Dear Mykhailo, congratulations on your research, it looks very interesting. I carried out a research in my master's degree in which I argued that sociocultural patterns can be disseminated through ecological perception-action. Society was analyzed as a complex system that has several layers of complexity. In this sense, elements in the micro plane of the system are articulated and provide guiding parameters for in the macro plane. That is, changes in the level of individual behavior reverberate in changes in society and are, in turn, retroacting on the parties influencing their actions. It is a flow continuum that provides emerging sociocultural patterns. For more details I suggest looking at research on complexity, such as Hermann Haken (synergetics), Maria Eunice Quilici Gonzalez and Willem Haselager, Edgar Morin. I know that his area of ​​research is another, but I think that interdisciplinarity is always welcome in studies of social complexity. I hope you can achieve your goals! Good luck!

It is not so much a transformation as a mutual integration. A community (or collective) consists of individuals, and individual liberties have restrictions or limitations because individuals are located in a community and their actions impinge on other members of their community whose liberties also need to be taken into account. In short, it's a matter of achieving a sustainable equilibrium, and a state might be a means of bringing that about.

The rights of an individual are the rights, or perceived as such, for all individuals and citizens. Each individual naturally forms a community so rights ascribed to its most common unit must be provided for groups and the greater community. Should either the individual or group transgress such liberties provided, that is the group deny them to the individual, the individual would have a right, usually in law, to effect balance or justice or equality.

In a classless society (with common ownership of the means of social production), like in primitive communal societies, individual liberty transforms into a communal one; not perfectly but potentially, depending on the extent of positive knowledge and technological advance and the extent of control men can have over external Nature and over themselves (minimizing the role of mythology) towards desired goals; mediated by natural necessities and as a historical process.

In a class society (with private ownership of the means of social production), on the contrary, the interest of the ruling class determines the ruling ideas (theology playing a big role) and the nature of individual liberty, from none under slavery to bonded labor under feudal/serfdom, to wage slavery under capitalism with various extent of individual liberty/freedom. But individual liberty/freedom in a class society does not mean much as it is arbitrary and depends on the extent to which the ruling class is capable of imposing its rule and extracting its maximum share of social production and its needs.

Karl Kautsky for example, argued that a slave master ensures the physical well-being of his slaves, as his income depends on their physical fitness. A surf-lord, allows physical freedom of his serfs, but takes no responsibilities of their physical well-being. In a bonded-labor situation (with no other alternative) a surf is bound to the soil to toil below his minimum subsistence level, taxing on his own body and thereby facing early death. A serf-lord (unlike a capitalist, who is bent on the growth of his capital) has no interest in increased social production as long as his personal needs are satisfied and hence does not care if a part of his subjects perish, because he has a surplus of them, for free!

A capitalist (whose fate fluctuates a lot and is the most unstable of the other two ruling classes) ensures the minimum subsistence of his workers (and also the future ones), because his profit depends on the surplus-value the workers can generate. But the serfs and small peasants who escape the bonded-labor of serfdom to become “free laborers” in organized factories of the capitalist production; lose all (if any) means of production, (a tiny piece of land for example) from which they could at lease hope to eke-out any sort of a survival. Also, the fierce inter-capitalist competition leads to monopoly and the concentration of wealth and means of social production in few hands; when the owners of the means of production lose interest in social production, take resort to captive and parasitic loan sharking like the serf-lord, while the workers become destitute like the serfs. To keep social peace in the developed capitalist economies; the capitalists subsidies the local working class to a parasitic and lumpenized life at the cost of outrageous exploitation of the serf-like workers of undeveloped third world.

The best capitalist mode of production can do is to turn into State-Capitalism, like the former USSR or East European economies; where a corrupt managerial class and an inflated bureaucracy become the lumpen capitalists with even worse consequence for the working class and individual liberty.