A Counterargument to Rand’s Aphorism in a World of Global Uniformity
Ayn Rand, a key figure in 20th-century individualist libertarian thought, famously claimed that “racism is the most primitive and crudest form of collectivism.” In her view, judging a person by their racial identity rather than by their character, intellect, or merit was a denial of the individual. It was a regression to tribal thinking, where the person disappears behind group affiliation.
While this critique is valid from a moral and epistemological standpoint, since the individual should always come before the group, there is room to explore a nuanced counterperspective. What if, in certain political or historical contexts, racial identity functioned not as a form of collectivism, but paradoxically as a force of fragmentation? What if, as despicable as racism may be, it sometimes disrupts deeper and more totalizing forms of collectivism?
The Hypothesis of a Globally Unified Government
Let us imagine a future or a dystopia where a single planetary government has successfully imposed unified governance. In such a world, the cosmopolitan dream of certain technocratic or transnational elites would have been realized. There would be no more nation-states, no borders, and no strong cultural identities. Humanity would be integrated, regulated, and homogenized in the name of peace, efficiency, and rational administration.
This world, which is already foreshadowed in some utopian tech ideologies and global governance proposals, would necessarily rely on propaganda to create a new universal identity. That identity would be the “global citizen”: rootless, interchangeable, a consumer without heritage, and a worker without memory. Any form of cultural, historical, or biological difference would be framed as a threat to species-wide unity. Strong communities, divergent traditions, and distinct identities would be discouraged or even repressed.
Propaganda as the Vehicle of Uniformity
In such a configuration, the danger would no longer come from tribalism, but from the erasure of all otherness in the name of a superior unity. Individuals would not be judged for their race. They would be told that race, culture, and legacy no longer exist at all.
Propaganda would play a key role. Through education, media, technology, and social norms, people would be encouraged to perceive themselves not as members of a people, a culture, or a tradition, but as interchangeable units within an abstract humanity. Collectivism would take a new form. It would not be a closed tribal group, but rather total fusion into a rootless universalism. The individual would no longer be a singular person, but a functional node in a global machine.
Racism as a Residual Fragment of Resistance
In this kind of system, any form of group affiliation, whether linguistic, religious, national, or racial, would become a kind of resistance. Racism, although irrational, dangerous, and morally wrong, could paradoxically function as a disruption to the project of total fusion.
In this view, belief in racial difference, or the desire to preserve racial or ethnic identity, would prevent the creation of a fully homogenized social body. It would introduce fragmentation into the global order. Instead of a unified collectivism made of an equalized human mass, we would have a mosaic of conflicting and distinct groups.
This is where the paradox appears. In a world moving toward absolute unity, the persistence of collective identities, even problematic ones, acts as a centrifugal force. These identities prevent the central authority from reducing humanity into a single, fluid, and interchangeable entity.
Fragmentation Versus Fusion: A Metapolitical Dilemma
Racism can be interpreted not only as a primitive form of collectivism, which it historically is, but also as evidence that humanity remains fractured and resistant to total planetary collectivism. Racism is not admirable. However, it may serve as proof that the globalist dream of complete human uniformity has not yet succeeded in erasing all differences.
What is at stake is a conflict between two kinds of collectivism. The first is tribal collectivism, where the individual is crushed under racial or ethnic belonging. This is the object of Rand’s critique. The second is universal collectivism, where the individual is dissolved into an abstract, borderless humanity. This is the subject of dystopian critique.
In both cases, the individual is endangered. The first form is crude and violent. The second form is seductive, often appearing in the language of peace, humanitarianism, and technological progress.
Conclusion: Beyond Rand, Beyond Uniformity
Rand’s critique remains powerful and necessary. We must reject any attempt to reduce the individual to their race. However, in a world where the alternative is the total erasure of all human differences in favor of planetary collectivism, it becomes important to recognize that even negative phenomena can sometimes operate as friction against larger, more dangerous forms of social control.
This does not justify racism in any way. It is a reminder that in a world drifting toward global fusion, any remaining point of differentiation, however misguided, may still serve to disrupt the monolith.
The true challenge is to defend individualism against both racial tribalism, which denies the individual, and global uniformity, which dissolves the individual.
In other words, the task is to defend the individual not as a member of any group, but as an irreducible person. Neither race nor fusion. Simply, a human being.
Leave a Reply