Some things need to be stated before they become obvious. This entry describes one of them. It concerns politics, so it must be considered an opinion piece; there are no absolutes in politics.

From a particular perspective, there are two ways of looking at things: individual and social. That is, seeking to meet the needs and aims of the individual, or seeking to meet the needs and aims of society. Real-life political philosophies exist somewhere between these extremes of individualism and socialism (small "s"). [For example, American Capitalism approaches the former, while Soviet Socialism (capital "S") approaches the latter.]

Individualism and socialism conflict, in this sense: to ignore the needs of society in favour of the individual is to destroy society. Yet to do the opposite forces each individual to give up their own life and aspirations, for the benefit of the community.

As usual, the Middle Path is the only sensible and practical way to proceed. And we need politicians of every persuasion, so that all perspectives can be properly considered.

If we must chose one or the other, it has to be socialism, assuming we wish to (continue to) live in a functioning community. This is at the level of (political) strategy. To retain balance, our tactics must be biased toward individualism: individual freedom should be constrained only when it is unavoidable.