Individualism v collectivism

All forms of individualism are degenerate. Liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism. They all breed the corruption and decadence we see today. For all its wealth, the contemporary West has none of the virtue and nobility it possessed during the days of Sparta and the Roman Republic. It's impossible to imagine any Western leader today displaying the kind of courage Leonidas showed at Thermopylae.

You're right. You should live for others and never seek yourself.

Sounds good to me

***GAME TIME***
Count the spooks!

>puking blood
I'd like to know more

You have it backwards, liberalism is collectivism. You are fucking retarded

>liberalism is collectivism

FUCK YEAH MURICA! FEET! YARDS!

Just because American liberals don't believe in free market does not mean they are collectivist. American liberals value individual expression above everything else.

>displaying the kind of courage Leonidas showed at Thermopylae.
You mean being loser?
ALso, welcome to union comrade.

Wouldn't sign it like that, but what people definitely should realize that alone, they are fucking nothing.

If it wasn't for other people, they wouldn't have a house to live in, they wouldn't have their career they are so proud of, they wouldn't have cars, they wouldn't have electricity, they wouldn't have running water, they wouldn't have clothes. A lot of them probably wouldn't even have food.

None of us lives in a vacuum. So while I don't think you need to completely subjugate yourself to the collective, you should also sit down and think about the effect your decisions and actions will have on those people around you.
Because there is a very good chance that every shitty thing done to them will eventually have made its way down the line and arrive on your doorstep.

Have you seen leftist or SJWs arguments? It's not actually about individual expression, it's about "marginalized groups" and "collective rights," etc. Acting for yourself before the hive will get you crucified.

Horseshoe effect. Extreme individualism and extreme collectivism lead to the same results.

wouldn't that be a circle?

Virtuous ethnic nationalism + borders + individualism works just fine. The problem is ethnic/cultural division and anti-national individualism which tears things apart.

If everyone in a country has most everything in common with everyone else in that country, it's easy enough to solve internal problems like corruption and degeneracy. But when half of the internals are non-natives hostile to the best interests of the natives and have no connection to the nation, things go to shit. That's what is happening to Europe and the USA right now, slowly.

Liberals want us to have "respect" for "diversity" and "alternative lifestyles." It is not collectivist at all. In fact, it's rather Lockean.

>All forms of individualism are degenerate. Liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism. They all breed the corruption and decadence we see today. For all its wealth, the contemporary West has none of the virtue and nobility it possessed during the days of Sparta and the Roman Republic. It's impossible to imagine any Western leader today displaying the kind of courage Leonidas showed at Thermopylae.

millennial socialist commie collectivist shit

they want none of that. their diverse and alternative lifestyles are diverse and alternative only in name.
they are strictly dictated by the collective and don't you dare deviating from what they approved as acceptable.

>ethnic nationalism
Adolf, please nation state are failed concept

no because with a circle the most extreme people become moderates again which is daft desu

individualism is only good when paired with ethnonationalism

nice trips

>which is daft desu
explain

Liberalism is cancer, (ideology of liberalism) not left wing buzzword.

Rome and Sparta were pretty aristocratic

Individualism is a defining charachter of the white race.

If you think otherwise, you have probably misunderstood individualism.

>tfw all I want is to be a cog in the right machine
>tfw there is no right machine

The nation-state is a bastardized version of the polis. If you need spooks like ethnicity and border-control to keep your community together, you've already failed.

All radical ideas are shit.

Too much individualism and the collective lose, increasing social disparity.
Too much collectivism and the individual lose, putting individual rights into check.

You need balance.

He already has.

private property and unregualted trade let individuals not be fucked by the mob, and that si the secret to capitalism, GDP be 100T by now if not for welfare state 1940, yaron brook ayn rand are right

The foundations of Western thought are Greco-Roman humanism and Christianity. Neither of those are individualistic.

no no no, progressivism is, liberalism, or classical liberalism is individualism, as it puts the freedom of the individual before society, progressivism, what is now being called liberalism (due to the progressives incorrectly labelling themselves liberals) is collectivist, as it puts the society first (in a far left very authoritarian way) through welfare, social justice and political correctness. Individualistic ideologies don't force conformity like collectivism does.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? EXPLAIN IT HOMO

They aren't liberals, they are progressives who believe they are liberals, the real liberals mostly died in the early 2000s pre Obama. There's nothing liberal about left wing authoritarianism .

Well you are wrong.

I agree.

You're right. Unfortunately, the autists on here will always put their video game, anime, and trap porn addictions above the good of their fellow country men.

>not wanting the world to be a disparate, valueless, selfish hell hole of McDonald's, Pepsi, and reality TV consumers means you're a communist

Yes you need a bit of both, but definitely more collectivism than individualism, ensures that society remains cohesive and makes it harder to subvert.

Lol okay. American progressives are definitely not collectivist when it comes to socio-cultural matters.

>you are wrong!!!
>Gives no argument.

Jesus's was a proto commie and Christianity was socialism before socialism.

>Individualism v collectivism

False dichotomy. The family is the natural model for a healthy society and harmonious balance between individuality and collective organization.

If Socialism hadn't acquired become synonymous with an ideology, we'd probably say social-ism is the reconciliation of individualism and collectivism.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

You are welcome to leave anytime. In fact, I encourage it

Yes they are retard.

The advantage of individualism is that you get more energy credits but it's offset by ethics drift.

Collectivism allows you to implement slavery without any objections. If you also take Decadence as a species trait, than it's effectively a free postive trait point.

The problem with collectivism is you fucking suck shit. You suck so much shit you don't even realise that you suck shit. In fact, I don't know if I can ever name a time in human history when anyone has ever sucked more shit than you do at this moment. For some reason you want everyone to suck shit right along with you, but here's the thing: There are lots of people better than you in this world. In fact, maybe all of them, because most people don't suck shit nearly as much you suck shit. So my apologies if this offends you , but I decline the offer to join your death cult on the grounds that you and everyone in it sucks complete and unfathomable shit. Please stop sucking so much shit in the future, if at all possible. Thanks.

It's best when individuals put forth their own efforts for the sake of others in the collective. Communism is pure collectivism and libertarianism is pure individualism; both are degenerate and lead to moral and aesthetic decay.

Balance is like asking for a balance of poison, or being a little pregnant LOL!!

ALl the evils you mistake for capitalism are actually problems of regulation, including monopolies and depressions!

Capitalism is an endless boom!

It means no public school! no money from taxpayer to university! objective law and 1% the money to judges and lawyers!
Atomic power! mass produced housign and no building codes!
Hong kong and usa in 1800s showed the world the way!

Not true. Social order, not political order, breeds decadence and degeneracy. Political order can effect changes to social order though. The dominating personal philosophy will always be more important than the reigning political order.

Fuck off commie. You're just sad your country has always been worthless. You're basically big fat portugal.

You have this completely backward.

Foundations of modern western civilizations were born during the Enlightenment as resistance to tyranny(including theocracy). Paine, Locke, Voltaire, Spinoza and others laid the groundwork of modern western thought, your constitution, human rights and other pillars of western civilizations.
Christianization of your nation only started in the 50s as a part of anticommunist propaganda.

Read Foucault. Individualism does not eliminate systems of domination. It only conceals them.

>It's another retard on Sup Forums who thinks that people are inherently obligated to form societies

Checked. Top kek.

L E G E N D A R Y
E
G
E
N
D
A
R
Y

>LEAF NON-SHITPOST

You conveniently forgot to list capitalism. Earning capital for yourself at the expense of others in a zero sum game is the most individualist thing out there. Sharing money with others is basically communism.

...

Most likely red liquor

Sure, as long as everyone else lives for me.
See how that fucking works?

If that's the case, why is Washington DC is a neoclassical circlejerk? Why does the United States have so many cities named "Athens" or "Sparta" or "Rome"? The American Revolutionaries were obsessed with classical antiquity.

Yes they are, retard. Show me individualism occurring anywhere in the human species. We form societies naturally, they are tribes on the lowest level. Go fap to Ayn Rand and Mises Von Jew, faggot.

Individualism is a Jewish intellectual invention, it's perfect for making people into valueless consumers, ready to fill the Jews pockets with shekels by defining their identity with various consumer products.

The truth hurts, I know

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Why does individualism mean a complete lack of society to you? That doesn't make any fucking sense. It can and is in someone's best interest to contribute to civilization, to meet people and build relationships. You act like that variable doesn't exist at all in individualism, which means you are completely full of shit and don't understand what you're talking about here.

Yup sounds about right. Those are my exact arguments as to why I can't stand freedumb loving individualists. They have all of the freedumb in the world, but they waste that freedom to cut their dicks off and put on a dress in an attempt to compete on who is the most special snowflake.

The Enlightenment was a mistake.

Some people are born to be subjects and not citizens.

People can exist as autonomous individuals in a collective society. Responsibility lies on the person to contribute to society. It's the basic idea behind JFK's quote, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Says who? Certainly not nature.

>For all its wealth, the contemporary West has none of the virtue and nobility it possessed during the days of Sparta and the Roman Republic
t. cursory knowledge of classical era and high school contrarianism

Good.

Glad my private property includes: Food, water, medical supplies, fuel, guns and enough ammo to blast you filthy proles into the ground. I'll run my furnace off your corpses before I ever give you lazy leech scum a fucking cent.

I know history is painful lesson on how Communism is Jewish mind control and that it's always failed.

FUCK YOU FAGGOT PROLES. EVEN IF YOU SUCCEED IN YOUR PETTY REVOLUTION THE WELL SUPPLIED OF US WILL BECOME THE NEO-BOURGEOIS AND YOU WILL STILL BE MONGRELS.

>predestination

based on who's authority?

Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same shekel.

No nature just makes people naturally: Smarter, stronger faster, more dextrous, etc.

Oh wait, no you're right. Everyone is physically and mentally equal, and nobody has bad vision or hearing.

>Fucking die

I'm saying that individualism shouldn't be the abstract ideal in society. I'm not saying people shouldn't have individual rights or beliefs. The abstract ideal should be the betterment of your nation and your family.

Technically, individualism is secret divide et impera tactic, so people could be ruled easily

So our ability to reason, and create societies that don't really follow the laws of nature, means that some people have to be relegated to the role of servants to society...because....WHY?

You still haven't answered the question...but I can see you're getting angry, which means you're starting to realize you're now mentally stuck in a fucking corner.

You're too stupid to participate in this conversation.

That doesn't mean that it can or should be considered a valid means of building a society.

(Collectivism that is)

> property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

It is.

> When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

It gives a State ownership and ultimately power over what is produced and what is not. The wants of people are fickle and their circumstances change. With State control, there is no mechanism for price discovery: giving value or assigning precedence for these wants (versus a market economy where articles are provided based on what is profitable). People wanted blue jeans and televisions, now they want skinnypants and phones (but still must have cheap toilet paper). They will pay more for something they want, and almost nothing for something they absolutely need.

Does a state tell them what they can and cannot want, as well? How does a state assign resources to new endeavors versus continuing production? In historical examples it has always tried to do this and it has ended poorly.

Perhaps at a future time when an AI exists that can selflessly and benevolently decide how to allocate esources, and a post-scarcity economy emerges; this model can be physically possible. But who would be willing to cede control of all political and economic power to a computer? It is something we are continuously warned about as ultimately being to the detriment of mankind.

Ultimately a State is an entity which is like an imperfect and corruptable computer, that will serve its own interests at the expense of its charges. The unthinkable dystopian scenario of a selfish all-powerful supercomputer that futurists warn us about is a model that the state-socialist openly embraces.

> tldr; I warned you about States, Bro

It's because we don't have a mediator.
Religion is useless.
The state doesn't get involved.
Schools are useless and preach degeneracy.
The only level at which we can instil values is the level of the family, but then you're just creating patches of civilisation in a swamp of degeneracy. This is what muh family values conservacucks that want to keep the big gubmint out of their lives don't understand. The state is a value enforcer. A very necessary one if you want to maintain survive in the long term.

you are the bourgeois, fuckwit. i grew up in poverty and i had to listen to commie fucks like you talk about "starting a revolution to overthrow the bourgeois" and i laughed all the way. you cunts will start it, the ACTUAL proletariat will take over, a dictatorship will be put in place shortly afterwards, then you'll all be shot. just like in the USSR and literally every single communist state that has ever existed.

furthermore, things are the way they are for a reason. do you think 10% of the population owns 90% of the value because of some heinous plot that was put into place by the ancient megajews 6 billion years ago? fuck no. it's that way because some people actually know how people work, they know how the free market works, and they're pretty damn set on becoming rich. they'll disregard your laws, they'll disregard your government, and if they need to they'll disregard your country in favor of another one. like it or not they are a necessary part of any economy, and your collectivist bullshit won't help that.

This is precisely why you are a retard

Rome and Sparta have been the models for the vast majority of political philosophy in the West, including (but not limited to): Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and the American founders.

Sounds fine. And it is until some asshat comes and decides: "Ey, I can probably have everyone work for me WITHOUT me working for them."

Systems that can be de_stroyed by a single element are bad systems

On the general topic, I just keep wondering why does no one speak of middle ground? A balance between seeking yourself and fulfilling your role to society? I guess people like thinking in binary more than they like finding the sweet spot between two extremes.

Some form of collective values and a mechanism to enforce them is necessary to create social bonds and a social order that will survive in the long term. We don't have any bonds now, nothing beyond mere economic exchange and individual self-interest. Religion is dead. The government is useless. We have nothing.

It's important for humans to have a healthy mix of both. We are individuals and can think for ourselves. We are not drones steered by a central intelligence.

Yet we have always lived in groups, and we need a group to belong to. Even the most hardcore individualists cannot survive alone. Ted Kaczynski comes to mind.

Humans have been a gang-species forever and the perfect political system would acknowledge our psychological and biological needs, instead of jerking off to some supposedly perfect theoretical framework for society.

>The family is the natural model..

wew, the family is a specific form of collective and not the other way around. Collective living is far older than family as we understand it today.

Yep. Also wholesome change comes from the bottom up. It is tested small scale.
But to have that sort of evolutionary development you need freedom and individuality.

It's the Lao Tzu vs Confucius thing.

Because they aren't smart enough to obtain power, strong enough to break free, or fast enough to run away.

The weak will be ruled by the strong, who will in turn be manipulated by the smart.

See literally every commie regime ever.

I'm not smart enoughave? Well I have a bunch of stuff that you don't, because I worked for it, allocated my assets accordingly and now I live quite comfortably, with enough resources to disappear on a moment's notice.

Chances are if you aren't still living with mommy that you live in a cramped shoebox flat with nothing of note besides commie pipedreams.

The people that hate property have none, and the people who think things should be forcefully redistributed don't have the fortitude of ANYONE variety to carve something out for themselves.

You couldn't or put me in a corner, mental or otherwise.

All you commies ever have is

>MUH UTOPIA! IT'LL WORK THIS TIME THIS TIME GUYS.

Oh, and I'm not mad. I just hate you whiny leeches doing nothing to better yourselves, but always chomping at the bit to take from those who have earned.

You can't compare the modern west to Rome and Sparta because those people were going through hard times which made hard people.

Modern day west is the pinnacle of gluttony and narcissism, everybody thinks themselves of worth but nobody actually is, everybody thinks they are hardened by the world, but theyre all weak, you got a nation full of people where the majority have never skipped a meal in their life or lived without a roof on their head yet you have tons of groups claiming they've had it hard, large numbers of "depressed" useless cunts, it's because an easy life combined with over fed and over inflated egoistic culture is a deadly combination.

It creates vampires.

whatever faggt

What about Athenian individualism?

Slavery by way of the majority isn't cool op

But the most degenerate forces in the west are the collectivist ones. The ones who think that the most privileged should act on behalf of the victims. The marxists. The collectivist marxists bred degeneracy into western individualism.

The Spartan agoge taught boys to be self-reliant within a collectivist system. They intentionally underfed them to encourage them to steal food, but still punished them harshly for doing so.

Nah, you're wrong OP.

Goddamnit burger

That's complete bullshit. They want everyone to be exactly like them.

Ancient greeks were individualists with high cultural coherence. Fuck your collectivism.

I think if we had two Earths one with collectivism would outdo the individualism Earth when it comes to technology and all the points of reference you can measure.

That said, I would rather want collectivism with a race that are the same as mine than fighting alongside shitskins and alike.

t. Ching chong