But most of our cells can "breed". Inability to divide happens only where it's necessary, like blood cells. It's not a social feature on its own. So I'm unsure why this is important about ants.

Is "can breed" the ultimate clue of individualism? But again, this makes most of our cells... "individuals".

This is incorrect on a fundamental level.

Breeding is sexual reproduction. Parthenogenic whiptail lizards lay eggs and reproduce themselves, but they don't breed.

Only our gametes can undergo meiosis and recombination, the necessary processes for breeding. Our other cells can engage in mitosis, duplication. There are only the two processes, which is why I say this is fundamentally incorrect.

The queen and drones are the gametes of hymenopterans in a very real sense. They have cells which can undergo meiosis and recombination, workers do not.

In fact, in some unusual species of ant, there are motile and fertile workers, in addition to and sometimes instead of the sessile queen. These are called... gamergates.

This is glossing over some of the weirdness found in various hymenopterans, it's an ancient and diverse clade.

Individual ants are animals, that's not controversial. Eusocial animals are less individual than any other animal, and their social groups are more like a single organism than the social groups of any other sort of animal. This, too, is not controversial.

It is not incorrect. In fact, your arguments aren't even mutually exclusive, depending on the context.

One is not an individual or a group inherently, it is solely based on the concepts you are using to create the context.

Our cells will die when we die. Most of our cells have no future, but the ones that become our children and recombine with somebody of the opposite sex do have a future.

That doesn’t mean the rest of our cells don’t exist in a state of genetic indifference. They have evolutionary pressure to improve the fitness of the individual, otherwise it’s a dead end for all genes involved.

Competition between reproductively capable individuals is different. An ant that acts selfishly will reduce the fitness of the hive with no genetic reward. It’s a losing strategy. But in a society, a selfish person can reap the rewards while taking advantage or damaging the society they belong to.

The fact that humans exhibit behaviors like self sacrifice and loyalty points towards the idea that humans’ evolutionary strategy is somewhat mixed. Selfishness and selflessness coexist because our fitness is to some extend, dependent on the society, or to the hand that feeds us.

To think of an analogy people could die when planet earth dies, or people could die if their tribe gets wiped out, as they can't any longer fence for the resources individually. Or people will die if a bad actor will launch nuclear bombs for their own selfish gain, pollute the earth etc.

I imagine some cells like cancer cells also act selfishly while damaging the host and reaping temporary rewards themselves.

So it seems like analogy of people and few bad actors makes even more sense in terms of cells as opposed to ants who all act only towards the greater good.

Tldr; In order to succeed and survive you need many working together, however it is possible to get ahead temporarily acting selfishly, not caring about the greater good, but having too many of those bad actors will end bad for everyone. Which happens with both, people and cells.