>>61214973 >pretending that Hitler was not king of the Leftists just because his particular leftist policies favored white people They are both on the same side of the spectrum. Collectivism is leftism. Leftism is cancer.
I love capitalism, because I'm loving the golden life in it (Even though our economy is going to shit atm), but to discard collectivism as completely flawed isn't a good idea.
In contrary to the popular belief, collectivism can exist in a democratic society. If properly sorted out, it can do wonders. Of course, this is just my opinion. When implemented in real life, it didn't turn out so good. The Soviets tried to be collectivist, tried to discard social classes, gender bias, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc in an attempt to unite all of society under one banner, one good, but it was too radical. While taking this to the extreme may be a bad idea, practicing a lower form of collectivism can in fact be good, and this is what most Western nations are going through. This lower form of collectivism is very important, and allows us not to be ruled by tyrants and exploited by a few.
>>61216817 >the individual You're not that special, anon. In fact, you're not worth anything unless you work in some collectivized process. >As a result, it can never permanently sustain itself. Only it has since at least the Stone Age.
Collectivism is the name for social systems that trend towards top-down micromanagement of society, whereby many individual wills are curbed in the name of a "Common Good". In short, it is cooperation by the barrel of a gun, where people work together for the good of others. OR ELSE.
Individualism is a system whereby people work together for mutual benefit, going off the logic that people naturally work together to achieve shared goals.
No society is governed entirely by one, or entirely by the other, its a spectrum. That said, anyone who wants more collectivism, as a rule, is a no good son of a bitch who wants to enslave his fellow men to the dictations of his own conscience, and is generally also bad at economics.
>he gives us half of his money >he does it willingly >he unironically thinks it's being used for the "greater good" >ofw corporate welfare >ofw massive vote-buying entitlements >ofw foreign aid for Israel
"The society formed by the male with the female, where it goes beyond the mere conditions of mating, calls for the extension of the instinct of self−preservation, since the readiness to fight for one’s own ego has to be extended also to the mate. Almost always they are ready to protect and defend each other; so that here we find the first, though infinitely simple, manifestation of the spirit of sacrifice. As soon as this spirit extends beyond the narrow limits of the family, we have the conditions under which larger associations and finally even States can be formed.
"This mental attitude, which forces self−interest to recede into the background in favour of the common weal, is the first prerequisite for any kind of really human civilization. It is out of this spirit alone that great human achievements have sprung for which the original doers have scarcely ever received any recompense but which turns out to be the source of abundant benefit for their descendants. Every worker and every peasant, every inventor, state official, etc., who works without ever achieving fortune or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this sublime idea, even though he may never become conscious of the profound meaning of his own activity.
"The fundamental spirit out of which this kind of activity springs is the contradistinction of ‘Egotism’ and we call it ‘Idealism’. By this we mean to signify the willingness of the individual to make sacrifices for the community and his fellow−men. It is of the utmost importance to insist again and again that idealism is not merely a superfluous manifestation of sentiment but rather something which has been, is and always will be, a necessary precondition of human civilization.
"As soon as the spirit of egotism begins to prevail among a people then the bonds of the social order break and man, by seeking his own personal happiness, veritably tumbles out of heaven and falls into hell."
>>61217143 Nazi Germany had Socialism and collectivism applied based on Socialistic laws for Germanic people. USA has capitalism and collectivism applies based on money for each and everybody that moves to USA, they aren't nationalistic country, they are made out of immigrants based on money needs.
>>61217277 No its not. Individualism simply means that the dominate form of social behavior in a society is voluntary working towards shared goals, not coercion towards the goals of central authorities.
If you think any form of social behavior is collectivism, you are a fool, and a slave. I work with other people because either
1. I stand to gain from it. OR 2. I like them.
Not because someone is trying to imply I have some moral duty to people I've never even met, or that I 'belong' to some group or organization.
>>61217012 You're right that collectivism is part of a spectrum, whereas the other end is where the entirety of power and control is held by a few.
But you're so fucking wrong on individualism. Are you fucking retarded or something? Individualism is certainly not a system where people work together for mutual benefit, that's not individualism, that is slight collectivism, as I mentioned in my earlier comment.
But you're American, it's really no surprise. You'd rather die than pay a few cents so that your country can have more affordable healthcare for the less fortunate. Individualism reigns supreme in the US, while countries like Canada and the rest of Europe are more collectivist, or when taken to an economic context, socialist, people work together for the mutual benefit for everyone in society.
You may be retarded, but looking at your individualist system, I can not deny objectively that it is working. The US is a superpower after all. But I'm sure that if any other country tried individualism like you did, it would quickly collapse because not everybody can support themselves in society. And refusing to lend a hand tends to create many problems.
>>61217528 1. Individualism does not mean no social interactions whatsoever. That is retarded. It means working together for shared ends. This is what libertarians advocate. It was Ayn Rand advocated. Its what most individualists advocate. Any time social behavior is prompted not by coercion or a sense of duty, but rather due to shared goals being reached through willing cooperation, you're speaking of individualism. Complete individualism is not possible, I'm no an-cap. But large amounts of individualism should be promoted in society. As much liberty as we can stand without dying of it.
2. Damn straight its working. We're the strongest country in history. Liberty has vindicated itself.
>>61217497 Don't you fucking get it? USA is made out of international people. Nazis only wanted Germanic people. USA has totally different laws than Nazi Germany had. It's not the same if you play in democratic school with 1000 people that study to get money than if you play in Socialistic school with 100 people that go to school to serve country. You can have collectivism everywhere, but people are different, they grow up different, they have different values in capitalism.
>>61217715 No, its not. Or at least, not on WILLING self-interest.
Let me explain the difference.
You're living with some friends, and the room is a mess. There's pizza boxes everywhere, dirty laundry, its not comfortable to live in. Someone says "Lets clean this up". Everyone, willingly, gets up and cleans the room till its spotless, because they don't want to live in filth. Thats individualism.
Collectivism is your mom telling you to clean your room or your grounded.
>>61215061 Collectivism sounds good in theory. But in practice when the balance of power shifts further toward big government and less in the hands of the individual society starts to break down. Either morally or economically.
>>61217862 >There's pizza boxes everywhere, dirty laundry, its not comfortable to live in. Someone says "Lets clean this up". Everyone, willingly, gets up and cleans the room till its spotless, because they don't want to live in filth. >That's collectivism.
>>61217349 >idealism is not merely a superfluous manifestation of sentiment but rather something which has been, is and always will be, a necessary precondition of human civilization. This isn't true, this is the sort of fluffy thinking you make up alone in your room, thinking people are idiots for not agreeing with you and applauding you. People band together for mutual protection from groups they see as other. Without an other to fear, within or without, things get soft and dissolve. Idealism is the basis of cults and a striving towards the impossible. Forget ideals, they aren't values, keep it real.
>>61217897 You have fake collective in capitalism, everybody here and real world knows he doesn't cares about anybody, because capitalism has competition. Socialism doesn't has competition or money struggle, it's impossible not to get a job in Socialism. In capitalism you constantly try to fuck people over to get an upper hand, to get promoted, in Socialism you get promoted by country when you do things you suppose to do. It's the eternal struggle for money that breeds greed and this is why salaries are also much different in capitalism, while in Socialism a CEO has no more than one time bigger salary than worker.
>>61218128 Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.—and tends to analyze issues in those terms. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and in some cases stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an ingroup, in whichever specific context it is defined).
Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group, while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government. Individualism is often contrasted with totalitarianism or collectivism.
When discussing politics, individualism means voluntary cooperation, collectivism means coerced cooperation. Individualist systems are things like capitalism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, and anarchy. Collectivism is ideas like socialism, communism, large states, etc.
Individualist theories of government are based on social contract theory, natural rights, and other such concepts, whereas collectivist theories of government are based more on attempting to establish some law or dominion.
You don't know what you're talking about if you honestly think collectivism is all forms of social behavior, and individualism is no social contact, you're innawoods hermit.
>>61218160 And? Are you trying to tell me that "you have a fake collective therefore you must accept collective as the answer"?
I do not accept collective and your implication that greed does not exist in the absence of individualism is wrong. Greed is inherent of humanity. Denying that you are greedy becomes a mental illness that results in pathological alturism, which turns you into Germany of 2016.
Nazi elites were incredibly greedy and power hungry, only rivaled by those of Soviet Union. The common worker who was "equal to everyone" had to stand in line for basic necessities in both Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the political elite had everything they could ever want for. That is a clear indicator of greed.
>>61217727 >Individualism >Simple Definition of individualism. : the belief that the needs of each person are more important than the needs of the whole society or group
Yeah your "working together for shared ends" is socialism buddy, sorry to break it for you. How can you even mix these two? A small Google search won't hurt you. Yeah, Libertarians are individualists, but that doesn't change my point.
Libertarians, like what I said earlier, also would die before paying a few cents in taxes so that the less fortunate can have access to affordable healthcare. It's in the fucking word itself, individualism, for the individual. You do what you do for yourself, and yourself only. It's absolute selfishness, no regard for your fellow man. While collectivism, for the collective, you work for the mutual benefit of everyone.
Complete individualism is possible. It's called living alone in a forest.
Both individualism and collectivism have pros and cons. I already talked about the flaws of individualism, where people only care about themselves and would die before paying a small amount of money to help those who need help. Collectivism also has plenty of cons. It is inherently oppressive. If I had to describe it, it would be "You force people to help others." Takes much of your freedom away and makes you a slave of the system.
I've studied the pros and cons of both individualism and collectivism, and have concluded that neither one taken to the extreme is good. Both need to be delicately balanced and at harmony.
The US isn't a superpower because of it's individualist system, far from it. The US first became a superpower after WW2. Mainly due to geopolitical reasons. The US has always been individualist, but wasn't a major player until WW1, or in extreme cases, WW2.
>>61218524 Yes, capitalists always repeat that leaders of Socialism had a lot of money, which is true, who cares. In democracy you elect new leaders constantly and they change 10000 people each time to suit their political party needs, they waste much more money into nothing, this is such a pointless capitalistcuck discussion. People are how you raise them, school and environment plays a big part in it if you believe it or not, this is why they are Hindu in India, Buddhist in Tibet and Christian in Germany...it's the school and environment that makes them so, less than 1% of people are very different than school/environment teaches them. You had totally different thinking in Socialism. Tell me how many times have you tried to learn something about China? You have internet, it's not even forbidden and still you don't go and try to learn, so how do you expect in a closed Society like Socialism that breeds nationalism to find your way into greed? Only through religion, that's what destroyed Socialism, since in church they are taught that 1 man can be more, even godly, that's what capitalism teaches too, every billionaire is a capitalistic god.
>>61218808 What does "the individual" mean outside of social context? The individual worker? The individual father? The individual pretty healthy girl? The individual amputee from Syria? What exactly is that amorphous individual of yours, based on which we should base some kind of policies?
>>61214973 Very true. Collectivism is corrosive and antithetical to the values that made and continue to make the western world great. Those values being individualism, property rights, and assorted freedoms such as those to speech, etc. This board, unfortunately, is fool of edgy authoritarians that don't realize that collectivism always fails, especially when it's forced.
>>61219076 All the individuals. The individual human being. That, as much as possible, the rights of the individual should be secured, and his actions should be voluntary, and his cooperation voluntary, and his charity, voluntary.
You people act like the only way anyone will ever have health care or food is at the government's teat, when the Catholic Church, with private charity, gives more out of their own free will than most national governments.
People do not need the state telling them to look out for the less fortunate. They do not need strong laws, binding them to the will of the elite to make them work together.
>>61219059 >which is true, who cares Okay, then what is the problem with individualism? In an individualist society people who are more intelligent and more cunning have more money just the same as a collectivist society. Who cares?
I'm not making an argument for democracy by the way. I am making an argument for individualism. Democracy is fundamentally collectivism. For the record, I used to be a national socialist so your thought that school taught me to think in a certain way falls flat on its face - because I think completely different now that I have freedom to learn whatever I want.
>>61219202 You, yourself, made a collectivist statement about protecting some kind of values, you, and others in your collective (you mentioned the Western world), find imporant. Moreover, you were defined by this same world to find those values important.
>>61218808 What the fuck is your definition of "shared ends"? Is it sacrificing a part of your revenue to help your fellow man? That's what I'm talking about. In libertarian societies, there are no taxes, or at least, taxes to help the less fortunate. The libertarians are ardently anti-welfare state. Otherwise, libertarians only work together so that a society can work. It's kind of an aspect of collectivism, but this collectivism is only on a political level, where power is held by the collective. On an economic level, libertarians are extremely individualist and wont pay a cent to help someone else.
So basically, libertarians are collectivist on a political level (where power isn't concentrated on a few social classes or the govt, rather the people), but individualist on an economic level (no taxes, you make your own money and it's entirely yours, including your property).
I have no idea, but in my opinion, a 50/50 would look like Canada. Mildly socialist, but still capitalist. I'd say America is 70/30 (In favor of individualism). A ton of individual freedom, but less collective help.
>>61219359 >That, as much as possible, the rights of the individual should be secured By whom? By likely minded individuals I guess? Which share a common goal of protecting those values? Which values they found to be useful in the pre-existing world, I guess. See where this is going?
>Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the significance of groups—their identities, goals, rights, outcomes, etc.
>>61219392 You can be individual thought and through and still be part of country's collective. Marriages stayed intact in Socialism, divorces very rare, this is because people enjoyed their female/male roles, like Muslims enjoy being Muslims. Muslims don't care about China or Christianity, only difference is that in Socialistic collective you know where the limits are before country throws you into jail, while in free capitalism you know you can get away and talk your way out of it with money and hide. You can't just escape to other country or cross a border in Socialism, you know your individualism has legal limits. Human is such a being that can be vile when there are no limits to corruption, which capitalism needs, first it sells you the lie, then it sells you drugs, then it sells you the cure, so you get charged 3 times, Socialism on other hand tries to protect you from such manipulation, but for that you have to do your part and not be totally free. Funny thing is that capitalism promises total freedom in any degenerate way possible, total individualism so to speak, but only few can have it, since you have to be very rich or privileged to exploit the bad human nature limits and truly call yourself individual, but in a way you still need people like banks and companies, so you never really individual anyway.
>>61218808 Also, I wanted to add this, I think I didn't properly formulate my thoughts, which has lead to a confusion.
Libertarians aren't entirely collective on a political level. They probably aren't, I only thought that because I imagined that major political decisions (Like whether to wage war) would be taken by the collective, instead of some centralized state, it means there's collective work here, but personal freedom, which is a pro of individualism, is prioritized.
I apologize for the confusion, I even confused myself while re-reading my post.
>>61220228 >Marriages stayed intact in Socialism, divorces very rare Because there are laws to facilitate this. For example, China has very anti-woman laws when it comes to marriage. By comparison countries like USA have no fault divorce, and the person who has less property (usually woman) gets to take shit from the person with more property (usually man). There are financial incentives to divorce in countries like USA. You can make a profit from divorce. China, by the way, had that problem too. Which is why their new laws can be considered "anti-woman" now. It's a response to curb abuse of a government program.
> Human is such a being that can be vile when there are no limits to corruption That's right. But if you agree with that, why are you advocating for socialism which is the concentration of power on less individual agents? If a human has no limits of corruption, would it not be fair to say that a human with more power has less opportunity for corruption than a human with less power? You're contradicting your own premise. Socialism is extremely vulnerable to corruption because power is concentrated. Instead of millions of agents having to become corrupt to cause a huge degree of damage, 1 agent can become corrupt. >Socialism on other hand tries to protect you from such manipulation Socialism does not protect you from manipulation, it manipulates you into thinking a certain way. Socialism has institutional manipulation. For example, schools teach things like feminist ideology. Which, by the way, is a collective ideology. >Funny thing is that capitalism promises total freedom in any degenerate way possible Capitalism only promises that you can own the means of production. Now, anarcho capitalism is what promises total freedom. The only things even close to anarcho capitalism in this world economically are Hong Kong and Singapore. But obviously you can tell that's not what you're really dealing with.
>>61220746 No, collectivism put us where we are today. Notions such as the oppression of minority groups and women, and literally everything SJWs and feminists bitch about is collectivism at work. I'm not sure how you don't see this, although if you're a stormfag then you're also a collectivist and so I understand why you might not.
>>61221037 China will probably soon abolish the one child law, since they already have in some places, as they become more capitalistic, while in Germany Merkel made it hard to get divorced and still people cheat and get divorced. You can't simply change people's cheating nature only with laws, you have to re-educate them too. Now, does a new president election of any democratic country bring new laws or re-education? It brings neither. You always need a good leader too, it's not just laws and re-education. Have you ever heard of term: customer is king? What does that really means? It sounds nice, but it means that in capitalism you are responsible for your mistakes, including bad health. In Socialism no bank would screw you over, no small letter printing to fuck you over, you were taught to live in healthy body and mind. Being fat was considered degenerate, so Socialistic country done its best to make you fit, you had more value on sport education, as Socialism ended this became less important. Now sports education isn't import at all, you don't even need it. Similar with food, nobody gets punished for selling spit in sausage mixed with leftover remains, only if they get caught, then that somebody pays money as punishment and continues as usual, only reputation is damaged(if you heard about it), while rich people do anything they want anyway. You can't really know what each and every private business does, since government doesn't supervises it like in Socialism. You don't know if somebody molests somebody at work, only if somebody reports it, while in Socialism it's supervised. How much money does USA spend for NSA, so many employed, but still they don't even know why stock exchange is failing or they don't want to fix it.
>>61220552 Are you talking to yourself? Because that's not what I said. Isn't it a little pathetic to transform what I said and then answer to your own words instead of mine with a supposedly smug "Typical.."? I swear Americans have no debating skills left.
Oh no collectivist! Please spare me from another appeal to the majority, semantic tweaking to fit your agenda at the way of somehow calling individual a 'myth,' knowing full well that collectivism is impossible to attain without individual compliance.
Just admit your goal is manipulation, at least be set in your ways and show yourself for what you really are, collectivist.
Naturally the 'collectivist,' as is typical, will prioritize the feelings of the 'other' in an effort to hold the moral highground, having proven nothing, having failed in his mission to rid individualism of the world, having failed to silence an integral part of human consciousness to fit his agenda.
When discussing the spectrum, we can't simplify it in terms of "left or right". The spectrum is more of a circle. Extreme left and extreme right will inevitably lead to the same thing. In a communist society, the distribution of wealth is a responsibility for the state. This leads to corruption with government workers making more than everyone else. Imagine a world where everyone drives the same car and then you have the elite with more rights of freedom and self expression. Now on an extremely right winged society, a fascist one, the wealth will be concentrated to a 1% of monopolies and oligarchies again there are masses and there's an elite. Yes the extreme left and right manifest themselves differently but the distribution of wealth still remains unfair. One is because of communism and distribution of wealth while the other is due to a failed food chain with no trinkle down system. Regardless, you are correct. Collectivism is pure evil. To imply everyone is equal and deserves the same wealth is foolish. The best possible society is a true capitalist one. Not the nanny welfare state we know today.
I've been following the bantz between you two, but I have to say that I'm too stupid to argue either ideological point, but Sloveniabro is absolutely right when he says Socialism tries to protect you from degenerate things, from bad things.
I was born and raised in Yugoslavia during the 80s and we used to masturbate to German women's wear advertisements because there was literally nothing else to fap to. No pornography, no nothing.
The Estonian has it completely backward. Protecting us from this filth made us content with whatever we could find. And Yugoslavia, even behind the Iron Curtain, was the best country in the entire world for worker and wife alike.
We were happy under Socialism and Tito, Estonia. I'm 32 years old now and full blown 'murrican, but even I can see that our country was better than this country.
>>61223709 Then why don't you go back? America is no place for socialism, especially the kind that claims to know what's best for you. If you're here, then obviously this place has something better than the shit hole you crawled out of and that thing that you value was made in a society that values individualism and free market capitalism far above socialism and a nanny state. You and people like you are the cancer that's responsible for SJWs and feminism. Collectivist a like you are killing our society. You may hold the opposite beliefs to them, but like them you're a collectivist and would rather force people to do as you like.
>America is no place for socialism, especially the kind that claims to know what's best for you
That's absolutely correct
>If you're here, then obviously this place has something better than the shit hole you crawled out of
That wasn't true for a very long time, war forced us to relocate. We had socialist discipline, though. Socialist discipline on American soil is like planting a seed in the most fertile ground. The white people here are lazy and backward and stupid, by and large, from my experience.
>and that thing that you value was made in a society that values individualism and free market capitalism far above socialism and a nanny state.
It was made through a communal understanding of country and state, not only the state. We used to have parliament leaders who would try to tell their war stories and then the entire parliament would growl with boredom and embarrassment. It's because we all had that communal knowledge: We fought for what we have, we value what we have, the past is the past, let's enjoy our lives in our country which provides for us, which takes care of us, where a man can be a man and work and raise a family.
>Collectivist a like you are killing our society
I think we contribute a lot, but objectively speaking, if we could combine American individualism with Socialist discipline, then America would be ten thousand times the strength that little Yugoslavia was at the time when we were the happiest and most prosperous.
>You may hold the opposite beliefs to them, but like them you're a collectivist and would rather force people to do as you like.
Not as I like, but as the whole of society would like. We erupted into war after Tito died, but before that, we were prosperous and happy, on par with any Western European country, even more so in terms of West Germany and it's evil socialist twin East Germany.
>>61223142 To forgo individual rights for the collective? I have no wish blogpost all interpitations and shit my post was directed at finnbro and leaf, if i want jewish knight of justice and narrative ill call on you
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.