Explain to me why collectivism is a bad thing. Unity is a strength, diversity is a weakness

All the deaths that can be attributed to communism can also be attributed to collectivism, however things such as the holocaust can't be attributed to communism but can be attributed to collectivism. Hence collectivism has a higher body count. It's by far the most dangerous ideology in the modern world.

>Collectivism killed 120 million

lol where are you getting this number from

Degenerate hipster detected

Designed by Hugo Boss

what the fuck is this collectivism vs individualism shit? doesn't the new Stellaris patch eliminate those ethics?

boo hoo, 120 million dead in a century that saw the planet's population balloon to 8 billion

who gives a shit you cancerous hedonists

Because to collectivism work you need to treat every citizen as a farm animal and most individualistic individuals rather not be treated as sheep or cows.

We can't actually expect citizens to sacrifice portions of their lives to maintain their society's hygiene and health in a meaningful way.

But it's totally okay for billions of people to spend eight hours a day minimum trapped in a cave earning money for your owners. That's not animal husbandry at all, no.

Someone has to lead. How do determine that Leader? And how his Succession?

Hahahaha yeah that haircut sure is ugly
*sweats profusely*

There is a huge difference between national socialist philosophy and most collectivism we see today.

I do not agree with the way Hitler ruled his country despite having many fascist and natsoc views and aspiring to better myself according to their ideals.

Believe in your people and the social construct, and strength through unity. But never give up who you are.

>Explain to me why collectivism is a bad thing.
*get's gang raped as initiation into paramilitary youth squad*

Mulattos and mullatic peoples have been far more successful and influential on the world than Nordic and Germanic people.

I feel you, I have a very rough "fashy" haircut. All these guys getting them today get a 0 except for the top. It's gross.

Still better than most styles though.

Don't make me post some ancap balls.

let me put it in terms you'll understand
because i have an iq of 130 and my people an average of 100
iq is genetic

you figure out the rest

/thread

>having many fascist and natsoc views and aspiring to better myself according to their ideals.
You are an idiot. It all ends up working the same because the one thing that matters is loyalty to the boss or ideal, so more and more radically loyal people replace the less loyal leading to the most extremism people in places of power. The system is broken in it's very design.

Only a collectivist would see no value in an individual human life

Is that the new adult Swim Pepe?

Individuals totally have value.

And that value is measured by the relative value to the whole.

"Oh no the PRC starved 40 million through its agricultural policy, how absolutely barbaric."

There were 600 million Chinese in 1957. Those that died were peasants and proles with life narratives identical to those that survived, except that they incidentally starved to death in a footnote of history.

It's a tragedy for the family, sure, but the idea that these abstract non-entities have any intrinsic value is sentimental nonsense.

If I have a warehouse of 2 billion """priceless""" works of art, and 120 million pieces are destroyed, the value of the remaining works goes up, not down.

You should actually read what red china did, it was far more than just 'agricultural policy'

That is the least salient part of my post.

Pointing to how brutal leftist and rightist regimes have been in the 20th century doesn't fucking matter in the slightest. Pinochet, Suharto, Idi Amin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, whomever you want to mention, whatever their motives, whatever their methods.

Human life was fundamentally cheap in the 20th century. It has become fundamentally cheaper in the 21st.
Anyone that claims that there is intrinsic value in abstract human beings has no meaningful historical or sociological sense. A brief glance at any other period in history or any other area of the planet shows the true valuation of life, human or otherwise, on this planet.

What prevents large-scale death at any point in time isn't will or ethical restraint, but a continuing desire for chattel at best and a lack of sufficient technology at worst.

No amount of sentimentality will change that fact. Wolves eat sheep; they do not lie down with them.

Why is /pol/ here in force today?

...

Because they got btfo by bronies.

Because the newfriends over at /pol/ didn't like getting merged with their brethren over at /mlp/

>My name is not important... What is important is what I'm going to do. I just fucking hate this world and the human worms feasting on it's carcass. My whole life is just cold, bitter hatred... and I always wanted to die violently. This the time of vengeance and no life is worth saving. And I will put in the grave as many as I can. It's time for me to kill... and it's time for me to die.

Hipsters liked that haircut though

>Unity is a strength
An assertion, though usually true.
>diversity is a weakness
Another assertion, far less true, homogenity of thought leads to a total lack of innoavtion, the new zealanders made a tank without a cannon, was that fucking retarded? Yes, almost certainley, was it valuble? Absofuckinglutely, innovation and technological drive is getting to be more improtant than ever in a world that increasingly completely relies upon technology.

True, as edgy it may be.

What is the point of progressing if everything just turns into one giant faggy circle jerk!

Debatable. Well, not the edgy portion.