As a political philosophy, which is better, individualism or collectivism?

As a political philosophy, which is better, individualism or collectivism?

collectivism when country is in crisis, individualism during peace

Both has stregthens and weakness. We want individual freedom by nature but at the same time a group of collectionists with guns could fuck up an individualist

individualism always, have you seen how collectivism treated you in crisis?

Family first.

Collectivism, but only to an extent. If you reach the point where the people literally just become tools for the state to exploit then you have a problem.

That's literally what collectivism is you retard.

kill yourself

Collective individualism. Everybody individually does whatever the fuck they want, while also helping out neighbors and friends.

There are only individual people, different individual people with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. [...] Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Intentionally?). To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice [...].

—Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 33

elaborate please

>t. Faggot that cant form his own opinion

>while also helping out neighbors and friends, by force.

Kill yourself.

Collectivism easily becomes totalitarianism, which is what that user was describing. No need to get heated.
I just want to hear both sides.

I'm pretty sure you telling people to kill themselves is against NAP

wonderful collectivism came to your country from the east while it was in crisis because of muh leibensraum (collectivism because they wanted baltic germans back and some land for everybody) and that fucked your country which could be on par with western europe
once it ended, you caught up unbelievably fast

A synthesis. Individualism as an ideal but collectivism as a system for the perpetuation of a people.
So NatSoc.

both are shit
>what is better, caring about only yourself or caring about all of humanity (or some vast impersonal state) equally?
>what are small to midsized groups with shared values and culture
We are tribal apes, the correct answer is 'anything works at the correct scale'.

Individualism. Every man for himself is the way it is, Collectivism is innately against human nature. People are selfish, greedy, and are always looking to ensure they get the best. To deny this is to work counter to how humanity is, and is at best, unproductive, while at worst, destructive.

Just compare Capitalism to Communism. Which one works better? Judging by the success of the U.S. versus North Korea, or hell, any other Communist country, and there is little to no competition. While the Soviet Union was close to becoming a potential competitor, it's collapse signified that in the end, Communism (Collectivism) is simply not capable of standing toe to toe with Capitalism (Individualism).

Do you want to use force to benefit people you like at the expense of other people? Collectivism.

Do you want to respect that every person is living a distinct, unique life deserved of dignity and that this life is the only life they have to live? Individualism

Ideally laws of state would treat us as individuals. As individuals we choose to be a part of collectives. Like families.

Individualism because humans are inherently social, we don't need a bureaucratic system to enforce it

I would say individualism, with voluntary collectivism at the local scale.

>Individualism as an ideal but collectivism as a system for the perpetuation of a people.
What does it matter having individualism as an ideal if one is in a collectivist state?

Individualism is just like Communism: It sounds nice in theory, but is a failiure in practice

Choosing one is stupid. One should feed into the other.

We cannot have anything worth having except through the virtues of cooperation; we should strengthen the collective.

Nothing worth having can be properly used or enjoyed except by the individual; we should honor personal liberty.

Individualism with a heavy focus on benefiting the collective.

But wouldn't collectivism be more efficient?

Banal platitude + shallow consequentialism = not an argument.

Feudalism. Collectivism for idiots, individualism for actual thinking men.

More efficient at helping the people you like and hurting the people you don't like? Yes

More efficient at anything else? No

...

In other words, recognizing that collectivism--in the sense of explicitly defining group identity--is a necessity to preserve the white race from decay, but also aiming to achieve maximum individual freedom within that framework.

Sort of like how libertarians view government as a necessary evil for some things, like enforcement of contracts/rule of law, but prefer as much freedom as possible. I see collectivism--group policing of individual actions--as a necessary evil to prevent the collapse of a group by accumulation of shitty decisions.

Human is naturally a bit of both, a lone wolf born into a collective. Limit individual where collective begins and vice versa

Family is the basic foundation of society, the individual taking that role instead leads to the destruction of the society.

Wow, so it helps whites and hurts nonwhites in white areas. Thanks, you just proved my point. A degree of collectivism is a necessity to preserve my people.

False dichotomy. Individualists are able to band together for common cause when necessary (defense, expulsion of commies).

"It's natural" is an empirical claim. It does not justify you stealing from other people normatively.

Most well-adjusted people think theft is wrong regardless of what race you are stealing from. Good luck trying to convince people that its okay to lynch niggers.

>inb4 crypto pedo ancucks

Individualism, which leads towards individuals forming groups that agree with their views, then BAM, a homogenous society that produces a comfy culture.

>theft
>implying niggers in Europe aren't stealing white land

Yes.

"Collectivism" in OP's context is not referring to voluntarily joining an association, it's referring to using force against one person in order to benefit another person in pursuit of a "greater good"

Collectivism is literally subhuman tier

Yes, communism fucked everything, but thats because both their cultural and economic policies were retarded. Before that, during our war for independece, whole Latvian nation united and won against both commies supported by Russians and Tsarist LARPers supported by Germans.
Also during interwar period, Latvians were completly dived between various political parties, hell there was three languages spoken in Saiema. Then Kārlis Ulmanis came, executed coup, and united our people once again, and in couple of years, we were almost at Western European GDP per capita level.

nah we should be kangz and queenz an shiet

Exactly why I challenged the premise of the question.

False dichotomy is imprecise, but the usual objection to individualism is "you'll be overrun by a war-like collectivist society."

>Why the fuck has the CAPTCHA been so annoying lately?

Collectivism, but with the caveat that people who refuse to work at their full potential are shot, and resources should be redistributed within your local community only.

Why not both. It propelled Germany to number one

The entirety of the continent of Europe does not belong to a specific group of genetically similar people just so you can fulfill your cringy LARPing fantasies of "m-muh Europa" and" m-muh norse gods". Where niggers have used violence to take someone's private property, it's fine to use self-defense against them. But previously unowned land that blacks now occupy does not beling to m-muh wypipo.

It seems to me you want to take away people's rights to choose their partners so as to protect an identity not all of them seem to care about the perpetuation of. Why? If an identity must force it's people to breed by coercion, does that identity deserve to exist? And how do you know this identity will decay anyway?
How so?

well said

"S-sure you can keep your private property rights, as long as you agree with every tenet of the Politiburo and give up 75% of your wages to these poor sub-100 IQ white factory workers."

Nazis have no respect for the individual.

>Implying that having a strong sense of collective is somehow stealing from others

I know that you burgers could never do a bit of collectivism right. Just do National Capitalism instead, lolberterianism is plebbit tier.

Plus I just showed you how it's natural. Evolutionary Psychology, humanis only happy when he is in his natural state, the way he was meant to be.

That natural state is a strong sense of collectivism with a lot of individuality. You need the collective to survive, whether the collective is your family, friends or nation.

A degree of both.

Collectivist in terms of being a member of a culture and racial history, individualist in terms of one's identity beyond that.

Racism is a form of collectivism you fucking retards. If you pre-judge someone for being black or jewish you are being a collectivist. If you are an alt-lite "colourblind" classical liberal who treats everyone the same, you're an individualist. Pick one.

Humans are successful because we have the ability to think in terms of the collective rather than being selfish niggers out to get everything they can.

Objectivism.

>implying there were high taxes in natsoc germany

you have no idea what you are talking about, don't you?

Using violent force against someone's personhood or property in order to benefit the "greater good of the collective" is theft or assault.

No libertarian objects to voluntary associations like families, churches, or clubs.

Individualitst collectivism, Christian moral, whatever you wanna call it: if it's better for everyone, it's better for me too

>Yes, communism fucked everything
You mean the Soviet autarky that had to develop every technology independently of the Western world?

It wasn't a battle of ideas, but of concrete systems. One system was afraid to undergo a communist change and imposed sanctions on another system. The Soviets planned to build communism on the basis of existing technologies by importing it, but instead had to develop everything from the scratch. It wasn't part of the plan. Nope.

I wish to exclude black people from my private property.

I don't want to use the force of government to steal private property from black people.

Individualism. It deals with an actual, tangible phenomenal entity: a person. Collectivism centers around a concept of group identity. This is something intangible and esoteric. One can be quantifiably improved while the other is subjective and open to interpretation. Almost any wrong can be justified for a collective.

The group has a will, as well, while you believe only individuals have valid concerns,despite individuals always defining themselves in the context of larger groups. We don't even agree on fundamental principles, so I doubt we will ever see eye to eye on this.
Tragedy of the Commons. Individual decisions have negligible impact, but they add up to the detriment of a common resource. In this case, white society. And don't you dare try to claim that whites gave up their identity on their own. We've had decades of constant brainwashing by our own governments, and in Europe, you will get thrown in jail for saying your group has the right to exist in its own homeland.
Reminder that when miscegenation was legalized by the Supreme Court in the 60s, over 90% of whites opposed miscegenation. But our (((government))) rammed it through nonetheless.

Also, I never said I want to force people to DO something. That's commie-tier bullshit. I want to force them NOT to do something. That's the fundamental difference between NatSoc and commie social policies.

>A or B?
>Yes!

Individualism. The collective doesn't exist.

>individualism in peace
The West has been individualistic since 1945, that's why we have all of our current problems.

Bait?

Who said anything about using violent force?
I was only saying that we are both collectivist and individualist, and to deny that is insanity.

EPIC STRAWMAN BREH.

/thread

It would have worked without the war and wasting all the resources on nukes.

Basically this

Picture related

The only welfare that existed was in the form of workfare. Being a NEET would be categorically impossible unless your family gave you money, because the state wouldn't.

>being this dense

Humans are communal beings which means that they help each other out but is very different from communism

What about macro-scale racism instead of micro-scale?

EX: That black guy's pretty cool, but he doesn't justify black people

You have no knowledge of American history. The 20th century was split between
>m-muh progressivism
which was socialism-lite redistributing wealth from whites to blacks for a "collective greater good" and abolishing the private property right of exclusion with anti-discrimination laws

and
>m-muh conservatism
which was nazi-ism-lite trying to use force against individuals in order to prevent "m-muh degeneracy" and "m-muh familial and religious decay"

Both are collectivist.

It does, or surely we wouldn't be sitting here communicating across thousands of miles of land using systems that collective groups of humans developed.

The entire context of this thread is political. Collectivism means using GOVERNMENT to enforce a "greater good of the collective" and you Nazis obviously want to do exactly that.

>I wish to exclude black people from my private property.
So you think collectively

>I don't want to use the force of government to steal private property from black people.
Leave the ancuck debates to other threads. From what I've seen you autists get BTFO'd every time.

>voluntarily join, or die*

No libertarian opposes voluntary associations. You're retarded.

We oppose government mandated associations.

Collectivism definition:
"the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it"

I agree with this. Special snowflakes and nihilist autistic teens can get fucked.

You are trying to claim government is out to get white people, but isn't the government just a reflection of the people? Surely the supreme court would have gotten rid off interracial marriage eventually if people wanted it gone that badly. You try to claim the Jewish people want whites to perish, but why would they? Is it in their holy book?
>Also, I never said I want to force people to DO something. That's commie-tier bullshit. I want to force them NOT to do something. That's the fundamental difference between NatSoc and commie social policies.
Then are you fine with whites not breeding at all? Never having children?

No, collectivism means an individual feeling a strong sense of a collective. I have a feeling you feel for the

>national SOCIALISM is socialism
meme. If you did, just shows you are a beginner.

YOU PUT THE POST IN A CONTEXT WITHOUT OP'S PERMISSION. THAT IS A NAP VIOLATION, OUR TOMAHAWK MISSILE LAUNCHERS ARE GETTING PREPARED.

basically this.
no matter how great one person is, they will never be able to compete with a group of specialized individuals. people do great things when they work together, but they should never allow themselves to prop up a group that has nothing to offer them.

I will never support my government. Fuck them.

I would say individualism should be around with a hint of Nationalism (small limited collectivism to keep people from pushing for extreme foreign culture), in times of crisis collectivism on Military and first responders to react and make sure order is maintain and people saved.

You don't want to be a centrist when you are offered to eat all the shit or none of the shit, but sometimes centrist is the best option.

My point is going right over your head, you're that brainwashed by ancap cult propaganda.

By judging black people as a whole, you are judging them collectively. This has nothing to do with government. If you were a true individualist you'd judge everyone on their merits and completely ignore race. And collective judgement is a good thing because of patterns.

And the government should not hurt individuals in order to give priority to a group because:

There are only individual people, different individual people with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. [...] Talk of an overall social good covers this up. (Intentionally?). To use a person in this way does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice [...].

—Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Reprint Edition, 2013, p. 33

Individualism is better for the collective funnily enough, by prioritizing the individual everyone benefits.

Only the top few benefit from collectivism, as soviet union demonstrated. Communism fails.

Go LARP on stormfront. You have no arguments.

>If you pre-judge someone for being black or jewish you are being a collectivist.
I don't do that though.

>I would say individualism should be around with a hint of Nationalism (small limited collectivism to keep people from pushing for extreme foreign culture), in times of crisis collectivism on Military and first responders to react and make sure order is maintain and people saved.

So basically you can be an individualist, do what you want without regard for others, but people around you should be collectivist and think of you in their decisions like military, police and rescue risking themselves to save you.

Speaks volumes about you as a person.

>If you were a true individualist you'd judge everyone on their merits and completely ignore race
source? individualism is about YOU as the individual, not other people
If an individual wants to disassociate from all black people by saying no blacks in his store, who is the one to stop him?
the state? or "ancap cult propagandists"?

Individualism has destroyed my country

Voluntary collectives can do great things. When people are forced into a collective without their consent is when things get shitty imo.

So I would say a mix of individualism and collectivism where the only collectives that exist are voluntary.

I didn't reply to you, but yeah if you're a non-racist libertarian you can be an individualist without being hypocritical.

Why not both? You shit sitting and pee standing.