思想的远行
我的随笔
这篇文章是要人们认识到“个人主义（Individualism)”的“特权”性，也就是说，个人主义不是天经地义理所当然唯我独尊的，如果没有社会的认同，个人主义再好也是白日梦。从梦到现实，需要“集体”的同意，给予个人主义“特权”。这种同意，是通过选举磋商达到的，具体做法是通过各种福利制度。福利制度不是个人主义的障碍，而是个人主义得以实现的基础。因此不要一说民主党，就是搞大锅饭集体主义，谈虎色变。两党不过是在不停地给社会寻找平衡，为不同阶层争取福利而已。对集体主义那种恐惧不是不应该有，但西方制度本来就是走在一条狭窄的山脊，太左太右都可能掉下山去，是一种平衡。
在西方世界，“个人主义”长期以来被认为是给个人赋能的源泉，是社会财富增长的动力。从尼采开始，到上世纪的艾茵·兰德（Ayn Rand)、弗里德里希·哈耶克和米尔顿·弗里德曼等思想家都把个人自主、自我利益和自由市场作为优先考虑，成为个人主义哲学的倡导者。里根和撒切尔夫人则作为政府领袖把这种哲学运用到政府运作上，通过私有化让企业和社会更有活力。在这一范式中，任何偏离个体主义的观点都被视为低劣的，还会被贴上社会主义、集体主义或群体思维的标签。这一叙事渗透到文化和政治话语中，塑造了西方现代社会价值观和期望。
然而，尽管个体主义具有众所周知而且历史也证明了的优点，我们还是必须认识到这一世界观归根结底是一种“特权”，它只有在“支持”它的社会框架内才能维持，在不支持它的社会框架里就什么都不是。如果社会集体对它不满，个人主义就会被挑战甚至被推翻。一旦进入那种状态，个人主义将化为泡影，正如在古巴和前苏联发生的那样，个人主义只能是一种怀旧了。
进一步说，个体主义赞美自我努力有所成就者的人，认为个人可以通过努力、聪明才智和毅力决心而崛起。这个概念无疑激励了无数人，并促进了西方世界的创新和经济增长。然而，任何理论都有其局限性。在西方社会中，个体主义的发挥实际上以成员能在一定程度上认同支撑其规范和价值观为前提。因为个人的能力有不同，而且社会需要更多的普通人，所以，大多数人即使努力，也不见得能过上好生活。即使不努力，这个社会也没有权利让这些人去努力。在西方社会，没有“各尽所能”这个要求。那么这些人，是否赞成个人主义就不是理所当然的事。而他们人手一票，不一定愿意给“个人主义”这个“特权”。
但是几百年来，至少在英美，个人主义还是大行其道的，因为种种原因，个人主义一直拥有这个权利，很多人因此甚至不觉得这只是一个特权，而是理所当然。我们必须重新认识清楚，如果我们觉得个人主义是好的，那我们必须满足一定条件来让这一特权能够继续获得。为什么个人主义在英美得到这种特权了呢？因为社会发达，穷人的生活也得到提高，英国历史上穷人的福利就比法国好，贫富差距小，因此英国没有发生法国大革命那样的惨烈状况。而贡铲主义运动之所以在俄国成功，也是因为当时的俄国发生普遍的贫困。二月革命和十月革命的时候，人们普遍饿肚子，吃不上饭所以上街了。
今天也一样，例如，生活在美国南方和铁锈带的贫困人群常常声称他们被政府控制失去自由，他们也普遍支持共和党，而共和党人更多宣称自己是个人主义。但这些人实际上是希望政府干预以阻止全球化，因为全球化将工作岗位转移到亚洲，而全球化是以自由市场的名义进行的，也是个人主义的延伸。所以，个人财富利益才是任何群体最重要的考量因素，我们也必须承认个体主义的理想不能脱离个人利益。
因此，无限制的个人主义，加上巨大的财富差距，会严重破坏个体主义得以蓬勃发展的环境。为了维护和保护个体主义，必须持续改善福利系统，维护支持个人主义的环境。这样说来，福利框架并不是对社会主义或集体主义的让步，而是让“特权”个体主义得以繁荣的关键基础。
西方的民主过程则可以促进各群体的谈判，选举培养社会成员的归属感和责任感，确保成员同意支持个体主义的特权框架。
总之，尽管在西方个人主义常被赞美为一种更优越的真理，但必须认识到其“特权”属性。它只有在社会共识和福利框架的支持下才能蓬勃发展。福利不是个人主义的障碍，而是一种必要，通过协商决定其程度——这是一种冷酷的科学事实，支撑着个体主义的可持续性。
“Privileged” Individualism
In the Western world, individualism has long been celebrated as a hallmark of progress and a source of personal empowerment. Thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman have risen to prominence as advocates of a philosophy that prioritizes personal autonomy, self-interest, and the free market. Within this paradigm, any deviation from individualism is often dismissed as inferior, labeled socialist, collective, or indicative of a herd mentality. This narrative has permeated cultural and political discourse, shaping societal values and expectations. However, while individualism carries substantial merits, it is essential to recognize that this worldview is ultimately a "privileged" one—sustainable only within a societal framework that supports it. In times of collective discontent, as seen in countries like Cuba and the former Soviet Union, this framework can be challenged or dismantled.
The philosophical foundations of individualism celebrate the notion of the self-made person, positing that individuals can rise through effort, ingenuity, and determination. This concept has undeniably inspired countless individuals and fostered innovation and economic growth. However, like any theory, individualism has its limits. In Western societies, it operates on the assumption that all members subscribe to the norms and values that underpin it.
It's also crucial to acknowledge that the ideal of individualism is never divorced from personal interest. For instance, impoverished individuals in the Rust Belt often claim they've lost freedom from government overreach. However, the reality is that many desire government intervention to mitigate the effects of globalization, which has transferred jobs to Asia in the name of free-market ideals. Personal wealth remains the dominant consideration for any group. Historically, significant wealth disparities have fueled revolutions, as seen in the French Revolution, where inequities in France surpassed those in contemporary Britain. Similarly, communism took root in Russia and China largely due to widespread poverty.
Consequently, unchecked individualism, coupled with vast wealth disparities, undermines the environment necessary for individualism to thrive. To maintain and protect this ideal, continuous improvement in welfare systems is essential. This welfare framework should not be viewed as a concession to socialism or collectivism; rather, it is a crucial foundation for privileged individualism.
Democratic processes can facilitate group negotiations, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility that ensures all members of society consent to the pro-individualism framework.
In conclusion, while individualism is often hailed as a superior truth, it is vital to recognize its "privileged" nature. It flourishes only when supported by societal consensus and welfare. Welfare is not an obstacle but a negotiated necessity—a cold, scientific fact that underpins the sustainability of individualism.
