Stephen Hicks

The Architecture of Modernity and Its Detractors To understand the friction in our current cultural climate, we must first define the foundation it seeks to dismantle. Modernism represents a five-hundred-year revolutionary arc in Western history. It began with the high Renaissance and the age of exploration, fueled by figures like Leonardo da Vinci and Copernicus. This era introduced a specific set of values: reason, science, individual rights, and free-market Capitalism. These were not just abstract ideas; they were the engines that replaced feudalism with democratic republics and substituted tribal or religious dogma with objective scientific inquiry. Postmodernism enters the scene not as a continuation of this progress, but as a totalizing rejection of it. It is a world-view that argues the modern project has failed, or worse, that it was a catastrophic mistake from its inception. When scholars like Stephen Hicks analyze this shift, they see more than just a change in academic fashion. They see a fundamental subversion of the pillars that support Western civilization. The postmodernists view science not as a tool for discovering universal truths, but as a culturally biased construct—often dismissed as a "white" or "male" way of thinking. By stripping away the idea of objective truth, they pave the way for a society organized entirely around power dynamics and group identity. The Collectivist Impulse: Defining Socialism While postmodernism attacks the epistemological roots of our world, Socialism targets its social and economic structure. At its core, socialism is the prioritization of the collective over the individual. It suggests that our primary obligations are to the social unit, and that the group’s needs should always supersede individual desires. This stands in direct opposition to the Individualism that defines the modern era. In an individualistic framework, social groups exist to nurture the person; in a socialist framework, the person exists to serve the social group. This tension manifests most clearly in economics. In a free-market system, individuals make autonomous decisions about their careers, their purchases, and their investments. The market is an emergent phenomenon resulting from millions of independent choices. Socialism rejects this autonomy. It posits that society—usually through the mechanism of the state—should decide what is produced, who receives it, and how resources are allocated. This is often presented as a benevolent way to ensure everyone is "looked after," but it requires a massive concentration of power that historically leads to bureaucratic stagnation and the erosion of personal agency. The Failed Experiments and the Postmodern Pivot One of the most provocative arguments presented by Stephen Hicks is that the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary for the radical left. Throughout the 20th century, major socialist experiments—most notably in the Soviet Union and under Mao Zedong in China—resulted in economic collapse and staggering human rights abuses. Millions died of starvation or political repression. For the intellectually honest observer, these outcomes should have signaled the end of the socialist hypothesis. However, many true believers were too deeply invested in the ideology to abandon it. When the data and the history became undeniable, they pivoted. If reason and history proved that socialism failed, they would simply attack the concepts of reason and history. Postmodernism provided the intellectual machinery to discount evidence as a "narrative" and logic as a "power play." This allowed the collectivist dream to survive in the halls of academia, shielded from the harsh realities of its practical application. It is a psychological defense mechanism scaled up into a philosophical movement. The Psychology of Self-Responsibility There is a profound psychological divide between those who embrace freedom and those who fear it. A liberal, individualistic society offers immense opportunity, but it also demands a high degree of self-responsibility. This can be terrifying. If you are free to succeed, you are also free to fail. For many, the weight of this autonomy is overwhelming. They find comfort in the idea of a paternalistic government that guarantees outcomes and removes the risk of personal failure. Socialism appeals to this desire for an insurance policy against life's uncertainties. It feels safer to be part of a managed group than to stand alone as an entrepreneur of one's own life. However, this safety comes at the cost of personal growth. When we outsource our decisions to the collective, we stop developing the resilience and competence that only come from navigating challenges independently. We must recognize that the desire for total social security is often a mask for a lack of confidence in our own inherent strength. The Danger of Scale and the Corruption of Power Socialism often sounds appealing in small, voluntary settings. A monastery or a small rural commune can function socialistically because the scale is manageable. In a group of fifty or a hundred people, everyone knows everyone else. Social pressure and shared goals can maintain order without the need for brutal enforcement. However, once a system attempts to scale these principles to a nation of millions, the wheels fall off. Large-scale socialism requires the concentration of power in the hands of a few. Since you cannot get ten million people to agree on every economic detail, a central committee must make the choices. This creates an immediate and dangerous power imbalance. History shows us that this power is inevitably abused. Furthermore, the suppression of the minority becomes a feature, not a bug, of the system. Without constitutional protections for the individual—protections that are antithetical to pure socialist doctrine—the majority or the ruling elite can easily trample on the rights of anyone who dissents. Toward Intellectual Honesty and Resilience Navigating these complex ideologies requires a commitment to intellectual honesty. We are currently seeing postmodern tactics being adopted across the political spectrum, from the far left to the ethno-nationalist right. Both sides are increasingly retreating into group identities and rejecting the possibility of rational, cross-group discussion. This is a path toward tribalism and conflict. To counter this, we must practice the difficult art of admitting when we are wrong. Admitting a mistake is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of a strong, developing ego. It shows that we value truth more than the temporary comfort of being "right." Whether we are discussing politics, economics, or our own personal lives, the goal should be the same: to move one intentional step at a time toward a clearer understanding of reality. Only by taking responsibility for our own minds and our own choices can we achieve our true potential and build a society that respects the inherent strength of the individual.