The false dichotomy of individualism and collectivism

Why does the individual and the collective have to be opposing forces? Why does supporting one have to be to the detriment of the other?

Look at us for example you can see us as a collective where only ideas exist and individuals and their egos are non-existent and are actively attacked when they try to assert their existence.

While at the same time said anonymity allows us to express our true beliefs and perspectives without fear of social shaming or ostracisation. This is the only place where can truly be ourselves in our entirety, without anything held back.

Here the individual and the collective aren't at all opposed and in fact they're achieved a symbiotic relationship. So is our society just more advanced than the rest of mankind or have they been lulled into a false dichotomy? Is the idea of the individual vs the collective a modern idea or a concept that's always been prevalent?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Humans are social creatures.

When you have a strong, healthy collective, the individual will put aside their ego for the betterment of the whole.

When you have a weak, unhealthy collective, the individual will opt for increased selfishness since it fits their personal interest, staying away from the collective's negativity.

Now ask yourself the following: do we currently have a healthy collective? Right now, I'd say no, we don't.

You can't be serious.

You're right but my question is do they have to be inherently in conflict? Do they have to inherently occupy opposite ends of a spectrum like Globalism and Nationalism?

I don't think so after all my experiences on imageboards have provided a counterexample.

Also something interesting to point out is that in your statement it all comes down in individual interest in the end.

The universe operates on self-contradiction.

Do they "have" to be? No. Will they always be? Yes.


I'd take this to be obvious. You have no collective without the individual.

...

They're only at odds with one another because someone keeps burning the bridge between the two whenever that bridge is being built.

I'll let you consider recent history to understand what I mean better.

But they aren't here doesn't that disprove your statement?

it's called problem-reaction-solution OP. They present the people a dichotomy in two ideologies with half-truths so they can continually deceive the public.

Explain further.

Now if only some wise people built a worldview around that kind of notion…

I thought I explained that in the OP.

Isn't that the whole idea behind fascism?

You said my statement was disproven. I'm not convinced that it is.

You haven't explained how they "aren't here." Are you claiming that one [individualism or collectivism] is the pervasive force without any opposition?

Basically.

No i'm saying on imageboards and pretty much only here they exist in symbiosis both feeding into and strengthening the other.

If i'm correct then the idea that they will always been in conflict has been disproved because every user exists as a counter-example.

Too general of a conclusion. You'll always get staunch collectivists and staunch individualist butting heads.

Though if you're to state that on average there's more symbiosis on places like here, yeah, I'd agree with that.

Thats traditional Germanic culture as a whole especially Prussian, youre taught to fuck off and do your own thing but at the same thing make sure it benefits the greater good and serves your family. Sadly this ideal has declined since Jews took over europe post great patriotic war

imageboards lack egotism compared to forums and the like. No names, no reputation, no post history.

That said, it isn't so clear cut, it's just more likely in this kind of environment.

Don't listen to this faggot who has swallowed the lolbergtardian kike kool-aid

The two can be squared, but it is sometimes difficult. If you look at is purely from a (kike-inspired) negative liberty perspective, its seems like they are mutually exclusive, but our Founders didn't think so.

see this, especially the section on Positive, Negative and Roman/Republican Liberty/Freedom

plato.stanford.edu/entries/republicanism/

If you find it interesting I have a video for you.

They don't

/thread

Fair enough I probably gleamed some truth and exaggerated it to fit my own emotional desires.

However I still think that we've achieved something that's a good deal more advanced than any major society that exists today.

WITNESS ME Holla Forums!

collectivism and individuality work on Holla Forums because its a homogeneous society, most of us are hear because of moot selling out which affect for the most part pol users. And its human nature to be independent since there is no major drive to unite ideology or less being called a shill collectivism and individuality will coexist here

One of the reasons tripfags and namefags are cancer and should be filtered on sight is because they upset the balance. We're all "anons" (think collective) but we are judged by our post quality (think individual merit). If someone acts like a retard he will get shit on while someone that posts gems will get praise, capped, etc.

Except that is the exact opposite of the truth: Individualism is good for the collective interest. The more a person realizes what they're doing is going to benefit themselves, the more they will desire to do it. This drive is the basis used to support a capital-driven society, as people will do whatever is necessary to accumulate that capital. It's also why such a system needs to be regulated to some degree, as without some form of oversight, you end up with cities where one person possesses more than the entirety of the rest combined.

There are exceptions. I enjoy helping people out, even as complete strangers, because I believe that as many people should be happy as possible. But I hold no illusions that majority of people give a shit about how others feel. That's why I consider it important to do so myself. And there are others who hold similar feelings.

But they are not the majority.

what is yin and yang fucker

Both Yin and Yang have a drop of each other within them. It's not really a hard-line dichotomy. Think of the dots as the bridge between two different polarities.

Maybe in a healthy society collectivism is beneficial to the individual self interest and individualism is beneficial to the collective self interest.

Ever think of that?

Oh, how the mighty have fallen…

Shit I meant collective interest rather than collective self interest.

Wisdom comes from realizing that what's best for the collective is what's best for the individual, in the long run. This was a point Mencius made over 2000 years ago.

It's far better to have half of a billion dollars than all of a million. It's better to be a baron in a thriving country than the emperor of a landfill. An individual who seeks to increase his own share of the pie at society's expense ultimately reduces the total area of the pie. He gets more and more of less and less. Like a parasite that sucks its host organism dry, and dies along with it.

(checked)

dam thats deep fam
ur the next drake

Sadly I blame the Alt-Right Trump following which found it's way here.

duh?

Individualism = Western Civilization
Collectivism = Everybody else

Cuckservitive pls leave

All Socialism is cancer. National-Socialism ruined European nationalism for everyone.

White nationalist libertarianism is the ideal government.

there's that fucking meme again
Libertarianism is the antithesis to nationalism. "Libertarian nationalism" doesn't exist. Stop trying to force this bullshit.

Maybe he's just thinking of paleoconservatism.

Probably.

Libertarianism is not anarchism. Libertarianism is a minimalist government that adheres to a strict constitution. You can enact protectionist measures in the constitution if it's justified that it is necessary for the health and preservation of the society in the long term. Adam Smith argued for a nationalist bias in Wealth of Nations, and he specifically argued against what's come to be known as neoliberalism (ie. the modern open borders multiculti "free market" cancer).

Look at the cuck and laugh. Ethno-states are only possible when the race and the nation take precedence over the individual. Anything else is a worthless march to ruin, a trade of material wealth for the future of those that come after. Adherence to one's individual destiny within the framework of society is the primary message of all traditionalist folk religions. Mystery cults that emerged in order to initiate new generations into the civilization created by their ancestors. The concept of personal liberty is simply something that did not exist in the minds of the great men of our race who founded civilization. Responsibility is the greatest virtue, not freedom. Freedom is a meaningless thing, because one should always do what is right.

Any system which creates its theories from the language of economics is utter trash. Libertarianism is materialistic nonsense on the same level as Communist ideology. The feature which defined European civilization is nobility, not wealth. The virtuous man seeks to live nobly, not comfortably or profitably.

No. Libertarianism is not minarcism. Libertarianism is libertarianism, and it has a specific set of qualities and beliefs laid out by libertarian intellectuals themselves. The definition of libertarianism was never debatable like "socialism" was in the early 1900's. Slapping together two completely opposing ideologies is idiotic

Protectionist policies are inherently anti-libertarian.

It doesn't, and in fact people live with these forces in perfect harmony without knowing it every day… because doing otherwise would be self-destructive. Of course, some people also live self-destructively every day, but this is a symptom of bad ideas (like the recent Southern Baptist Conference releasing a referendum to shit on their heritage and support mass immigration).

Rational Self-Interest is the comprehension that cooperation with your tribe greatly benefits you, just as your friendships, family structures, and community ties greatly enrich your life. Ultimately the ways in which these interactions are "fleshed out" is a function of your own individual, selfish, values and interests.

When your individual values are rationally derived, you don't act like an exploiter looking for people to fuck… because you understand that eventually you'll be the one to get fucked.

This is how most normal well-adjusted people behave naturally, but when people get confused about what things are actually valuable to them and their lives… they fuck up, derail, and adopt self-destructive behaviors like drug addiction or a party lifestyle.

You'll find that most of the /fit/ people you know don't take care of themselves for you or for their nation… they do it out of self-interest, because they esteem themselves enough value to achieve their potential for themselves… and as a result they bring more value to relationships with people around them in a lot of ways.

The Individualism / Collectivism dichotomy is a product of minds attempting to explain bad behavior, and failing.

this so much, the stoics always had the best material for self-discipline

I think you're right, but the concepts involved are not INDIVIDUALISM and collectivism, as those are conceptual opposites, but rather SELF-INTEREST and collectivism.

The collectivism that the left advocates for is a UNIVERSAL collectivism which is only truly felt by people who are more than a little bit suicidal, and never felt by people who have a strong in-group preference (like 3rd world migrants).
This is why collectivist societies end up being ruled by those with in-group preference (jews in most examples I know).

Here's the thing. Beyond YOU as a single individual, you also have your family, which is a collective unit which includes YOU, but excludes most other people.
This is "expanded self-interest". It is both collectivist AND self-interested, but not quite "individualistic" since the interest of family demands work be put forth on behalf of the next generation.

This same logic applies to your race, as well as social constructs such as community or state. Each is a larger in-group that still includes YOU, excludes most other people, and is thus both collectivist yet self-interested (and each in turn meriting less loyalty compared to family)

...

That assumes people are entirely unaltruistic. Me robbing a baby if I can get away with it benefits me, as does a whole host of other things. There are plenty of things that would benefit people but which they don't desire to do.

No, the problem comes in disconnectedness. People are perfectly willing to work for their communities and almost always do (it's a tried and true evolutionary strategy). What happens when they don't feel like the city a few miles away is part of their community is that they won't care about screwing them over for their own benefit. Most people won't care about those they don't know, even when this leads to destruction.

smh tbh

You should know that this is exactly the question Marx addresses in his early writings

I bet that would look good the bumper of a Prius

Ah parroting 4chans moderation policy I see

...

Why not. Reeks a bit of wilfull ignorance. Of course one should read e.g. Das Kapital and form an opinion of it. How could you debate it otherwise?