Is collectivism the root of all problems?

>implying there aren't nationalist anti-degenerates hardcore capitalists

>nationalist
>hardcore capitalists

not so hardcore then

>is X the root of all problems?

No.
Problems come from many sources. Blaming it all on one source is always wrong

the true redpill

>The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality. Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men—which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind. Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)—a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.

>From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other.

The Objectivist
Leonard Peikoff, “Nazism vs. Reason,”
The Objectivist, Oct. 1969, 1

so many logical leaps in that paragraph.

i've never read ayn rand before, but why do so many people dismiss her and say she sucks?

>>The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals
Is the Social-Constructivism fad in postmodernism nothing but Collectivism in disguise?

she is Karl Marx's meanie pants counterpart

please, Marx is pretty deep, by comparison.

It is still very speculative and hollow without empirical evidence or precedent

both stupidly idealistic

Generally, yeah, the roots of postmodernism go way back to German idealism of both Kant and Hegel, who in turn were the basic roots of some of the 19th and 20th century collectivist philosophers/movements and states, like Marxism, Nietzschian existentialism and nihilism, Heidegger, and many others. most of the constructionists and post-structuralist postmodernists held many base assumptions from early 20th century neo-marxism. so yes.

though collectivism is not a philosophy per se, it is an aspect of a philosophy. It's like saying that individualism is a philosophy, despite it always being part of a greater whole and one's philosophy cannot be described with just that alone.

pic kinda related, planning on writing about Rand's work with the hope of rectifying its issues to realize Objectivism's fundamentals. (those Randian theologians at the Ayn Rand institute can go fuck themselves)

Isn't it Stirner?

A lot of them can be traced to a single problem that influences other problems. For example, our humans naturally greedy? Or does the environment force a human to be greedy?

Late Marx is a Stirnerist though

This: there's a reason he never published the German ideology and entirely gave up idealism after being subjected to Stirner's thinking.

You're honestly retarded. Capitalists are nationalists. Communists are internationalists.

>hoppe
>nationalist

>when you realise stirner, a nobody who barely anyone outside of the internet has heard about, was a massive factor in one of the most influential idealogies in the modern era

Believe it or not, it's a pretty multi-faceted issue

There's obviously not. If you're a hard-core capitalist you're by the very definition anti-nationalist and pro-globalism and pro-free trade.

Individualism leads to egoism which has resulted in this maximum pleasure consumer culture.

Ayn "an ethnostate for the jews and sociopathic individualism for the goyim" Rand

>out consumer culture
>egoist
HOLY FUCKING KEK

If all industry was controlled by the workers within those industries we would experience unparalleled economic growth for an already modernized country

So no

nice meme

Yes, individualism is the true redpill

Ayn Rand collected social security

then why are you on the internet mooching off the accomplishments of evil academics?

>if I use a matrix metaphor my retarded views will make sense

I mean it's definitely true historically.

Slave morality pham

And democracy

Oh damn well that settles it then, her entire philosophy is now invalidated

Certainly not. Collectivism was the source fo the success you aim to excel with individualism. The trick it two fold, collectivism was never supposed to get too large lest the social motivations go arwy. Two, it was never meant to be perverted actively which is the case with a lot of propoganda and 'politics'.
Grass roots collectivism is the greatest human strength.

No. The feeling of fraternity among citizens and their loyalty to the idea of State and Society is the only thing that allows us to live decent lives. Pray tell, how do you stop corruption in a society of individualistiv egoists? It is in their interest to steal, and it is in the interest of policemen and anti-corruption agencies to be bribed until the moment that society falls apart, as rotten to the core as it is. Even emotional connection is harmed by viewing all others as objects, valuable only for their benefit to the 'self' - how does one connect to them if he views them as such, and what if they view him as such, throwing him away as soon as he loses his value to them? Society can never subsist on self-interest, and one only lives like he does thanks to society (all technology and knowledge was inherited by us after centuries of refinement by the generations that preceeded us, and will be inherited by our children after being refined by us, society had given us security and stability etc.). Collectivism which she sought to demonize had given her everything she had - even the means she needed to criticize it (language, dialectics, rhetoric) were inherited from society.

Master morality has it's own problems as well. As Nietzsche likes to point out.

how?

Objectivism died when Rand became a welfare cuck

Capitalistic countries were all about nationalism. Communist countries about internationalism. "National Socialism" is named as it is because it's a combination of socialism (sort of) and nationalism. If socialism was nationalistic instead of internationalistic then the Nazis wouldn't have had to specify their version was nationalistic.

Could we be equivocating?

>Capitalistic countries were all about nationalism
They weren't and aren't. Globalization is the result of capitalism, as personal interest, free trade, property and capital transcend the State.

it's not collectivism so much as low iq people. the problem with collectivism is that it ALWAYS incudes the low iq people and manages to vault almost exclusively them into positions of power

not saying that collectivism could work if we were smarter. but the problem is inherently iq and predation

Alright then we're equivocating. Because nationalism as in love and identification for your country was founded in capitalistic countries and despised in communist countries. What do you mean by "nationalism?"

>Capitalistic countries were all about nationalism.
You're either confusing capitalism with mercantilism or you're merely shitposting.

Not, just openly a jew.

Capitalism and globalism goes hand in hand...
Free markets, free individuals etc

You're telling me that the people who live in countries like France and England and America weren't nationalistic? Again, I think we're equivocation if you disagree with the above claim.

Wrong. Your most staunch political opponents often have high IQ. IQ doesn't equate to being right it just represents the ease at which you can analyse things.
A low IQ society working towards its goals diligently is better than a high IQ society that is working inefficiently or counter to its collective goal.
The only positive of individualism is the RULES OF NATURE system built right into it and, assuming you don't start a shit lefty society, a collective society can also have these principles.

Predation is far more of an issue than IQ. I cannot even imagine how you can model the situation to say otherwise.

Nationalism has existed for way longer than capitalism has, and, Historically, communist countries have been much more nationalistic than capitalistic ones.

>free individuals
>globalism
Maybe on paper. Just like how communism is equal individuals on paper.

Not even true. Nationalism was a response to Napoleon trying to unite/conquer Europe. Capitalism was a concept since well before Napoleon.

Regardless, capitalist countries have been very nationalistic in the past and today. You're line of reasoning implies that people are not irrational. Just because capitalism and nationalism don't go well together in theory doesn't mean that capitalistic countries can't be filled with a majority nationalistic population or have their government foster a nationalistic attitude amongst the people.

Let's not try to speak of nationalism as if it's something we can measure and compare country to country.

IQ increases directly in proportion to mental modules that resist predation. you'll notice that economic conservatism increases directly in proportion to IQ throughout the world, with the east asians being the most right wing.

high iq individuals mostly realize that redistribution is unnecessary because they know how to work hard and can plan ahead.

individualism has built in negative feedback loops to punish failure. collectivism has no such mechanism. collectivists continue to feed failure until everyone is dead. almost always.

there isn't a single collectivist structure in the world that has endured.

predation is a problem, but predators can be killed. it's impossible to raise the IQ of a nation.

there's also not a single successful low iq nation. it simply doens't exist.

theoretically it would be possible if low iq people were not also, coincidentally, parasitic. but they ALL are.

so those are my priors. fight me.

Communist countries only got nationalist after Stalin got rid of the Jews, interestingly enough.

But he's right in that the advent of nationalism started in the early 1800s.

it was teh jews in the precursor to the KGB in the soviet system who were forcing internationalism and giving affirmative action to georgians, muslims, and other people who saw the russians as scum, and who happily massacred them.

nationalism was simply a method of motivating soldiers to comply with conscription.

>collectivism has no such mechanism
Wrong. First it depends on the degree of collectivism. No one is saying to full all out China here. A competative spirit can be easily iuncorporated. The bigger issuee is the bad ratio of risk/reward to innovation due to collective tendencies to conservatism.
Second, societies to not and should not exist in a vaccum. Unlike individualism which measures the quality of the person against another collectivism measures the quality of a group against another. While the failure is shared the feedback is still very much there.

>there isn't a single collectivist [..] that has endured
There isn't a single structure that has endured. They're all constantly changing. Don't be evasive. Further, given that what he have now isn't ancap but capitalism it goes to show that there is still a degree of collectivist notion in the 'individualistic' societies that you're citing.

1/

Stalin ended the internationalist Jew nonsense in the mid 30s, though.

>human beings are rational actors
>human beings can always see the bigger picture
>you can't have degrees of collectivism and individualism present concurently
>human beings can accurately predict the future thanks to their high iq
sounds like you scored 130 on an iq test and are still high off it kid

The problem with people like you is that you think of nationalism and that you only think of the third definition in pic related. This is a very limited and specific definition of nationalism and not what most people are thinking of. And even if we only take this definition, we can find examples of it long before Napoleon, for example Jeanne d'Arc's struggle so that France and the French people don't go under English rule.

>"I know well that these English will put me to death, because they think that after I'm dead, they will win the Kingdom of France. But even if there were hundred thousand more Godons than there are now, still they will never have the Kingdom!"

>Asked if God hated the English: "Of the love or hate God may have for the English I know nothing, but I know well that they will all be driven out of France, except those who will die here."

Anyway, capitalist countries have only been nationalistic before socialist countries started existing. Capitalist countries can be filled with nationalists in theory, but in practice it isn't what's been happening since the 20th century. Even to this day, former communist countries are more nationalistic than western ones.
Not really. Most socialists were already nationalists to the core long before Stalin. For example, 19th century socialists in the US were among the first to oppose immigration since it lowered wages and raised unemployment. This was against capitalists who wanted to import immigrants for the same reason. What Stalin did was pretty much just remove any pretense of internationalism that the movement had.

>impossible to raise the IQ of a nation.
Then how does IQ increase? The globalised shifting of individuals? What a fucking joke. IQ and education can be interacted with. It depends on what your views on IQ heritability are, naturally but these things don't just 'happen'.

>low IQ are parasitic
I wouldn't neccesarily agree. Parasitic behaviour can be induced in two inherently different ways. First, of course, is not wanting to contribute and the second is an inability to contribute. While you might suggest (without any statistics that I've seen) that parastic tendency is exlusively low IQ you fail to address the other point. It's not terribly accurate to suggest that only people with low IQ find themselves unable to contribute. With the quickly shifting context of modern times a lot of people find themselves redundant or ineffectual high and low IQ alike. Bouncing back from this would be a measure of conscientiousness a contruct which is notably different from intelligence

Nobody cares about Jewmerica my man.

I find it hilarious that you feel America is and has been, for the majority of its history, not filled with nationalistic people... France... same deal.

large interest groups ALWAYS end up hijacking policy. you might look at modern medecine as a good example.

if you allow bureaucracies to hijack it, they usurp control without ever having brought something to hte table in teh first place. at least profit seeking corporations only have the power they can acquire via profit.

power is a zero sum game. don't kid yourself otherwise.

>collectivism
I'm not saying society shouldn't exist. it should. but society doesn't need to be legislated.

the only things that law should ever even concern iself with is the enforcement of individual property rights. society can't be enforced by law with the exception of institutions that support private property rights, such as marriage and childrearing.

they'd already started the first rounds of killings.

stalin's dilemma was that at that point, all soviet power had been acquired and maintained by the killing carried out by the internationalist jews. his own included.

he couldn't well stop at that point.

I'm incredibly high.

I don't assume humans are all rational actors. ubt the higher iq ones have a better chance than anyone else.

under individualist LEGAL systems, individual people die for individual mistakes. that eugenicizes the gene pool.

society will still exist, but the problem is that when society itself enters the legal system, people are INCENTIVIZED to wage civilizational war, since it could potentially grant them things that should be fought for on an individual basis

waging war against civilization should not be incentivized

People in communist countries were nationalists not because of communism but despite it. I grew up in a communist country and I remember all that multikulti propaganda we had in childrens' books.

I find it hilarious that you think that I ever claimed that.
What country did you live in? Not all communist countries were the same. One thing you have to give all of them, though, is that at least they didn't try to genocide their original populations through immigration like western capitalist countries.

>at least profit seeking corporations only have the power they can acquire via profit.
And their policy goals are increase profit

see
> you might look at modern medecine as a good example.

Also property is a fucking spook you retarded ancap with your retarded private police and courts governing private crime

Czechoslovakia in the 80s. We had all kinds of books full of African niggers holding hands with white kids and Asians and saying that national/racial differences don't matter and everyone needs to fight oppression together.

Also all those anti-white personas like Dean Reed and Angela Davis were promoted in the Eastern Block, people just didn't give a fuck.

>bureaucracy
Yeah okay, but where did you get that from a post about how collectivism isn't inherently less competative?

>we should legislate
And why on earth not? Can you actually give a rationale for all that or are they just the laws of 'high' IQ user? Further, in natural circumstances like grass root small scale societies, legislation is just an extention of the collective opinion.
>b-but that's shit
While a lot of people cite this monkey ladder experiment in favour of individualism ultimately it shows the untility of collectivism. A lesson hard learned by other members is enforced upon new members without the consequences being enacted (on the group). While this might seem to be an infraction on your liberties, life is short and societies are long. Society is a half-way house between agency and emergent behaviour. It exists as much to unify our efforts as it does to guide our future choices.

1/2

Then what the fuck are you claiming?

Literally straight from the wiki:

"The growth of a national identity was expressed in a variety of symbolic ways, including the adoption of a national flag. Pictured, the Union Jack of a newly created United Kingdom in 1801." Tell me the UK wasn't a Capitalistic nation LMFAO

>but the ones with high IQ have a better chance
Perhaps but I'd rather see the statistics. Highly intelligent people are just as prone to flights of passion and fancy as most others from what I've seen anecdotally and read historically

>waging war should not be incentivised
Do you have a rational reason for this? If it produces results not only for the state but ultimately, over time its neighbours and so on then why penalise something that, through natural progression, is rewarding?
The only rationale I could see is MAD but given you seem to be talking about societies and civilisations in general rather than those post-nuclear

Also, fun caveat:
One cannot be rational. There is no perfectly rational actor and there never ever could be. We are all biologically built with irrational directives. Self-preservation and procreation being obvious ones. Seeing rationality as an ends rather than a means is completely fucking juvenile no matter how high your IQ is supposed to be
2/2

I'm claiming that almost everything you believe on this topic is wrong.

The claim that capitalist=nationalists and socialists=internationalists is wrong.
The claim that nationalism is a post-Napoleonic construct is wrong.
The concept of socialism didn't even really exist at the time. Obviously people who were nationalists were going to be more or less capitalists as well. I never denied that people in capitalist societies could be nationalists. I even said right in the post that you quoted that nationalism already existed. Only Historically illiterate people believe that nationalism is recent.

I never claimed that capitalist = nationalist and vice-versa... in fact I acknowledged that on paper it makes more sense for a capitalist to be an internationalist. But that's literally not been the case. In fact I'd argue that only recently have capitalists been showing more internationalist tendencies.

>Capitalistic countries were all about nationalism. Communist countries about internationalism.

that's not what I'm saying

I'm saying capital necessitates that any claim to property or force is backed up by the power to maintain enforcement and ownership of that paticular property

when communities legislate, they turn the courts from the arbiter of "yep, he seems to be enforcing his claim very well" to "I have a gun and I'm going to enforce the claim that he CLAIMS to have, for him, without him doing the work of ownership. the only work he has done is bribery, but guess, what, I have the gun"

capitalism for private property or, JOINT STOCK ownership means that any claim to property has an associate cost. boasts are not made lightly.

all claims need an associated cost, otherwise people just ask for free shit, or, as with SJWs, they use the court battles themselves to FORCE you to do what they want. in an ancap world, he'd have to hold the gun to my head imself to call him the pronoun. but he WOULDNT because no sane person would think it was wortht he cost.

>monkey ladder
is actually a good example of societally constructed knowledge that is invisible to individuals.

great. I approve. so let the SOCIETY enforce that claim, rather than relying on a legal system that is constructed purely for the needs of capital. when society uses capital laws to enforce societal rules, you end up with "diversity in the workplace" laws. fuck that.

if niggers want to learn to read, they can teach themselves.

>war
I actually think war should be incentivized. I think we should eliminate lesser societies.

but should individuals have an incentive to wage war against his own civilization? no more than any cancer cell should wage war against its host.

>rational
actually, the teleology of life is to become more rational. the logic of capital pushes for delays in harvest to increase ROI, up to the point of infinity. this is basically pure logic eliminating passion

pastebin.com/vpUSTMAx

Veeky Forums should have a much larger character limit.

in a society with legislation the police are the ones who bear the deaths and cost of violence that comes from enforcing claims. it means people can be extra violent and go after many claims as there are police

if you have to enforce your own claims, and risk yourself getting shot in the head for your predation, you won't do it

this is the same reason self defense works as a principle, and that communal policing is a lot less efficient. in countries with no guns, criminals are empowered because they know a third party has to enforce the safety of the counterparty

so extend that from street robberies to financial trickery, and that's the situation. no one is going to lay claim to my house in an ancap world because I will shoot them in the head. in the current reality, someone can steal it via tax or zoning codes I "violated"

>ancap
realistically ancap wouldn't mean I establish the republic of Veeky Forums guy with a beergut, landmass: my lawn

realistically ancap would be a reversion to private ownership of countries, and enforcement of rule of law falling to the owner

the ethos then, would be that the king cannot claim ownership over subjects that he is not willing to enforce by gun. which he wouldn't do much, because that doesn't make money at scale. if and when he does, he probably has good reason. example: lee kuan yew is an "evil fascist" but his country is safe and the only people he throws i prison are communists

>diversity hires
fuck that. kill them. no mercy for parasites

>teleology
logic is simply the ability to derive truth from information and put them to goals. the essence of capital is to further extend that logic, such that the logic itself begins to modify the goals themselves, so that the goals self-enhance processing power.

if you've ever enjoyed work or refused to get a dumb woman pregnant, this principle is at work.

the wealth gap is one example of intelligent life outperforming and beginning to swallow lesser humans whole.

with the capital currently available to the rich people with iqs above 130 could outproduce subhumans by a factor of 10k to 1.

this is evolution in effect.

CRISPR is the next step. because soon, we won't NEED to outbreed them. the computational power of a single modified individual will outclass that of millions of combined subhumans. this is kind of already the case in terms of GDP, but instead of building planes, we'll be building cold fusion reactors and technology so strong that no one will be able to oppose them.

when the time horizon for ROI gets pushed back THAT far, we've already stopped being "human"

arguable, large numbers of us are already past human already, given that we delay pleasure so much and delay childbearing for capital need that our GDP per capita is 50k a year vs 1$ a day for literally half of humanity.

that's a productive power difference of tens of thousands in numbers, or more in real production

how are these two animals the same "human?" they're not. if ther was a beaver that built 10k times the number of dams of another beaver, they would NOT be the same beaver.

Tbh I thought he would be more famous

>logic is simply the ability to derive truth from information and put them to goals. the essence of capital is to further extend that logic, such that the logic itself begins to modify the goals themselves, so that the goals self-enhance processing power.
spooky

>CRISPR is the next step. because soon, we won't NEED to outbreed them. the computational power of a single modified individual will outclass that of millions of combined subhumans.
Do you even know how CRISPER works and its limitations and potential drawbacks? CRISPER can potentially modify humans to be better, but that makes them genetically less diverse (weaker) and more vulnerable to diseases, especially one that is genetic based. That is not even considering how vastly complex the genetic sequence is and the unforeseen and unwanted implication of modifying a specific sequence

>Make someone more resistant to disease B
>More likely to get cancer/ born crippled

literally not how it works

in a sense, modern whites and asian ALREADY outcompute subhumans by a factor that transcends numbers, a kind of zero to 1 scenario.

there is no amount of blacks that can exist that will ever be able to build an airplane. doesn't exist either in number or timescale

on a human timescale, white and asians are already the first upward turn of the singularity. we already suppress our human nature in order to contribute to capital and future discount spending. we're already genetically less horny, already suppress feelings of joy and celebration, already SELF suppress ambition (crucially)

you can't understand how crispr works, that's fine. but realize it means more than what you think it means, and come to terms with that.

CRISPR is simply replacing a portion of genetic sequence with a desired one. Tell me which specific portion of the genetic sequence directly and only affects intelligence or other abstract concepts like empathy and obedience? There is a reason most CRISP usage is eliminating genetic disease coz we can actually identity the affected genetic sequence and replace the proper/normal one. Replacing the default with a new one brings new risks and dangers that you conveniently ignored.

>modern whites and asian ALREADY outcompute subhumans
lol. If there was a epidemic, Africans are the most likely to survive due to their genetic diversity. The worst are the South Americans though.

you only know about the disease usages for crispr because that's all you've cared to seek out. I guarantee you there are a lot of things out there that scientists know about the subject that you don't. a reasonable person would already be aware of that, but you seem to think you're smarter than them. if you weren't so arrogant you'd be able to seek this kind of knowledge out. too bad.

>epidemic
keep pipe dreaming. africans are outdated farm equipment

>all this ancap shitposting
i giggled

>lol if you are smarter, you would agree with me
Of course there are more usage of CRISPR than just genetic disease. But any attempts to increase a desire quality not only brings new risks and dangers but only increase the probability of said quality. That isn't to say CRISPR can't eventually be improved upon, but it is far from the pipe dream that you concocted.

>epidemic being a pipe dream
>H1N1
>Swine flu
>The decrease in effectiveness of antibotics
>Increasing globalization between countries

Not necessarily. Again, you conflate IQ with efficaciousness. There is alot more that determines success than IQ.You're over simplifying the model.

I prefer the idea of human modification over technological advancement, without a doubt. In terms of what it can do and how vast its potentially that is all speculation
>muh new species
>rise above human nature
All fantasy. Pure and unadulterated fantasy

You fail to address someone holding a gun to you and imploring you to hold a gun to another. You may enforce your rule on others in order for them to enforce your rule. What is done by oneself and what one dictates are the same in terms of ends. What distinction is there in effect that seperates them?
>good reason
His reasoning is only good so long as people don't revolt. If merit is power then ANYTHING that succeeds is worthy or merit be it the IQ 135 king or the IQ 90 servant that knifes him during dinner. You project your own values onto the objective progression

IQ, a few aspects of intelligence tha IQ only imperfectly measures, and honesty are literally the only salient factors. They're all that ever has mattered and all that ever will. we domesticated humanity by selectively eugenicizng those 2 or 3 traits and virtually nothing else.

>new species
we already are a new species user. show me an african that can do calculus and I'll change my opinion.

one species gets fat, shoots each other, and does drugs, never learning to read, the other is n the brink of reaching mars.

two different species.

>hold a gun to your head
interstate equilibriums to halt war have finally taken hold. what caused that? oh yeah, FEAR ABOUT MARKET DISRUPTION. not MAD, not love and peace, fear of market disruption, singularly and totally

the only countries that are subject to war are literally camelfucker countries without markets.

interpersonal violence is limited primarily by incentive and retribution. markets are established by reputation. criminal enterprise prevented by absolutely and completely killing anyone involved as well as their extended family.

problem solved. criminals only have rights if you give them rights.

normal people are too afraid of violence to use it against others without substantial concrete gain. you're forgetting out species is essentially domesticated

Dunno bout u, but i paid for the service and the required machinr

no jews are

Ayn Rand collected social Security.

As our greatest president once said: You didn't build that

>Bitter angry selfish cunt makes an ideology about being a bitter angry selfish cunt

I finally see