Why does the West put so much emphasis on individualism and dont see any benefit in collectivism...

Doesnt matter what """system""" youre under you work than you die. Theres just better technoligical distractions now so people dont care to collectivise as much.

they fell for the social mobility and trickle down memes. it's ok if i'm getting screwed over now because if i work hard enough i will (eventually) (perhaps) (possibly) at least get paid a better wage (if my employers' taxes are lowered again) (maybe)

You're too stupid to play the market. It's not about hard work, but about providing value. As hard as a barista can work, he'll still contribute ~X amount of actual value in terms of profits. Why should you earn a higher wage than the market regulates based on efficient algorithms of supply and demand? The market is like a giant parallel computation machine that knows exactly how to distribute resources in the most efficient way.

>The market is like a giant parallel computation machine that knows exactly how to distribute resources in the most efficient way.
lol

Who are some thinkers that I should read the BTFO the West?

imagine thinking social mobility is hard in Western countries

Good question, OP. I think peak individualism is basically synonymous with all of the seven deadly sins. Christianity, and western religions in general, seem to warn against the logical conclusion of individuality and "humanism." To attempt to remove any challenge or suffering from existence is also to undermine the ability to experience pleasures or the rewards of achievement, which is what is manifesting itself now.

Bringing in the economic angle of capitalism...we value it because it is, ostensibly at least, the system in which VOLUNTARY interaction reigns supreme (a long and fruitful discussion could be had about the evolution of marketing, psychological conditioning in marketing, and the characterization of materialistic status symbols, and how all of these things make our interactions with corporations something less than voluntary). When those arrogant free market capitalists say, "capitalism is the second worst economic system. The worst is all the other ones," - or something to that effect - they aren't exactly wrong. Capitalism is flawed but it beats the hell out of government- or militarily-enforced collectivism, which does nothing soften the natural instincts and corruption of the individuals granted the authority.

hey, at least it's not just a hand anymore.

that BTFO the West*

It's a metaphor. The free market will always be more efficient than a planned economy precisely because it can efficiently allocate resources based on supply and demand. The companies that use the resources incorrectly go out of business in a free market, the same company would continue to waste resources in an planned economy as was often the case in the soviet union, resulting in shit like entire warehouses full of goods no one wanted.

Yeah and communism works in theory

A good and strong western philosophical practise has always been to think for ones own and practise self-reliance. This has been thrown on its head by people in power shining the limelight on people like Peterson, who not only advocate for submission to the system, revising the word 'individual' to mean acceptance. But blame an abstract philosophical idea for the downfalls of modern society instead of the system it is within.
The Aristotelian slave wants to feel good and even though his outward monologue is "individual" which makes him feel superior to those he is speaking with, his deeper subconscious one is "slave to the system".
By showing an outward image of revised 'individualism', that person becomes a perfect cog for capital accumulation.

Attached: 0_-_Physis.jpg (453x634, 179K)

If the free market is the most efficient why, then, in times of crisis such as the aftermath of an earthquake, when we most need to act quickly and efficiently, do we abandon your free market dogma and instead follow Marx's slogan, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Indeed, in these times of crisis the capitalists who try to apply your cherished principles are frequently (and rightly) maligned for price gouging.

I think what tends to confuse free market enthusiasts is the word free.

Individuality is freedom, politics are hard to follow, and capital is self-perpetuating.

illinoisreview.com/illinoisreview/2017/09/outlawing-price-gouging-harms-the-victims-of-natural-disasters.html

This guy's point of view is actually very underrated.

You work and contribute to the collective society, then you die at some point.

We can sit down and debate the unfairness of capitalism all day, but it really doesn't matter unless you are learning and yor eventual aim is to either take action for or against the status quo.

whitehead, deleuze, nietzsche

Attached: quote-the-misconception-which-has-haunted-philosophic-literature-throughout-the-centuries-alfred-nor (850x400, 83K)

Capitalism is arugably not voluntary. You are being coerced, unfairly manipulated to work or starve, without consideration being taken in regards to what that individuals personal needs and personal problems might be.

Where friends and family fail, society should pick up the tab, so long as the individual is trying to contribute and the amount of contribution is agreed upon by the parties it involves.

I don't think any human society is 'voluntary' or ever has been. You do what society expects or you're outcast.

The liberal democracies are rather unusual in that they have mostly unconditional welfare systems

>alternative to Crapitalism
Such as?

>so long as the individual is trying to contribute and the amount of contribution is agreed upon...
Listen to yourself. You just described the very contentious, subjective nature of any economic discussion. I don't think society should pick up the slack for those "unwilling" to work, because it motives more people to be unwilling to work. I don't think contributing shitty slam poetry and tweets about the patriarchy constitutes a "valuable contribution" to society.

The voluntariness exists before the conditioning. And the conditioning is only increased by some degree of will from the "victims," for lack of a better word. I haven't watched television or internet ads since 2012. One someone compels me to do so, the exchange is no longer voluntary. (I happen to agree that it is moving in that direction).

Bump

Atomization is good for corporations and other arms of tptb.
It's why big business is so supportive of LGBTQBRAAP. No families formed or children means all that disposable income belong to them.

Attached: vn1yl5qf67411.jpg (601x711, 59K)

Because John Locke despite his empiricist flaws displayed it's potency and every year afterwards hard-confirmed his theories. Murica rules the coin and movie creation for a reason bud.

Attached: 1552834795072.jpg (632x474, 30K)

amerikkka imprisons almost 1% of its adult population, a large portion of which consists of petty non-violent crimes. throwing landlords into prison is not somehow worse than the current situation

American movies are garbage though(?)

>comparing putting criminals in prison to the Holodomor
hello tankie

How do I play the market if I'm afraid of people. I practice my skills every day but there seems to be something that just makes me seem like a joke to everybody, especially interviewers see this clear as day but they're just too kind to say it to me. Same goes for everyone else too, they say that I'm fine and so on but there obviously is something wrong with me that everyone can see except me.

have you considered that many people would voluntarily work if the work they were doing was actually useful and not just wageslaving for some multinational? People enjoy work when the work is productive, benefits their fellow man, and above all is voluntary.

you said Gulags not genocide user, the Holodomor was obviously bad

Of course. And as a matter of fact, lacking work altogether, even unfulfilling work, is probably worse for one's adjustment. What is your point? That there is productive work under the corporate model that is fulfilling enough to not require a material reward/wage? I don't think there is because if something is worthwhile in its own right, with no reward, then people will do it regardless of the economic system.

And the 1.5 world (every country that isn't America), 2nd world, and 3rd world's movies are nogh non-existent though(?)
Oh boy how I can't wait to watch the latest nip movie about a sister fucking her animu brother.

*nigh

bump

It's true, individualism sucks. It's really bad for society, and thus it's ultimately bad for individuals. But the alternative (being a part of some faggy club controlled and populated by people you hate) is even worse.

And ultimately, this is the real reason why leftism will never win. Leftists are such smarmy pretentious fags who are so extremely faggish and so uppity and annoying that most people would rather just live in poverty than give you power

>I practice my skills every day but there seems to be something that just makes me seem like a joke to everybody

i feel you buddy, same here

Trickle down economics is real. I get payed 3x minimum salary in russia and I just got my first job

>amerikkka imprisons 1% of its population
it's the only tool we have for managing black males aged 16-40.

maybe you should ask all the arabs and latinos and chinese and africans and eastern bloc refugees why they find it all so appealing?

they come for the gibs, the arabs, latinos, africans etc. vote for the same sort of quasi-communism that they voted for in their home countries. you could probably feed a reasonably-sized family back in Central America with 1-2 stolen SSNs only through gibs.

its their terrible 2s

Attached: 1525495205251.jpg (500x646, 79K)