Communism: Individualism or Collectivism?

you're a retard.

Basically this, OP.

One area where I think it's easy to see how individualism/collectivism means different things to different people is "idpol leftists" or "SJWs". (I'm gonna makes some generalization of this group to demonstrate a point, I'm aware that "SJWs" aren't a homogenous group of people with only one specific set of beliefs.)

Most communists would probably say that the problem with these people is that they are too focused on themselves as individuals. Constantly emphasizing all they ways in which they are different from everybody else, putting "latinx disabled gender queer vegan maoist, she/they pronouns please" in their twitter profiles and immediately ostracizing/judging anyone who doesn't "get" them, accidentally used a "bad" word, isn't sensitive enough, etc., making it completely impossible to build any kind of broad mass movement for socialism.

Liberals though (I'm thinking mainly of "classical liberals" like Dave Rubin, Sargon, Sam Harris), would say that the problem with SJW's is collectivism and "tribalism". That they expect special treatment for belonging to an oppressed group, and judge others for belonging to an "opressive" group (like white people, men, etc) instead of who judging them based on their character and their actions.

I would say that both critiques are correct in a way, but one identifies the problem as too much individualism while the other identifies the problem as a lack of individualism.

It's not like capital is some chaotic force nobody has control over though – there are those who clearly manipulate it and greatly profit from it already at the expense of a great many others, and it's also that many of them die after long lifetimes of doing this. Capital is something that these individuals tame to have it accord to their own means and desires, however limited the actions are they do in order to accomplish that.

It would be less stable, however the cost of maintaining the proletariat on a leash would seemingly be not all that great. In China, for instance, there is a great deal of repression going on, however the ruling class remains to be solidly in power as they have largely quelled any sizable opposition. Why not extrapolate that model to the world, adding in propaganda, indoctrination, severe punishments, and the like for even more control and stability for that order?

Not that user, but it is. That's why capitalism is so destructive — capital obeys its own logic of market imperatives and individual actors (even government leaders or multinational CEOs) have limited control over it.

Both.
Also Karl and Engels owe more credit to Stirner than anyone will ever admit.
I will even concede that Marx wasn't entirely wrong in all of his criticisms of Max, despite being outside the scope of the original text, but Marxist treating Stirner as the great Satan of the left has always felt like a mistake.

Attached: Max stirner porky.png (790x646, 358.58K)

Surely, though, with absolute or great power they would be able to control the flow of capital such that they may decide on the presence of economic bubbles, recessions, and the like? What would be examples of what would be something that would be uncontrollable by someone in a position of international economic power?

Guys enough. We all know that Stirner is Engels' persona.

That their life is circumscribed to a relation with the market.

That sounds boring.

Dunno about OP, but from where I sit, Capitalism is anything but Democratic, as only those in possession of Capital can play at that table.

Free Enterprize is basically limited to Wildcat Service Entrepreneurs and Kickstarter Tech groups.