” Thus, your unique fingerprint or your DNA “identifies” you. These show how you are “not identical” to anyone else. This is why your “identity card” is uniquely yours, and yours alone. Amartya Sen is playing havoc with language – a typical trait of the propagandist. Yechury has fallen into the same trap. His column therefore makes no sense whatsoever. His central point is this:

“While the debate on identity as ‘given’ or ‘chosen’ will continue, the recognition of multiple identities is important to determine social policies.”

Of course, these “social policies” are the redistributive measures of communist governments aimed at “vote banks” that possess a “collective identity” that is conjured up by The State for its own, nefarious purposes.

The only alternative to this blatant injustice is the Primacy of the Individual, his inalienable rights, and the inviolability of his Property.

This Individual is possessed of an Identity that is Unique.

We see these unique identities all the time – especially among celebrities like rock stars, movie stars and the like. They always try to be “different.”

That is the way to be.