Содружество

Pau Mill

Is social democracy compatible with individualism? In my view, it is a political project—an idea aimed at building a society that serves the interests of the overwhelming majority of people, and ideally, of everyone.

I deliberately speak of a political process and an idea, not a fixed blueprint. Both society and social democracy evolve over time, and so do the foundational institutions we depend on and reform when social tensions accumulate. If we want these interests to be realized, then all individuals must have unconditional and inalienable rights and freedoms. Each person should have the opportunity to express themselves in accordance with their nature—provided that their actions do not harm others.

At the same time, within society, the state, and the institutional mechanisms that shape them, there are often constraints that make the realization of these rights and freedoms impossible. These constraints may come from the state itself or from large concentrations of capital, both of which can suppress those very rights. Formally, a person may be free from coercion and supposedly “have every opportunity to be themselves”—yet in practice have none of it.

Social-democratic politics identifies two main forms of domination:

• State domination, when political power turns into a force standing above society
• Economic domination, when large capital concentrates power and deprives people of real choice

The task of social democracy is to limit both forms of power through democratic institutions.

It is essential that the individual is not dissolved into the collective. The assumption is that people voluntarily form associations—mutual aid networks, credit systems, exchange structures, self-governing bodies, productive cooperatives, and more.

My argument is aimed at bringing social democracy and individualism together at a single point—without any obscurantist notions of people as mere “cogs in a collective machine.” A genuinely left-wing ideology does not exist in the form of totalitarian socialism, which is socialist in name only and in practice indistinguishable from far-right dictatorships. Totalitarian socialism is an oxymoron: a left-wing project, understood as a sincere commitment to equality and the rights of broad populations, finds its real expression in social democracy.

That said, individualism also has its limits. The key principle is:

the freedom of one person must not become violence against another

This synthesis is compatible not with any form of individualism, but only with one that recognizes that one person’s freedom must not turn into another’s subordination—and that it ends where another person’s boundaries begin. In other words, individualism should not be confused with a cult of predatory self-interest.

Private property, in this framework, is recognized, defined, and permitted—but not as a perpetual right to extract rent or to live off others’ dependence.

In short: freedom without barracks, property without feudalization, and a market without worship of the strong.