Is Collectivism bad?

individualism is a meme and never existed
you are always a small cog of a much larger whole
deal with it libretardians

Not unless you're a /pol/tard.

Gay shit.

True but until we reach that point we need collectivism.

Individualism vs collectivism is easy to talk about but not very useful. In reality it's rare for political actors and organizations to be consistently one or the other across issues.

If you can convince people to join a group voluntarily then collectivism is unnecessary, so nearly every form of collectivism revolves around silencing dissent. Even if they are nonviolent it involves misinformation, logical fallacies, emotional appeals and propaganda.

Spoken like a true cuck.

Not only is it false even taking you literally, if only going for examples such as the anchorites (unless we count us as collective with God). But what OP meant was obviously enforced collectivism, as opposed to voluntary association.

Only if I stand to lose

no collectivism is good

No, groups are as distinct from one another as are individuals. Just don't go full Cambodia.

Well, every attempt at a collectivist society failed horribly. So yeah, that kinda makes it bad.

How is it a spook? If anything a collectivist ideological imperative is, but collectivism itself is most certainly not.

But /pol/tards are collectivists as well.

Then send me collectivism by mail.

>phyisical
Allah damn it

Individualism is death.
People who adopt this stance lose all that differentiates us from animals, which is self-transcendence.

you are wrongly implying that anything that is not material is a spook
For this I suggest you actually read Stirner you retarded idiot
I could not send you anger by mail yet it is not a spook

Collectivism and Individualism are memes.

>I could not send you anger by mail yet it is not a spook
Of course, since it is an affective state of consciousness.

Retarded

The endgame for human society is a just collective that everyone WANTS to be a part of

Collectivism is placing the group before the individual, so if the group asks you to throw yourself under the bus for the good of the group you do it.

this has literally (literally) nothing at all to do with my post

You are implying a union of egoists is the same as collectivism. It isn't. Stirner attacks communes and doing things for the greater good.

>You are implying a union of egoists is the same as collectivism.
Never did so

>How is it a spook? If anything a collectivist ideological imperative is, but collectivism itself is most certainly not.
>-(You)
Collectivism is a spook. It's one of the spooks specifically mentioned in the Ego and His Own. The difference between collectivism and a union is the union only extends as far as it is beneficial for the individual.

>How is it a spook? If anything a collectivist ideological imperative is, but collectivism itself is most certainly not.
I did not post that. My posts are:
and this one

Well you responded to a chain of responses where that was what kicked it off, collectivism being a spook.

No, but judging evertrhing based on collectivism or judging anything based indivdualism is bad. Different tools are neccessary to judge different problems

I only wanted to clarify that the criteria for something being a spook or not isn't "can you send it by mail"

>judging anything based indivdualism
Judging everthing based on individualism*

>I could not send you anger by mail
What are letter bombs?

letters that contain bombs, not the literal feeling of hate
When I get a letter bomb, I'm recieving an explosion in my face, I do not feel anger propagating through the letter

Yes.

>I only wanted to clarify that the criteria for something being a spook or not isn't "can you send it by mail"
I never claimed otherwise.

I never said you claimed so

This is getting silly.

Not an argument

wanna kiss?

Get a room

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism

Not him but there's no such thing as voluntary individualism as there is voluntary association.

Capitalist society is and has always been bombarded by propaganda both extremely blunt or carefully subtle.

If we were conducting an experiment we'd say this was an unaccounted variable. It's just not accurate.

>it involves misinformation, logical fallacies, emotional appeals and propaganda.

At a time we all survived through tribal and communal living, and it's only until we broke this habit that we had for millennia that we started to become more individual as we lived in big cities.

The individualism seems to be initially caused by laziness, having our necessities provided to us through an incredibly easy means.

Erm..no that's not all that differentiates us. Animals need collectivism like we do. Look at monkeys.

Individualism doesnt mean we cease to be social, but it means we have a lesser form of society.

Collectivism isnt just this one extreme example you have given.

Collectivism isnt dying for a group. Its living in a group. It's like an extended friendship to strangers.

It is certainly bad because people will not stick up for themselves. When you compare Europe to South East Asia, you see Europeans have it a lot better because of their individualistic culture. It provided them with worker's rights for example, while in SEA they work 60 hours a week and want to kill themselves.

Way to go and take two unrelated phenomena and make a conclusion out of it. Why are you even here for?

Japan, China, Korea, etc. are collectivist and have been for many centuries.

You know many of those rights were advocated by socialist groups which is an collectivist ideology.

/pol/tards are the biggest collectivists
They are just unaware about this fact

You could say that most social democracues such as the ones in western europe are collectivist as te high taxes are used to help the less fortunate countryman.
An individualist wouldn't care about that.

An individual would care about that as long as partecipating to it would help create a society useful to him. Example:

>having welfare I have a "security net" if I fuck up
>public education makes everyone more productive, and I get more easily everything I want

etc.

The difference between that and collectivism is that in collectivism you do things for the sake of obeying your ideology, in our case, like and, maybe in part, said the idea is to create a society that would be objectively good (spooks aside) to join.

oh fug i furgud adut thad DDD:

No, we're actually very open about it.

Collectivism is the natural state of a human society, so no, you dont need to obey an ideology.

Individualism came after communal / tribal living.

>Collectivism is the natural state of a human society, so no, you dont need to obey an ideology.

>Individualism came after communal / tribal living.

Yes, as it is its evolution. A superior concept.

can you recommend me some individualist reads sempai?

Yes. I want to be better than everyone else and not have to give a shit about other people. Why should I consider them?

t. social studies freshman

yes bad do not tread on me

Yes but individualism made protests possible in the first place

Collective action is one of the greatest expressions of individualism t b h