Individualism or collectivism Veeky Forums?

Individualism or collectivism Veeky Forums?

Historically, which has been more prosperous?

My opinion below:

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/sFu5qXMuaJU
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

To start, by individualism I mean mostly libertarianism, classic liberalism and modern day American conservatism. By collectivism I mean things like fascism, National Socialism and most other forms of authoritarianism granted it's not communism as tha has never worked and will never work. Both systems are/were successful (USA's civil liberties and rights endowed to us by our Creator namely the first and second amendments vs Nazi Germany's ability to meet subversion with strength and preserve the race/culture/well-being of the people).

OK, beginning with my own opinions.

IMO individualism is more desirable as humans act individually by nature, however the problem with individualism is its susceptibility to subversion. It's impossible to maintain the prosperous way of life that individualism brings with it unless the collective comes together to make a stand against such subversions and injustices threatening the individuality of the people.

Collectivism gets shit done in a way that individualism can never, however it is also a lot harder to accomplish due to the people having to put aside their selfishness which is a nearly impossible feat. Not only this, but it also runs the risk of the collective not possessing competent leadership. Take a look at the phrase "don't put all your eggs in one basket." Collectivism requires faith in an an individual to lead the collective, and if that leader does not suffice then it can cause problems for everyone.

So to summarize: freedom of the individual may be a superior doctrine to abide by, however there is nothing that can preserve that individuality like a collective can. Collectivism in my eyes is seen as a necessary evil, one that (when implemented) removes the risk factor of individualism but brings plenty of other risks to the table. It is up to you to decide what outweighs what and which system you believe would be more sustainable. I would say individualism, but that doesn't necessarily mean I think collectivism is bad. Of course, as is in everything, these ideas do not always apply everywhere. What may work best for America may not work best for Europe, and sure as hell neither of those would work well in the uncivilized parts of the world where people require dictators to control their fate as they lack the capability to do do themselves.

Now that I think about it this belongs on /pol/

I still ask if you guys could answer my question about the history behind it though

Individuaism is the foundation of western civilization (see: ancient Greek artists signing their names on their work). I can't think of anything more prosperous than western civilization, can you?

I cannot, however I want to preserve this society and do not see a way to do this without collectivism as our democratically elected leaders continue to get more corrupt by the day

>What may work best for America may not work best for Europe, and sure as hell neither of those would work well in the uncivilized parts of the world where people require dictators to control their fate as they lack the capability to do do themselves.
Value = 0

>hitler or ancaps
What a bait image.

?
if you get baited by images you probably lack the capability of reading the post

Also you don't seem to know that libertarianism≠ancap

>however I want to preserve this society

You can't, society has constantly changed through the entire history of mankind and pretending you can somehow stop this trend is retarded. Things change and have been changing for thousands of years, just deal with it.

>black pill
good goy

>i think i'm special and my specific culture and way of life should last forever and never change unlike every other civilization in human history

>Fascism
>National """"socialism""""
>anything related to collectivism

LOL

"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative." - Adolf Hitler

Isn't that the purpose of life though? Survival? If survival is easiest in this current society I am living in why should I let it slip from my grasp?

Do you seriously think the Ancient Romans said when their empire fell "eh, it was gonna happen anyways, better sooner than later." ???

>nationalism isn't collective
They were economically individualistic but socially collective

>eh, it was gonna happen anyways, better sooner than later

That's pretty much exactly what they said. There was so little faith in the Western Roman governance by the time of its collapse lol.

You'd have a point if talking Byzantium though.

>socially collective

Not a real concept. You can't have half a collective society. It's either full collectivism or nothing.

Hitler was capitalist-individualist who believed in the Great Man hypothesis.

Yes, and there's still plenty of faith in our current societies. So why again should we not act like how the Byzantines did?

>there's still plenty of faith in our current societies

I just don't trust people who say that my neighbor needs a dictator because he can't control his own life.

I miss iconoclasm indeed.

>It's either full collectivism or nothing.
Uh, who says? The people were bound to the nation, and acted collectively. Therefore they were collective. Maybe not as collective as possible (communist), but then again extremes of any type always lead to failure.
Yeah go tell the nearly hundred million people that voted this year to take the black pill, they definitely don't care anymore and voted just for shits and giggles. That's definitely what happened.
Some people are just better off with authority man. Watch this, I know it's a meme game trailer and I know I'm taking the side of the bad guy but it accurately describes what I mean. youtu.be/sFu5qXMuaJU

Indiviualism. Its what made us strong. Albeit I feel uneasy whatever our individualism didn't evolved into a new kind of collective called "mass".

>as humans act individually by nature
wrong, we are pack animals

>communism as tha has never worked and will never work
Communism worked better than fascism and nazism. Also don't you know other collectivist societies except for modern totalitarin ones?

>By collectivism I mean things like fascism, National Socialism and most other forms of authoritarianism granted it's not communism as tha has never worked and will never work.
Subversion seems like silly choice of word. Did you've meant power or resistance to it? Because individualistic Europe ended up mightier than collectivist orient, so you'll be wrong again.

>Nazi Germany's ability to meet subversion with strength and preserve the race/culture/well-being of the people
are you sure you are on the right board? Nazi Germany brought its race nothing but Russo-American bukkake and reputation of murderers.

>Some people are just better off with authority man
Is that defined by their mentality, their current state of economical progress or by their national roots?

>Some people are just better off with authority man.

Oh okay, so you're one of those "authoritarianism is good as long as i'm the authority" people.

>Lowest voter turnout of any presidential election in 20 years

>The people were bound to the nation, and acted collectively. Therefore they were collective

So you're saying America was collectivist during this time?

fucking lol this is what happens when you bullshit up definitions you haven't studied on the fly.

Read a book. Nazi Germany was capitalist.

Boy you deserve a helicopter ride. You can't say that the ideology of communism worked better than the ideology of fascism because one beat the other militarily. Same goes for saying NatSoc is a bad ideology because it lost a war which pushed it off the main stage.

That's like saying "Canada beat the USA in a war therefore constitutional monarchies are far better than constituonal republics!!1"
all three?
go try giving 60 IQ niggers a say in government and see if they will ultimately make the right decisions for the well-being of the people rather than just what feeds, clothes and entertains them.
>having a few million less people means everybody else has no faith left
OK sure whatever, we can argue semantics later. Sure NSG was a bad example for collectivism, it would make more sense to call it "socially unified" or some other BS buzzword

>all three?
No. What is superior?
It should be either the material factors of existence or some intellectual construct.

>Communism worked better than fascism and nazism.
Communism has never worked because it never existed to begin with. The soviet state would be more correct to call "soviet socialism" if you want to keep it your way or accept that USSR was also a capitalist country with the statesmen and party members performing the role of the bourgeosie

Individualism obviously.

The mob is never right. In fact, the mob could have individually correct opinions, but the moment it turns into a mob, they are wrong by definition.

I doubt that the question of mob rule rightgeuousness should be taken seriously, because in fact the mob never rules.

Doesn't matter. Any collective or mob usually does immoral things whenever they have the power to do so.

...

>You can't say that the ideology of communism worked better than the ideology of fascism because one beat the other militarily.
You can say that about nazism, since it was all about war and conquest.

And all other fascistic regimes succumbed to liberalism even faster than Communism did.

Correct, Socialism should have been the word. But thats just semantics.

>memes
Okay.
>Any collective or mob usually does immoral things whenever they have the power to do so.
>judging historical events from the position of morals
>ever
If you would look deeper, you would see that individualists are just as guilty. But, again, arguing about being "less guilty than thou" is pretty retarded thing

>If you would look deeper, you would see that individualists are just as guilty.

The difference is, you can condemn and jail an individual, and the likelihood that he does *too* great of a damage to society is low.

You can't however arrest hundreds of thousands of people who believe in the same things and are willing to be immoral.

>being an insurgent from 8ch trying desperately to spread dialectical materialism where it's not wanted

Post your stirner memes elsewhere.

Faulty mentality, OP. Ideally, a collective exists to improve the lives of the individual therein. Problems arise when ideologies start attributing too much value to the collective good of society, to the point that a sizeable portion of people within that group encounter a lower quality of life as a result. This isn't to say that fanatical individuality is the answer, however; that can end with a majority of society serving the long term interests of an elite class (which may feel little to no obligation to reciprocate beyond what they feel is necessary not to get lynched). Ironically enough that can happen in collectivist societies as well ('Party members first')

With acknowledgement to the median fallacy, I have to advocate balance regardless. The best society might do is keep an open dialogue as to the best means of leveraging the public good alongside what benefits individual freedom, and not blinding ourselves to what's ultimately a very diverse spectrum of ideologies. Most people might find themselves somewhere Inbetween the Ferengi and the Borg, popular media finds those extremes easier to sell.

>go try giving 60 IQ niggers a say in government and see if they will ultimately make the right decisions for the well-being of the people rather than just what feeds, clothes and entertains them.

Okay cool, so long as you're fine with not having a say in the government too.

I've never been to 8ch anyway.
Wat.
Every crime is a damage to society, no matter if it's done by a gang or by an individual.
>who believe in the same things and are willing to be immoral.
Morals and views are determined by the social being.

>Jaywalking damages society!

woah man don't gulag everyone on Veeky Forums with your rehashed 8ch memes

>Every crime is a damage to society, no matter if it's done by a gang or by an individual.

Your inability to grasp scope and scale is amusing to me.

Car/Bus accidents, interrupting traffic flow (a problem that compiles itself with time, misleading other pedestrians, etc.