Yes.

If I may, since the days of the U.S.+ vs. the U.S.S.R.+ there has been much talk of a 'third way' between individualism (of the self-centered kind as described in the article) and collectivism.

The former comes primarily from John Locke (English philosopher of the 1600’s and essentially the creator of Liberalism), who emphasized the "separate and independent" nature of humans with respect to one another. Such individualism overlooks the interdependence, as pointed out in the article, that our nature as social beings, living together in groups, imposes upon us.

Collectivism, whether Marxist or of any other form, goes too far in overlooking that simple truth that Locke did recognize. In collectivism the individual is subordinated too much to the 'group interest'.

A viable 'third way' would be 'other-centered individualism'. That form of individualism is summed up in 'mutual respect', which does follow obviously from a belief in equality (a belief Locke did profess). Locke's own thinking actually leads to mutual respect, not self-centered individualism, but he was keen to have liberty as the predicate of justice. That led his logic astray. Yet, a society governed by mutual respect would provide the maximum liberty that coexisting human beings can share simultaneously.

[Linked article — for the benefit of any ‘guest readers’ — is here in Medium but not behind the paywall.]