What's wrong with collectivism?

People throw the word around derogatorily as if it's an inherently bad concept or idea or or something. However, it seems they don't care to explain why exactly. It's just a different way of viewing the world, people will point out the abuses or potential pitfalls of such a system or worldview, but how are they any worse than any of the potential dangers or excesses of rampant individualism?

I'd like to hear reasoned arguments as to why collectivism is inherently worse than individualism, because to me it seems like there needs to be a healthy balance between the two, and with some collectivism, society is much improved via things like improved healthcare systems, infrastructure, public capital and use goods, etc.

Other urls found in this thread:

instagram.com/emilyhelenbarry/?hl=en
nber.org/papers/w18441.pdf
iea.org.uk/publications/research/scandinavian-unexceptionalism-culture-markets-and-the-failure-of-third-way-soc
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You're right. A balance between collectivism and individualism is ideal.

Because everything that's not magic free-market special totally libertarian never-been-tried capitalism is literally the exact same thing as Stalinism and inevitably leads to directly killing and torturing hundreds of millions of people and making it so nobody is ever happy and everything is 100% miserable. Mises.org told me so.

I think it depends.

Economic collectivism (i.e. communism) deprives the individual of the ability to increase his own capital according to the point which he desires the most. On a large scale, namely a large group of people, this is detrimental to the economy if a better one is achievable via individualism.

Social collectivism (i.e. tribalism) is natural, however, and is not detrimental to the economy (and thus the society), depending on the nature of the community.

I need, no I DEMAND a fat titty jewess in my life

Basically this. You did a good job for once, leaf.

this, but I would add that the holocaust is a myth

> Economic Collectivism
> Isomorphic to Communism
Absolute nonsense, taking one example and generalizing it to all others. Economic collectivism even works now within the context of market capitalism. Co-ops and employee owned businesses are allowed and many do fine.

Universal healthcare systems work cheaply and well for the most part in many countries. Infrastructure is publicly funded and maintained nearly everywhere but it isn't universally terrible and works fine in most places. Don't conflate economic collectivism with communism, there's nothing wrong with collectively pooling resources together for the public good, it doesn't necessarily have to come at the cost of markets or private enterprise, and many countries with some nationalized market or service also allow private alternatives. IIRC the UK still allows private healthcare competitors even though the NHS is a thing. Again, you need a balance of both collectivism and individualism.

> Economic collectivism (i.e. communism) deprives the individual of the ability to increase his own capital according to the point which he desires the most. On a large scale, namely a large group of people, this is detrimental to the economy

Ah yes, this perfectly explains why the private sector and not the collectively owned public sector is responsible for that great human achievement: _____________________

> The Private Sector is responsible for:
Personal Computers, automobiles, household appliances, cell phones, smart phones, cheap and affordable steel, skyscrapers, the television, and virtually uncountable others. Does the mere existence and affordability of these things not seem like a great human achievement?

>Don't conflate economic collectivism with communism
my mistake, I meant to give communism as an example.

I think jews are terrified of white collectivism.

...

>collectivism
It's just another -ism that white people can incorporate into a successful civilization. I said white people.

>It's just another -ism that white people can incorporate into a successful civilization
>It's just another -ism
What are you trying to imply here?

We respect your individuality but it doesn't matter, whitey. Off you go to the camps.

You haven't cited anything which indicates that the existence and affordability of this technology is thanks to the private sector, I'm not sure why you think just providing a list of things you have heard of constitutes an argument.

For example, I am a computer science researcher and I have no idea how you could possibly think that the private sector had anything to do with the advancements of computer technology we are familiar with. I am familiar with a myriad of ways in which the technology has been held back however.

Automobiles I don't know much about, but I am aware that the automobile industry has collapsed numerous times and had to be regulated or even outright bailed out by the public sector. So I dont know why you would think that autombiles are an example of private sector success, since the automobile industry fails to produce quality cars and routinely collapses since it can't even generate a profit.

Regarding household appliances... what does that mean

I dont see why I should go through the rest of your list and argument against them when you havent even provided an argument for them

I follow her on instageam.

I die a little bit inside every time I think of the fact that I'll never make 8 babies with this woman

Yeah i've been thinking how the chances are very high i will never meet a woman irl that is as busty as she is.

on up a labor camp brothel germanon

> Computer technology held back by private enterprise
> Google, FaceBook, Intel, AMD, Sun Microsystems, Acer, Apple, IBM, and countless others are all private companies
> Inb4 government grants/involvement
It's primarily the work of private companies which has advanced and done all of this technological production after the initial basic research phase

Who is she

Sauce?

>What's wrong with collectivism?
Do you want give up your freedom and hand over your personal rights to the mob? No? Then that is what's wrong with collectivism.

Emily Barry. You're Welcome.

This is a key point of disagreement between the natsocs and the libertarians on the board.

Personally I think collectivism is the answer to the preservation of our people and our goal of securing a future for our white children.

However, I gladly tolerate the libertarians for their absolute hatred of the Marxists even if they prefer personal freedom over collective uniformity.

Emily Helen Barry
instagram.com/emilyhelenbarry/?hl=en
Some people view preserving society or elements of it more than preserving individuals, I'm not saying you're wrong but provide an argument which addresses the complex points instead of just saying muh ebil, muh personal freedoms.

>Personally I think collectivism is the answer to the preservation of our people and our goal of securing a future for our white children.

That's to a point when you will be considered harmful to a collectiv and put to a wall.
>inb4 w-why would the kill me, I dindu nuffin
Yeah, a lot of NSDAP/Communist Party of the Soviet Union members thought that before they were sent to gulags.

>instagram.com/emilyhelenbarry/?hl=en
Praise kek.

Its communism and needs to be destroyed. There is only individuals and these "collectives" are nothing but spooks in your mind.

collectivism always devolves into an individual seizing control and forming a dictatorship

quick look seems to show her whole life revolves around showing off her tits. sad.

She'd be a 5-6/10 without them.

>the complex points
What complex points? Complex point of a mob deeming you a threat to the collective and physically removing you just because they think you are harmful element? Would you like to be lynched by people that don't like you?

Looks like my sister with a smaller head, creepy

Collectivists do not believe what they espouse. If they did, they would have a massive joint bank account into which they would deposit everything they earn, and would put no restrictions on withdrawals by other members.

if u wanna see what a difference big tits make look up simona halep the tennis player. she was so fucking hot, had gigantic tits, then got breast reduction surgery. now she's nothing.

I don't want to be part of your collective, or anyone else's collective. Collectivists can't respect that, ergo collectivists are my enemy and I would gladly kill them if there were no legal repurcussions.
>inb4 that's so extreme, user
No, it's not. I'm not going around forcing people to join my club. I don't have a club. That's the point about individual liberty. Unless you try and force me to join your collective, you will never hear from me. That's the difference.

I'm for Market Socialism. It doesn't require state regulation of the economy or any central planning. Businesses would be cooperatively run by the workers who would be paid accordingly to their own profit-sharing schemes. It doesn't necessarily mean they have to be paid equally unless they democratically decide that's how they want to do it. The maxim of this is "to each according to his contribution"; the more one contributes to the enterprise the larger share of the profits they will receive. This really incentivizes hard work, those who slack will have to work harder or make due with they get. Hard work will be truly fairly rewarded. Workers will not have to be limited to a certain amount of money for every hour they're working regardless of how hard they work while slackers and cocksuckers get paid the same or more without doing much real work. Socialism in this manners ensures individuals are rewarded for real contributions of labor and cooperative management accordingly and democratically. There would be no wagecuckery as the wage system would be abolished and no workplace bureaucratic hierarchy.

I don't want to share anything with anyone other than people of my own choice.

...

You never had a job that's for sure.

I wana slap those udders

I'm writing a research paper that covers collectivism and individualism in regards to culture. The way I see it, western culture (globalization leading) is the the most individualist, however there is plenty of conformity there to contrast with other collectives. These cultures are being destroyed by globalization. Most of us want a group to join and there is nothing wrong with that unless you want others to conform to your standards or people have difficulty leaving.

Self-sacrifice punishes the superior and rewards inferiority. Any productive collectivism is called an investment. Everything beyond that is a short-term band-aid, bolstering your current strength at the cost of the future. In the best possible case. Harmful on every level from individual, to cultural, and even genetic. Only good use is when competing against an inferior group.

I think you're strawmanning the idea and breadth of collectivism. Take a look at, say, Norway compared to America, it's seemingly much more collectivist, people pay more taxes and according to surveys they're happy to do so but they also have more collectivized services they pay for like having a nationalized oil company, and more subsidized healthcare, etc.
See above, numerous countries, like Norway, are more collectivist than the U.S. and aren't dictatorships.

Me too but look at the hat and the text. Its hard for me to forget that kind of thing.

Meant for

It's the guiding force to black supremacy as well.

I don't think you understand. I am a white natsoc, I would not be executed and even if my death was required it would be fighting against an enemy, not at the hands of kameraden.

Logically it would make no sense to kill me under the conditions of the government I desire and the level of loyalty I express to these ideals. White blood is precious.

Yeah but Norway had decent people that aren't leaches to their society.

It's cancer. Collectivist worldviews are entirely what are behind the SJW culture; viewing everyone as part of a group instead of judging them on their individual merits.

Yes but I don't think anybody other than idiots advocate for complete self-sacrifice to the point of full equality, collectivism could instead be people of some group being willing to pay for a large scientific, cultural, etc. project and are willing to look beyond the immediate self because they see collective investments as benefiting them and everybody else in total more than anything else, take infrastructure or healthcare for example, everybody is better off, as is the economy, with adequate access to high-quality versions of both, even if they require sacrifice.
Great argument, I'm an electrical engineer.

Collectivism isn't bad, it just isn't compatible with multiculturalism. This is why Marxism always fails: the kikes and niggers can't help but steal and loot, they are subhuman filth. Third way is the only way.

"I am because we are" "We are because I am"

That's not an argument against collectivism generally as a concept though, just some specific case, if it works in some instances than it works potentially and might be the best if some nice mix of it and individualism, the question then is how to achieve such conditions to make it possible.
> All collectivism is SJWism
Stop repeating the same types of arguments and generalizations, that collectivism = communism, etc. Just look at different countries, some are more collectivist than others but they aren't by default hellholes or anything, the Space Program was a collective endeavor and also amazing IMO.

>I think you're strawmanning the idea and breadth of collectivism.
That wasn't a strawman, that was collectivism at it's finest. The kind of "collectivism" you are talking about is charity and cooperation between individuals, it's not "collectivism".
> they're happy to do so but they also have more collectivized services they pay for like having a nationalized oil company, and more subsidized healthcare, etc.
For one, you need to have a social capital and homogeneous society to do so. US have neither. Second point - Norway is LITERALLY FLOATS on oil: you can do whatever the fuck you want when you have extra money for small amount of people.
>nationalized oil company
That is why a gallon of gas in Norway(a country that floats on oil) is $5+ and in the US is $2+-.

I understand where this all comes from: "Why can't America be like Scandinavians countries?"

Here's your answer: nber.org/papers/w18441.pdf
iea.org.uk/publications/research/scandinavian-unexceptionalism-culture-markets-and-the-failure-of-third-way-soc

The problem with collectivism is that it doesn't take human nature into account, specifically human motivation.

Did you know that some of the smartest people in the world are absolutely nothing? Garbagemen, grocery clerks, construction workers - people with .0001 percentile IQ's. Why? Because for certain personality types, the more you know about life, the universe, and everything, the less motivated you are to even participate, let alone excel. I needn't document this fact extensively, it's pretty common knowledge that the smartest person of all time, William James Sidis, worked for the City of New York as an "adding machine operator" and refused to entertain the company of other humans.

My point is, people must be motivated in order to excel. And collectivism kills motivation.

Collectivism means equality of outcome. No matter who you are or what you do you get the same piece of the pie as anyone else.

Equality of OPPORTUNITY is what capitalism represents, and in order to get that larger piece of the pie that's available, you have to produce something of value. This simple motivational feature of the Western way of life is what has pushed the USA to heights of world financial and (therefore) political domination never before achieved.

...

Yes, an investment. There are public goods and such, some degree of it is certainly beneficial. But it is small. Centralization of power leads to expansion of it, and expanding collectivization eventually leads to this sorry mess where weakness is worshiped.

It's not a moral good. Buying a round of drinks isn't a moral good, but of course they're happy you pick up the tab. Same thing on a bigger scale. People like free shit.

I never said that America could be like a Scandinavian country, and collectivism may not work specifically for America because of different factors, but at the same time that isn't an argument as to why collectivism is inherently bad, and voluntary cooperation and charity represent self-sacrifice and therefore collectivism very well.

>tfw no titcow gf

>New York Jewess is a liberal Hillary supporter

Big shock

What people forget is that women being easily manipulated and swayed by emotions also works the other way around

> Collectivism
> Against human nature
I'd argue that by default humans are EXTREMELY collectivist and tribalistic on the whole, it's only social and economic forces and abundance and various kinds of conditioning that make people seem less like it.

>make it possible
It's not.

Because it only works if every person goes along with it. One guy wants to do his own thing and you need violence to force it. The more people go against the more violence.

And that is why Communism is the second largest producer of terrorism (violence for political purposes). And why communists are responsible for so many deaths.

It's not about individualism versus collectivism. Its about malicious people.

Individualism would be great if nobody abused their freedom. Collectivism would be great if there were no bad apples abusing the system.

There will never be a system that solves this problem. The fight against those with opposing interests is as old as life itself.

Also Government is inherently shitty at getting things done efficiently. And corruption is a feature of government the more gov the more corruption.

> and voluntary cooperation and charity represent self-sacrifice and therefore collectivism very well.
>voluntary
>and therefore collectivism
Pick one. In collectivism you SUBMIT to the will of the collective, it's not voluntary. Charity and cooperations, on the other hand, are. You either don't really understand what is collectivism, or you are trying to invent a bicycle here.

Is she actually Jewish? To my knowledge there's no proof and she doesn't look like it
Can I not be sexually attracted to someone even with different views to me? Besides it's not like I'd value her political opinions anyway.

Most people belong to collectives. What does this say about human nature? It is wrong to impose group law on individual rights but there will always be collectives as long as there are human beings.

Malicious individuals can be avoided and shunned. Malicious government's can't.

The concept of collectivism is nice when it's voluntary but more often than not when a collectivist ideology becomes mainstream it is forced on people so it naturally has a bad reputation.

ever heard of globalized culture?

>make it possible.

You make homogeneous societies. Human brains are pattern recognition machines and they react to what they see. Honestly watching the left over the last decade has brought me to the feeling that racism is inevitable. And that everyone needs to leave each other alone.

Go look up Norways race and religious breakdowns.

No, humans by default are prone to cooperation and society because it's beneficial to do so. Beneficial to whom? The individual.

Collectivism, by definition, puts the rights and interests of the group over the rights of the individuals who comprise that group. That's how communist governments justify robbing people of their autonomy and brutally oppressing anyone who doesn't conform to the group identity enough. It's throwing out the baby to preserve the bathwater.

Nah I have no clue, she just looks like the type of girl I usually fall for and they're oftentimes Jewish/Middle Eastern

Tribal collectivism : Competitive
Fee fee collectivism : Destructive

...

H I G H T E S T
I
G
H
T
E
S
T

>initial basic research phase
That's the hardest part, and the part private industry is not particularly good at without government grants.

Wish I hadn't.

>It's just a different way of viewing the world
No it isn't you commie fuck, stopped reading there.

Empirical evidence suggests that /economically/ collectivist regimes suffer to the degree that they are collectivist.

I wanna give her a nice deep breeding and squirt twins into her

Well I literally said that, and the government is bad at the steps beyond that like bringing the tech to the market for consumers at a competitive and affordable price, whereas private industry excels at it and has created all of the cool shit we use beyond the basic research phase, so the point still completely stands.

Honestly though a sickening amount of our technological development comes from war. Private companies tasked by the government. And companies that grew from war and then needed to find shit to do when war ended.

not much, just around 100 million killed and about 6 times more lives destroyed
are you all really this retarded in burgertown or you're part of some select group who never read a book, never saw a documentary and never used google?

eastern bloc bros are always the ones most redpilled on c*mmunism

Balance can't be supported during long periods of time. People who support collectivism are the like the ones who support socialism. Communism tried to juggle both and it felt miserably. It's one thing to theorize about it, it's a whole different thing to live through it.

because we arent ants, we are selfish beings that only work with gain stimulus

Has there been a society that prospered under having 0 laws or rules? (guessing by everything being cooperations nothing is enforced)

Western nations leading globalization have the most individualism in the world, however, they have a lot in common from technology to lifestyles. This effectively makes them into a collective mono-culture that is the greatest threat to any traditionalist culture. It expands and destroys culture like the borg.

Collectivism isn't just communist though, communism is collectivist economically yes, but the relationship doesn't work vice-versa, there are different types and levels of collectivism, like public spending on collective investments like the military, infrastructure, education, etc., to unions and collective bargaining, to something like Fascism, and communism is yet another expression of extreme economic collectivism. I'm not advocating for communism whatsoever, I still primarily believe in private property rights and markets as a means of distribution.

Not quite.
If you can argue that family is collectivist in nature and so is communism then all you need to do to scale up the communism of the tribe is to make everyone a family member.
Thus, nat soc is communism done right

Exactly, if you truly feel like you're part of an extended family that shares values, interests, and many others things, collectivism feels very natural.

A family is not collectivist. It's a biological necessity to raise healthy children and it's specifically for the benefit of individuals within the family, not for the sake of "the family". That would be some mafia shit.

Besides, if you think you can have the same evolutionary connection to everyone in your nation as you do in your family, you're mistaken. Hell, even making a family work is untenable for many people.

Collectivism is unable to succeed at the scales that individualism flourishes.

wtf I love OP now

I see nothing wrong with a superior culture replacing an inferior one.