I think there's pros and cons of both when it comes to individualism vs collectivism. Economically i'm closer to collectivist. I don't want to completely get rid of capitalism, but things I support like single payer healthcare and UBI, which require collectivism. Broadly thinking I think collectivism is required for problems well beyond the capabilities of a single person. Like you can't build a large building by yourself, nor can you do it with a group of individualists, you need a top-down power structure for some things. But I don't like social collectivism at all, nor would I want to live in any extremely collectivist country like North Korea or Turkmenistan. Honestly even the more free collectivist countries like Japan have issues, like there's a singular "correct" way to do just about anything and even if deviating from the norm won't get you arrested, you'll be socially ostracized.
Individualism certainly has a lot of flaws as well. The most obvious being you can't defend a country with a bunch of individualists. I also really hate the "muh BOOOOOOTSTRAPS" aspect of individualism that boomers preach. In some respects, those of us at the bottom of of the socioeconomic ladder probably would benefit more from being a cog in a large machine. That said I do like the freedom of expression aspect of individualism. I also hate groupthink. There's also the obvious double standard of:
Man doing poorly: YOUR fault, pick yourself up from your BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTSTRAPS.
Woman doing poorly: Society's fault, we need to do better!
Anyway, my idyllic society (which will never ever happen) would have the best aspects of both.