“The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home.”
― Pope Leo XIII, Rerum novarum, no. 14
On January 1, New York’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, was inaugurated. Mamdani has repeatedly described himself as a “democratic socialist,” and in his inaugural speech he doubled down on this self-identification.
At one point in his speech, Mamdani promised to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” In a sharply worded post [1] on X, Bishop Robert Barron of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester and the founder of Word on Fire responded to this line, saying that it “took my breath away.”
“Collectivism in its various forms is responsible for the deaths of at least one hundred million people in the last century,” the bishop continued. “Catholic social teaching has consistently condemned socialism and has embraced the market economy, which people like Mayor Mamdani caricature as ‘rugged individualism.’”
Bishop Barron went on to say that the market economy “is the economic system that is based upon the rights, freedom, and dignity of the human person.” He concluded, “For God’s sake, spare me the ‘warmth of collectivism.'”
Radical Individualism
Those unversed in history might be surprised by the vehemence of Bishop Barron’s response.
After all, isn’t it true that we are currently living through a period of excessive, even pathological individualism? Indeed, isn’t radical individualism — the idea that a person should prioritize his or her own desires and “self-actualization,” even over his relationships with, and thus responsibilities towards, others — practically the original sin of the sexual revolution?
And isn’t it true that this radical individualism has eroded practically every meaningful tie that used to bind groups of human beings together, from the family to the Church, to the civic societies that used to bring neighbors together and foster connections of mutual love and solidarity?
As Cardinal Robert Sarah put it in The Day is Now Far Spent, “Individualism is a ruin.” “In hedonistic Western societies,” he wrote, “the primacy of the individual’s pleasure tends to harm the proper running of societies. Individual choices and tendencies can pollute society and destabilize its foundations. A form of dictatorship of personal fulfillment prevails.”
In this case, isn’t there indeed something to be said for the idea that what we need is less “rugged individualism,” and more coming together in solidarity? Less valorization of the individual, and more communion? More…well… “warm collectivism”?
The Horrors of Collectivism
The answer to most of the questions above is a resounding “yes!”
We do indeed need, urgently, to foster a renewed appreciation for the fact that, as Aristotle famously put it, human beings are “political animals.” That is, we are fundamentally social. We thrive not in isolation, but when bound together in communities of mutual love and care, in pursuit of the common good. Radical individualism has been, as Cardinal Sarah put it, “a ruin.”
So, what gives with Bishop Barron’s impassioned response?
The answer is found in Mamdani’s choice of words. Or rather, word. “Collectivism.”
Few topics are more shrouded in confusion, and more fraught with emotion, than the question of what economic system best embodies fundamental principles of freedom and the dignity of the human person. And not without reason.
If the 20th century taught us anything, it’s that economics is never “just” economics. That is, economics is never just about money. Economics, rather, is about how human beings relate to one another. And, without a doubt, as Bishop Barron pointed out, those nations that, in the 20th century, chose to organize themselves around collectivist ideas were the most murderous, destructive nations in the history of the world.
Many people place the communism of the Soviet Union and the fascism of the Nazi Party on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum (communism is “far left” and fascism is “far right”). There are some good reasons for this. Naturally, there were many important differences between the two ideologies.
However, it should be remembered that the official name of the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. One of the Nazi Party’s policies was to nationalize significant parts of industry, and to centrally direct the economy to achieve aims chosen by party leaders and bureaucrats.
But, much more important than the question of to what extent the Soviet Union or the Nazis pursued explicitly socialist economic policies, is the fact that both the Communists and the Nazis emphasized the radical priority of the group over the individual.
I cannot overstate the importance of this point. For the Nazis, the group was the Arian race. For the Communists, the group was the proletariat. In both cases, the value of the individual was subsumed under the interests of the group, with catastrophic consequences.
The Common Good and the Dignity of the Human Person
As I never tire of repeating, the wisdom of Catholic teaching is found in the way that it rejects false binaries. For the Catholic Church it is not a question of either the individual, or the group. Rather, the Church teaches that the common good and the good of the individual are mutually reinforcing.
At the heart of Catholic social teaching is the conviction that the human person is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26; cf. Centesimus annus [3], no. 11). This confers an inherent dignity that precedes the state, the economy, and any social system. Thus, the individual can never be subjugated to impersonal, general aims, no matter how well intentioned. Only by safeguarding the dignity of the individual as sacrosanct can society attain the authentic common good.
Human beings are not raw material for political projects, nor are they interchangeable units within a social machine. Each person is a unique, unrepeatable subject, endowed with reason and free will, called to communion with God and with others. Any political ideology that fails to begin here stands in contradiction to the Gospel.
Collectivism, particularly in its socialist forms, tends to reverse this order. While sometimes motivated by a sincere desire to address inequality and suffering, socialism typically conceives of society as a whole that gives meaning to its parts. The individual derives value from usefulness to the collective, productivity within the system, or conformity to ideological goals.
Under Catholic social teaching, however, the common good cannot possibly be achieved if a society does not recognize the intrinsic dignity of every individual human person (cf. Pacem in terris [4], no. 55 & Centesimus annus [3], no. 47). To undermine the intrinsic dignity of the individual by rendering him a cog within the machine of the state is to violate the common good.
Similarly, the good of the individual cannot be achieved without the pursuit of the common good. It is when embedded within healthy relationships of solidarity that the individual finds his or her “self-actualization,” not in the isolated, individualistic pursuit of his or her own desires.
The Family and Collectivism
The family occupies a particularly vulnerable position under collectivist regimes because it represents a form of social authority that is prior to and independent of the state.
In many ways, the healthy family is the perfect encapsulation of how Catholic social teaching harmoniously balances the sanctity of the individual and of the common good.
As Cardinal Sarah writes in The Day is Now Far Spent, “We have forgotten that the common good is the most profound and intimate good of human persons. In an orchestra, the greatest good of each instrumentalist is basically the symphony that is played by them all. In a family, the common happiness is the primary good of each member. Today we prefer to pit society and the individual against each other.”
Catholic teaching holds that the family is the “first and vital cell of society” (Familiaris consortio [5], no. 42), founded on the natural institution of marriage between a man and a woman, ordered toward the procreation and education of children. It is within the family that persons first learn love, responsibility, sacrifice, and moral truth. For this reason, the Church has always insisted that the family is not a creation of the state, but a reality grounded in human nature itself.
The family exists at the human scale. It is a union of persons into a group. However, the group is not so large or impersonal that the individual disappears. Rather, the individual has the opportunity to develop his personality within bonds of love that affirm and celebrate his very individuality.
Collectivist ideologies, however, tend to view the family with suspicion, or outright hostility. Loyalty to family competes with loyalty to the state; parental authority competes with centralized control; religious and moral formation within the home resists ideological uniformity.
Historically, socialist regimes have sought to weaken the family by redefining (or even seeking to eradicate!) marriage, nationalizing education, incentivizing dependence on the state, and reducing children to wards of public institutions. Even when these policies are presented as liberating or progressive, the underlying effect is the same: the erosion of the family’s autonomy and the transfer of its responsibilities to bureaucratic systems.
This degradation of the family has profound consequences for human dignity. When marriage is destabilized, children suffer the most. When parental authority is undermined, moral formation becomes fragmented and incoherent. And when the state assumes the role of primary provider and educator, persons are subtly trained to see themselves not as responsible agents, but as dependents.
Pope St. John Paul II: The Family is the Answer to Individualism
No pope knew the horrors of collectivism more intimately than Pope St. John Paul II. He suffered under both the Nazi regime and the Marxist Soviet Union. He saw firsthand how the totalitarian state sought to centralize power by undermining the family at every turn: seeking to step into the role of surrogate parent.
No wonder, then, that in Centessimus annus [3], written to mark the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo III’s Rerum novarum [6], Pope St. John Paul II re-emphasized and expanded upon Pope Leo’s defense of the family. However, the sainted pope also showed how the family is the authentic solution to radical individualism, writing, “In order to overcome today’s widespread individualistic mentality, what is required is a concrete commitment to solidarity and charity, beginning in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and the care which the different generations give to one another” (no. 49).
In summary, from the perspective of the Church, the solution to both the horrors of “collectivism” and the degradations of radical individualism, is the same: the family.
Mayor Mamdani could learn a thing or two from Catholic social teaching. Rather than expanding the reach and power of the state, he might better exercise his office in finding policies that support the strength of families.