Why Zohran Mamdani Is Wrong About Individualism

Zohran Mamdani made his worldview clear. He didn’t hide it.

He said America needs to move away from the “coldness of rugged individualism” and toward the “warmth of collectivism.”

In his view, individualism seems harsh, mean, and outdated. Collectivism, on the other hand, appears compassionate, inclusive, and humane. This sounds like progress, especially to those who see responsibility as a burden and dependence as kindness.

But that way of framing things is misleading, and it has real consequences.

What Mamdani really means

When Mamdani criticizes “rugged individualism,” he isn’t referring to selfishness or greed. He means the belief that people are responsible for their own lives, that effort matters, that rewards come from contribution, and that the group does not guarantee outcomes.

This idea makes supporters of collectivism uncomfortable.

When you accept individual responsibility, you also accept failure, unequal outcomes, and the reality that life is not distributed equally and never will be.

Mamdani doesn’t reject individualism because it is cruel, but because it does not promise equal results.

The false warmth of collectivism

Collectivism often presents itself as empathy. Mamdani speaks of “warmth,” people being “taken care of,” and systems that make sure no one is left behind. It sounds humane until you ask a simple question.

Who makes the decisions?

Who decides what you deserve? Who decides when you’ve done enough? Who decides how much you can keep? Who decides which ambitions are acceptable?

In collectivism, the answer is never “you.” It is always the system.

That is not warmth; it is control.

Real warmth comes from people choosing to help each other—families making sacrifices, neighbors supporting neighbors, and communities or charities offering help. It does not come from bureaucracies managing people’s lives.

Why individualism isn’t cold

Individualism doesn’t mean “you’re on your own.” It means “you are capable.”

It says your choices, effort, and discipline matter. Your mistakes are yours to learn from, not something for the system to explain away.

This philosophy does not remove compassion. Instead, it makes compassion meaningful because it is chosen, not forced.

Mamdani’s view assumes people need policy to become good. Individualism assumes people can take responsibility if they have freedom.

History strongly supports the second view.

The individual is the real minority

One key truth Mamdani’s view overlooks is that the smallest and most vulnerable minority is not a group, but the individual.

Groups do not innovate, create, or take risks. Individuals do.

Every breakthrough, business, invention, and cultural shift that improved life came from someone willing to act independently, stand apart, and risk failure.

Collectivism sees that impulse as dangerous, while individualism sees it as essential.

Why this message appeals right now

Mamdani’s message appeals to young voters because many have been protected from consequences. Scarcity feels abstract, failure is softened, and systems seem invisible.

If you have not yet carried responsibility, collectivism sounds comforting. Someone else manages things and takes on the risk.

But societies that move in this direction always face the same problem. Eventually, too few people are willing to carry the load. Productivity drops, trust fades, dependency increases, and the promised warmth turns into resentment.

What happens when individualism is abandoned

When a culture teaches that outcomes are owed, not earned, effort drops. People stop taking risks, excellence is questioned, and success must be justified or shared.

This is not just theory; it is something we can observe.

People stop believing the system is fair, that work is rewarded, or that their choices matter. When that belief disappears, social cohesion falls apart.

You don’t get unity. You get grievance.

The real choice Mamdani avoids

Mamdani frames the debate in emotional terms: cold versus warm, caring versus uncaring.

But the real debate is about structure.

Do you want a society based on responsibility, freedom, and people choosing to work together?
Or do you want one based on management, dependency, and forced outcomes?

Individualism is not perfect, but it works on a large scale. It creates prosperity, preserves dignity, and lets people build, fail, recover, and try again.

Collectivism promises care without cost, but history shows that promise never lasts.

Mamdani is not alone. He clearly represents a broader shift on the left, one that sees individual responsibility as a flaw to fix, not a virtue to defend.

That is why his words matter: they show the real goal, not just the language.

The warmth he promises comes at the cost of freedom. Once a society decides freedom is negotiable, it rarely gets it back.