Individualism or collectivism Sup Forums?

Individualism or collectivism Sup Forums?

Historically, which has been more prosperous?

My opinion below:

To start, by individualism I mean mostly libertarianism, classic liberalism and modern day American conservatism. By collectivism I mean things like fascism, National Socialism and most other forms of authoritarianism granted it's not communism as tha has never worked and will never work. Both systems are/were successful (USA's civil liberties and rights endowed to us by our Creator namely the first and second amendments vs Nazi Germany's ability to meet subversion with strength and preserve the race/culture/well-being of the people).

OK, beginning with my own opinions.

IMO individualism is more desirable as humans act individually by nature, however the problem with individualism is its susceptibility to subversion. It's impossible to maintain the prosperous way of life that individualism brings with it unless the collective comes together to make a stand against such subversions and injustices threatening the individuality of the people.

Collectivism gets shit done in a way that individualism can never, however it is also a lot harder to accomplish due to the people having to put aside their selfishness which is a nearly impossible feat. Not only this, but it also runs the risk of the collective not possessing competent leadership. Take a look at the phrase "don't put all your eggs in one basket." Collectivism requires faith in an an individual to lead the collective, and if that leader does not suffice then it can cause problems for everyone.

So to summarize: freedom of the individual may be a superior doctrine to abide by, however there is nothing that can preserve that individuality like a collective can. Collectivism in my eyes is seen as a necessary evil, one that (when implemented) removes the risk factor of individualism but brings plenty of other risks to the table. It is up to you to decide what outweighs what and which system you believe would be more sustainable. I would say individualism, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think collectivism is bad. Of course, as is in everything, these ideas do not always apply everywhere. What may work best for America may not work best for Europe, and sure as hell neither of those would work well in the uncivilized parts of the world where people require dictators to control their fate as they lack the capability to do do themselves.

In general, individualism.

I think it's somewhat innacurate to use Germany as the poster child for collectivism, though. Since they led one of the largest business privatization campaigns out of any western nation in the 1930s, even if they did end up nationalizing many of them once the war started. They always had a rapidly changing economic policy and represented varying degrees of collectivism and individualism as time went on.

A more fitting example would be the Soviet Union. Almost everything was state-run and for a long time, too.

Just from a results basis, free market capitalist countries are simply more wealthy, productive, and safe. The moral argument for collectivism is irrelevant if individualism produces the desired results to a higher degree.

Checked. I guess so, I'd rather be an immoral and wealthy country than a communist one with forced morals. Things start to get extremely problematic when morals aren't kept in check at least a little though. Take a look at the West today, cultural marxism will be its downfall.

Individualism is more appealing these days. There is no national government hese days that has any ideals that seem worthy of benefiting off my labour. Most just seem to want to spread degeneracy and give welfare to deadbeats.
That said a republican system like the US seems tolerable.
>Bill of Rights
>Constitution
>Choose the state that best fits your ideals and aspirations
Canada is a giant Cuckshed and I kinda want out of this (((Socialist Utopia)))

Individual want given a constructive outlet.

This combined with a system of English Common Law.

It's not even up for debate. The Anglo system just works.

>collectivism is needed for individuality
'nuff said. Collectivism > individualism

the concept of society itself is collectivist. Individuality doesn't practically exist, in theory leads nowhere because it negates a society, and only a cooperative society can advance.

In an idealistic sense yes, if the nation is filled with ubermensch tier people.
Pragmatically, as soon as non-Anglos or general nigger tier people are made to integrate into the system it seems to fall apart. Common law doesn't seem to work with savages.

This is my grievance. In an individualistic society nothing is keeping these animals out, and democracy allows jews to get elected who will bring these animals in.

It can be argued that Cooperation > Individualism
Theft from individuals who's wealth will then be collectively distributed to the less wealthy or productive in the name of
>Ensuring their individuality
rubs many people who work hard the wrong way.

Not to say there aren't useful public works, the extremes of collective society always seem quite shitty.

Yes, this is the flaw. It developed in an isolated people. Whether on the 13 colonies, New Zealand or Australia, or at home in Britain, they had water between them, and rather large spaces between the population and other less-happy lands.

In also persists in non-whites in Hong Kong and Singapore, but those are asians and not arabs or niggers.

You tell them comrade they just haven't tried real Socialism yet.

democracy isn't individualistic. It requires everyone to respect the collective decision even if one disagrees.

Fair enough.

So, basically a balance between the two.

Individual liberty to the limit of not endangering the general well-being of everyone else in a sustainable way.

Yes. As well as a government of the law, not of Men.

It's simple cunt: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Synthesis wins out in all cases because it takes the strongest of both and culls the weaknesses.

It's kind of the case of the Cold War. The "capitalist" west won over the "communist" east. But what really happened? The West evolved and by the collapse of the eastern bloc, the "capitalist" west that existed prior to the cold war was effectively unrecognizable. It was flexible and evolved, absorbing many part of socialist thought (socialized medicine, welfare, free education, etc.) and became a synthesis. This is the exact case but from the opposite direction of the People's Republic of China. Capitalist run around screaming "China capitalist now, look at that free market!", but China is still as communist as it is capitalist and evolved to something that is neither.

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

Synthesis always wins.

explain that to the
>HURR TAXES ARE THEFT
and
>DURR FREE HEALTHCARE ISN'T FREE
dumbasses...

Individualism is pretty much indispensible in the modern world. There are so many different branches of science and technology and so many different professions you can carry out. At the same time there is so much cultural stuff being broadcasted on the internet: from youtube fashion channels to hacking forums and video game websites. Impossible to have a completely non-individualistic society with so many different interests and occupations.
But:
that's at the same time the problem with the modern society. If I live in a big city and have maybe zero overlap with my next door neighbor then what's keeping the society together? There must be some activities or festivities that the vast majority of the people engages in or has at least some interest in. No man's an island after all. If we let our societies completely atomize it will not do us a favor at the end of the day.
It is necessary to somehow "collectivise" our behavior in the sense that we have some moral code that's not just the "minimal ethic" that liberalism is arguing for.

And I haven't talked about economy yet. Command economies did do really shit all over the world. From South America to China and Eastern Germany. They have the same problems everywhere.

Individualism is best but it requires religion, or a different form of tradition and rituals. Confucius knew this

Collectivist always end up just being a group of untouchable elitist who drown their country in bureaucracy that will inevitably lead to shit since they literally cant point out any flaws that will develop with in their system, since literally every system no matter what will have flaws since humans arent perfect.

It also stifles any sort of improvement by brainwashing people into thinking inside the box , as well as committing vast human rights violations because they dont believe in them

>Capitalist run around screaming "China capitalist now, look at that free market!", but China is still as communist as it is capitalist and evolved to something that is neither.
totally unbiased view

I said I prefer individualism idiot I just recognize its flaws
Democracy usually exists in societies that emphasise on freedom of the individual. They aren't mutually exclusive though, correct.
But that's not individual liberty at all. That's like saying "free speech but not hate speech" the latter part nullifies the former.

You solved your own question, OP.

Thought police and ministry of truth tactics can be instituted in any society unfortunately. Most humans are susceptible to mind control

you presented it as a sort of dichotomy, so if it's either-or then democracy is collectivist rather than individualist.

Collectivism because you can conquer individuals. Slaughter and burn all those who oppose my power.

individualism plz

Individualism

Its funny that the alt right authoritarians call everyone "cucks" even though they support the mass-cucking that the gov't does and continues to do every day

The only way a nation can work is by restricting the government more than the government restricts the people. Not the way it is now, where they have free-reign to do whatever the fuck they want through bullshit loopholes

Comrade no need to get offensive I'm on your side we work together to seize the means of production and then we make the rich pay for their years of slavery.

It would be better for man to live collectively in preservation of national identity, religion, and culture. In general, the masses lack the care to rule their own destinies and thus must be protected from subjugation from ideas that are are toxic to the nation and the people (Marxism, Judaism, and any ideology seeking to undermine a nation). Although there should be a degree of free market, the community and nation must be maintained and updated with the basic needs to hold society stable. Society can only be held together through each class contributing to each other and the ability of class mobility.

Someone has to fill the power vacuum

Now is it competent government officials or niggers AKA "muh people"

t. shlomo cohen levi mordecai bergsteinwitzmanshoahrosenkike

Individualism for sure. I don't want some retard polack controlling my life

Ultimately the answer is, it's extrememly complicated and as soon as any group of millions of people tries to figure out what to be doing, unless everybody goes innawoods there will be some level of collectivism. If structured correctly as many people as possible will be mindless drones, but anyone with a desire for self determination won't freak out and want to throw a wrench in the system or go apeshit.

>But that's not individual liberty at all
Another absolutist. So if you haven't got the liberty to to whatever the fuck you want without consequenses, then it's not liberty AT ALL?

>That's like saying "free speech but not hate the latter part nullifies the former.
No. Somewhere you have to draw a line if you want a sustainable society, and there will be compromises you just have to make, which is a part of actually living amongst other people. Don't be childish.

Basically, there needs to be free market only limited to making sure that no family must risk being left on the streets to starve. The family is absolutely necessary. Divorce and Adultry must be made completely illegal so that families may stay together, unless the parents abuse the children. The punishment for viloathing these rules should be harsh beatings, say 10 lashes. Homosexuals should not be seen or heard, but may practice in the privacy of their homes. Homosexuals also shouldnt have the right to adopt and homosexuality must not be promoted in any media.

Comrade this is taking the joke to far we have many Jewish gentleman and ladies in our movement, Real Socialism will fix all the problems you are addressing.
We could finally enjoy the individualism of our lives while profiting from our collective society of workers.
It's time for real market socialism.

So the AVERAGE wealth of an adult in Britain is $320,000 in USD?

I find that hard to believe. More people now aren't buying houses because they can't afford it.

I just think that's pretty damn high for an AVERAGE amount, of every adult in the entire country. There are many adults working shitty jobs and earning next to nothing.

While I agree a society works best if the people share common values and common ideas that give meaning, I strongly contest the necessity of belief in the supernatural/unfalsifiable/otherwise unproven.

>Comrade role playing faggotry
Essentially saying let's trick these workers into thinking they won some glorious coup while exploiting them all the same and enjoying (((Our))) individualism.
The existence of "degenerate drugs" namely LSD, DPH and MDMA are often enough to get skeptics onboard with the
>(((supernatural)))

If they know it's drugs and hallucinations induced by said drugs, but still get onboard the supernatural-train, then they are just idiots. Also, even if the majority of skeptics would indeed be persuaded by drugs, it does not in any way prove the necessity of believeing in unfalisfiable propositions/ideas for the prosperity of the society.

In general Individualism but I would accept collectivism if I lived in a homogenous country

I'm letting the hat decide on this one.

This right here.
People can argue the merits of individualism and collectivism, both of which have some. The real question comes down to authoritarianism of the collective, and the goals of the collective. Do they serve the majority, or the minority? Does the government seek expansion and subversion of peoples cultures in favour of the government sponsered culture?
I would prefer the government to work for the majority. And I would prefer for the majority to work for the Nation.