The West is undergoing a quiet but profound transition. As faith in God wanes, many are not abandoning the search for something larger than themselves — they are simply redirecting it toward the collective. According to a recent essay in American Thinker, this shift from religious faith to collectivist ideology represents a dangerous moment for Western civilization, one that threatens the very foundations of individual liberty and limited government.
The essay, written by Allan J. Feifer, argues that the decline in belief in God has not extinguished the human desire for meaning. Instead, that desire is being repurposed. People are increasingly looking to government, society, or some other institution to deliver what religion once promised: equality, justice, security, belonging, and moral order. The result is a culture that increasingly views individualism not as the cornerstone of freedom but as the source of inequality and social disorder.
The Foundations of Western Prosperity
Feifer emphasizes that Western civilization’s wealth and power were not accidental. Individual liberty, private property, limited government, and the rule of law were developed through centuries of trial and error. These are not abstract ideals; they are practical mechanisms designed to constrain the inevitable imperfections of human beings. The founders of the American republic did not assume that leaders would be virtuous. Rather, they assumed the opposite — that leaders would pursue self-interest, that governments might become oppressive, and that even the best among us could abuse power. The system of checks and balances was built on that realistic assessment.
Collectivism, by contrast, rejects this realism. For socialists and communists, the collective claims control over economic resources. The underlying assumptions are straightforward: economic equality is essential, labor is central to justice, capitalism is exploitative, and individual freedom is subordinate to collective objectives. Feifer argues that socialism is essentially “Communist lite” — and that the difference is only a matter of scale, ultimately tilting toward harsh and repressive communism when edicts are rejected.
The Individual as a Problem to Be Managed
But beneath the economics lies a deeper issue: a fundamental shift in how the individual is understood. Collectivists, Feifer writes, lack confidence in an individual’s ability to govern him or herself. Individual choices are seen as heavily influenced by economic circumstances, culture, class, and institutions — therefore, the individual must be managed, corrected, indoctrinated, and protected from his own limitations.
This is where the relationship between socialism and religion becomes particularly telling. Marx’s framework was materialist; he viewed religion as a false truth arising from social and material deficiencies. Communist regimes went further, often treating religious faith as a competing source of authority to be eliminated. There is a contemporary parallel, according to the essay: a 2021 survey of nearly 13,000 members of the Democratic Socialists of America found that roughly 60% identified as atheist or agnostic. Gallup also found in 2022 that while 94% of conservatives believed in God, only 62% of liberals said the same.
Those numbers don’t prove causation, Feifer acknowledges. But they raise a compelling question: what happens when people lose faith in God but still crave meaning? The collective steps in, promising a historic struggle and a superior society — and then demands sacrifice from the individual in the name of the greater good.
The Paradox of Collectivist Faith
There is, however, a critical difference between religious faith and secular collectivism. Judeo-Christian traditions begin with the concept of human imperfection. They place moral limits on everyone, including those who govern. Collectivism places its faith in institutions rather than individuals — and that distinction matters profoundly. If the problem is human nature, changing the economic system does not eliminate it; it merely shifts who holds the power to impose it.
History, Feifer notes, demonstrates this painfully. The Soviet Union did not abolish selfishness by abolishing private property, nor did Mao’s China eliminate inequality through collectivized agriculture. Communist regimes produced new elites, new privileges, coercion, and enormous human suffering. Yet collectivism remains remarkably resistant to learning from its failures. When socialism fails, believers blame corrupt leaders, insufficient commitment, hostile outsiders, or poor implementation. The essential belief survives, as Feifer puts it, “like Count Dracula.” This time will be different, they insist — this time the right people will be in charge.
The problem, for many adherents, is not that the experiment has repeatedly failed. It is that they don’t know — or don’t want to know — how often it has failed and why. That willful ignorance of history, Feifer argues, is existentially dangerous.
Concentrated Power as the Real Threat
The West was never ignorant of inequality or indifferent to suffering. The systems constructed over centuries were built because earlier generations understood a crucial truth: the greatest threat to freedom is not inequality but concentrated power.
Private property gives each person a stake in the system; economic independence provides political independence. Voluntary association allows separation from the state, and religious institutions provide moral authority outside it. At the pinnacle of society, the rule of law constrains those who govern. Remove these restraints, and the individual becomes nothing more than a subject.
That is the paradox of modern collectivism: in seeking to address economic inequality, it gives institutions control over people’s lives and concentrates the power to allocate resources — assuming that whoever receives that power will use it wisely. History reveals the fallacy of that assumption.
The American Experiment at a Crossroads
Feifer is careful to note that the immediate danger is not that Americans will suddenly become socialists — only about eight percent describe themselves that way. The larger threat is the erosion of the intellectual foundations that have kept collectivism in check. When a majority of people desire to give up their independence in favor of the state, no longer understand the importance of private property and individual responsibility, forget why institutions were designed to restrain power, and replace faith in God with faith in government’s ability to perfect mankind, the American experiment will end.
We have been down this road before, and the destination has not changed simply because a new generation has lost its way. The search for meaning is eternal, but where we direct that search may well determine the future of freedom itself.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/08/collectivism-and-god/