Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Lets compare and contrast the two philosophies. What are the benefits, what are the detriments. Can they be applied to everything or only select things.

Collectivism and Individualism's not mutually exclusive; Society is made up of individuals with their own beliefs, but individuals themselves need groups and other individuals to survive. One could see Libertarianism for example as collectivistic, in the sense, that everyone would have to follow property rights or the market. One could also see Communism as individualistic, because everyone would in theory have little or no work hours (because of automatisation in Communism), and because of that, be free to pursue creative subjects and allow people to fill their own individual needs.

As I see it, no idea is purely collectivistic or individualistic, unless we go towards a society where everyone's a part of an unthinking & unfeeling hivemind, or where we're so technologically advanced that every individual would own a mean of production to be independent from every other individual. I would not see either of those societies as ideal, and I doubt many people would. Though, owning a one-man tiny factory would be pretty fun.

The benefits of Collectivism, would be that humans are naturally dependant on others to survive, and that if everyone worked together for a common goal, it could also satisfy everyone's needs.

The benefits of Individualism, would be that humans are also naturally individualistic. We care about ourselves, not just others, and every human is different and have different needs.

I prefer individualism to collectivism. While i do understand the benefits of collectivism, I've often noticed it can lead to identity politics, which is very detrimental.

I dislike collectivism because i feel as though it destroys individuality when left unchecked.

Ill probably just make a thread on identity politics seeing as though this one isn't gaining to much traction (that was the intended idea.)

Interesting…My social studies class is exploring this subject.

To me, I would prefer a bit of both, having everyone doing and gaining their own needs, and at the same time, helping those in need. Equal balance really.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

{ or where we’re so technologically advanced that every individual would own a mean of production to be independent from every other individual }

Yeeeeeah, people used to do that no tech necessary, it's called homesteading, it was kind of how the world worked pre-mass foreign production, back when everything cost a penny. Some people still do it, self-sustainability is coming back into fashion. Who the hell convinced you that you need to depend on somebody else to survive? You don't even have to depend on somebody else for electricity anymore.

I'd consider it very ideal if communities were set up as 100k max people hubs that relied on huge community gardens and farms for food/textile/etc which could then be processed further locally instead of global corporations pumping god knows what into agricultural products being literally forced to grow in uninhabitable Asian countries then processed using slave child labor. But that's just me.

Individualism with Collective Awareness is the ideal, but from a purely efficiency, and quality of life: Individualism by a long shot.

When societies force collectivism on individuals we have a major problem.

Collectivism in these societies been a disaster, since the ideology affects negatively the commerce of society. And as of right now, commerce is what binds humanity together, and it is also one of the major component of our daily lives. Collectivist socities tend to weigh the needs of the many over the needs of the few, but rarely do they have the practical capacity to judge what the needs of people are in the first place.

Collectivism on a social and cultural level tends to be very conservative. Ideas, expression, of any kind of dissent towards must be shut down because they are a threat to collective cohesion as a whole. If your society depends on people working for the greater good, the moment a few people, or even a large group of people begin to dissent it could cause a chain reaction in the system as a whole.

You can tell Joe over there that we are lacking farming hands, and tell him to go help out on the farms. But Joe is physically weaker, and isn't able to be of great assistance, he would rather be a musician or an entertainer. But Joe has to do it for the greater good, his own personal needs, or even his own capabilities become increasingly irrelevant.

If Joe felt that he would be a better musician than a farmer, and engages in that pursuit, he can prosper, make best of use his own abilities, without having someone put him in that place or not. It would be ideal if Joe uses his proceeds and gains to help society around them, but that's having a collective awareness. Rather than forcing a collectivist institution on Joe.

I've always been a firm believer of the "you reap what you sow" philosophy, so I'd agree with individualism more. If you put in a large amount a work in what you do then you should be rewarded for it, while if you just do fucking nothing then you should expect the same to be given in return. It's just not fair that someone who does absolutely nothing gets the same thing you do even when you work really hard. In the end, I believe collectivism just promotes laziness because you'll be given something regardless of what you do or how well you do it.

Pure collectivism and pure individualism are both pretty bad ideas, but If I had to pick, I would incline to collectivism. First, anyone that says that they can succeed truly alone is fucking liar, since mostly everyone, specially the filthy rich, depend on an organized society, and society exists on the first place as a collective in it's most basic sense. Society only exists because we collectively decide to abide by a series of rules that can limit somewhat freedom, but have much better payouts: You can not kill, but you are also protected from being killed. You can't take stuff from the others, but they can't take your things either, this person hunts for both of you, so you can dedicate to making tools for both, and make them better, etc;. Ultimately, individualism only really gives you satisfaction relying on ideals and abstract concepts, while collectivism gives tangible benefits. Of course, going too far in collectivism can actually undermine said benefits, and some of the ideals of individualism lead to the benefits of collectivism, which is why Since before humans were humans, they have always worked together to succeed. It's often said that humans rose as a species due to their intelligence and opposite thumbs, but more than that, our ability to cooperate is even more important. We could be a species 10 times as intelligent and dexterous, but without some level of civilization, we would not have civilization, and the best technology would be a very well balanced spear of wood and rock.

I understand that human beings do rely upon each other for support and survival in general, it would be foolish to deny this. Thats not what im opposed to, i'm opposed to mental collectivism so to speak.

The idea that those with dissenting thoughts and view points are enemies and threaten the collective. I see this mentality a lot among left leaning activist, and among the alt right. What i despise the most is how people are automatically a part of a collective because they share a characteristic with people who created their own collective, and you don't have a say on the matter.