About which individual are we talking about here?
About me? The ONE above all?
About us? The only ones who ‘belong’?
About all individuals? Regardless of age, gender, ethnicity …

“Plato suggests, and all later collectivists followed him in this point, that if you cannot sacrifice your self-interest for the sake of the whole, then you are a selfish person, and morally depraved.
But this is not so, as glance at our little table may show. Collectivism is not opposed to egoism, nor is it identical with altruism or unselfishness. A collectivist can be a group-egoist. He can selfishly defend the interest of his own group, in contradistinction to all other groups. Collective egoism or group egoism (e.g. national egoism or class egoism) is a very common thing. That such a thing exists shows clearly enough that collectivism as such is not opposed to selfishness.
On the other hand, the individualist or anti-collectivist can at the same time be an altruist. He can be ready to make sacrifices in order to help other individuals. (….) To be an individualist means to see in every human individual an end in itself, and not merely a means to further other interests, for example, those of the state. It does not mean to take one’s own individuality particularly seriously, or to lay more stress (or even as much) on one’s own interests than on the interests of others.”
Karl Popper, ‘After The Open Society’, Chapter 7.”

“On the other hand, the individualist or anti-collectivist can at the same time be an altruist…”

Sir Karl Raimund Popper had died in 1994.
Long after all of the so called collectivist regimes of the XX-th century had shown their true colors.
Long after all the self styled collectivist regimes had unveiled their murderous nature.

And murder, by definition, is the most individualistic attitude available to a human being.

Let me be absolutely clear.
I’m talking about murder here.
That thing perpetrated by an individual, alone or in cahoots with others, against other individual or individuals.
Self defense – the minimal action meant to save one’s own life, which stops as soon as its goal has been fulfilled – has nothing to do with murder. Criminals can, indeed, try to camouflage murder as self defense but their actions are obvious for all level-headed observers.

My point being that individualism cannot be defined as being anti-collectivist.
And what’s bothering me is the fact that Popper himself had fallen into this trap.

If I get this right, Popper’s main contribution to our understanding of the world is the notion of ‘falsifiability’. The idea that human knowledge – science – grows in fits and starts.
That individuals notice things, formulate their observations as theories and put them forward for public examination.
And that even the theories which hold water, for a while, will, by definition, be proven false – or at least incomplete – at some point in the future.
The way I understand this process – I’m an engineer converted to sociology – is as a continuous dialogue between individuals and the community which nurtures them.

Just as you can’t have a working engine – I’m a mechanical engineer – without all the pieces fitted in the right places and without a tank full of fuel, you can’t have a ‘healthy’ collective without ‘established’ individuals.
Symmetrically, no individual can survive – let alone thrive – alone. A baby needs to be fed and taught to walk/speak/think in order to become an individual. A conscious human being.

Collectives, currently known as nations, fare according to the opportunities enjoyed by the individuals comprising those collectives/nations. AND according to how each of the individuals understand to enjoy each of those opportunities.
The members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – who treated their citizens far better than how the Soviet citizens used to be treated by their self styled collectivist leaders – have fared a lot better than the defunct Soviet Union. Democratic and free-market capitalist countries fare a lot better than those run in a more or less centrally planned manner by authoritarian regimes.

And the explanation is simple. Democracy and free market capitalism mean that many more individuals have many more opportunities to contribute to the well being and the ultimate survival of their community than what’s going on inside authoritarian regimes. Where the decision making is concentrated in a very few hands. Where most opportunity has been confiscated by a handful of self chosen few individuals.
In fact, the democratic and free market capitalist countries are far more collectivist minded than the self-styled collectivist authoritarian regimes. Where only the high ranking officials count as individuals!

And no, Plato wasn’t exactly right either. His ideas haven’t reached us in their intended form… or it is us who can’t read them in an appropriate manner…
“Plato suggests… that if you can’t sacrifice your self-interest for the sake of the whole, then you are a selfish person, and morally depraved.”
‘Suggests’ already comprises a healthy dose of individual latitude. A healthy dose of individual lee-way when it comes to interpreting each individual situation. Furthermore, this is rather a matter of how a collective deals with each individual situation than an individual being selfish or morally deprived.

All situations which determine the fate of a collective are experienced, interpreted and dealt with by individuals. No collective exists as a ‘unit’. Nor reacts as one, regardless of whatever efforts have been made, under whatever disguises, by ultimately individual dictators to implement such ‘unity’. Around the ‘individuality’ of the dictator….
And whenever the individual called to solve a particular situation considers his individuality as being superior to the fate of the collective… then that individual actually lights a fuse. Which might or might not detonate a charge. Which charge might or might not destroy much… but…
The main problem here residing in the fact that many individuals haven’t figured out yet that their own individual fates are inexorably linked to that of the collective.

That if it’s not peer-reviewed, it’s not science!
That being a bona fide individualist “does not mean (that the concerned individual is entitled) to take one’s own individuality particularly seriously, or to lay more stress (or even as much) on one’s own interests than on the interests of others.”