Wants to help people with depression, suicide, loneliness, stress and lack of ambition

>former bulwarks against alienation (religion, culture, tribal affinity)
Got replaced by consumerism either way, which at least makes more sense.

user 1 and user 2 have a much stronger bound over buying the same phone than being pushed out of a vagina in the same city.

America was doing great with its localist system, as de Tocqueville pointed out. It didn't go to shit until the social bonds were eroded in the 60s

Capitalism is necessarily against the disruption of traditional bonds for two reasons:
1) they are meaningless to it. In the capitalist eye they are only inefficiencies. The feudal order has been a victim of capitalism universally: from the renaissance to china.

2) it empowers individuals which then use their power to emancipate themselves. Once a man is not dependent on somebody else for their livelihood they are not going to obey that person.

So efficiency required for everyone to participate in the job market, result: women are not going to demurely obey their husband, why should they, they got their own money and money is political power.

Lol, this moron probably grew up with a single mother in a western capitalist society and can't even CONCEIVE of an alternative

Its not so much he supports Capitalism so much as he's against failed batshit autistic dreamtime that has proven to result in gulags

Traditional bonds fell way Bedford the left, it started with the commercial revolution of the renaissance read your history

>africa and china aren't capitalist

Yes, goy, capitalism has never failed, that 2008 crisis? That was all the home owners faults goy, not us! That was the government, not us goy! Make sure to tell your friends that!

The economic situation managed to distract from the horrible issues it had. As it usually does.

>couple gulags
vs
>trillions spent on pointless wars harming even more people

The rise of the mercantile class in renaissance Europe had little bearing on the religiosity of Puritan America. That over went a separate revolution.

it's those evil hippies' fault i swear! but were did those hippies come from? Boomers grew up in the deceptive Sci Fi environment of bleakest suburbia with PTSD afflicted former GI dads, the menacing glow of the TV set beaming straight into their skulls. How do you expect them to adhere to a kitschy ideal of bourgeois domesticity that was only ever a thing in coke(tm) advertisements? you are way too short sighted mate. the process of dissolution stretches way back to renaissance Europe.

That's a good point.
Lets adopt the objectively better Soviet or feudalist system.

Don't be ridiculous. The GULAG system was horrifying. And it wasn't just the camps thenselves, but living under the constant threat of being sent to one for no reason and with no legal recourse. Vastly worse than someone who isn't you dying half a world away.

Are you seriously comparing the 2008 recession to the fucking Great Purge?

Puritan American is not only a reaction to modernity but modern too. That is the other jarring thing about American traditionalism: born out a rebellion to the king and to the pope, from people who thought they could legislate themselves better than what has been the order of the world more than a millennium.

The result is the laughable idea that the golden age of tradition is the 1950s and it came to end with the original sin of the1960s

Childish.

>pointless wars

There is no such thing as a pointless war, war is its own reward, its a force that gives us meaning

Oh is war something the capitalists invented now?

"It's the gift the keeps on giving"

In how many wars have you been jarhead?

I think he means Imperialism.

Are you seriously comparing the countless economic collapses, Jew funded coups and international wars to the fucking Great purge?

Not a capitalist invention

If you're implying foreign wars today aren't propped up by arms companies then you're deluded lol.

You know most of the Gulag Archipelago was fiction, and the parts that weren't were sensationalized?

It was literally a pure work of capitalist imperialist propaganda.

I'm implying that had the USSR won they would do the same.
In fact they have invaded many countries in their time

lmao

Critiques of capitalism seem indistinguishable from being a luddite lamenting material progress. The alienation that arises out of using an invention like television are inherent to the invention itself. Same as the alienation that arises out of social media are the result of social media itself, not on its misuse. And, barring some cataclysmic event, we can't ever go backwards. So all we can do is find methods of cohesion that work given those disruptive inventions, not to go backwards in time and LARP as a Bronze Age farmer.

Not him and not an argument. He's right.

Tell me how Anne Applebaum's book is also fiction without citing tankie propaganda

He's half right. A lot of it is based on hearsay, but like all oral history there are large elements of truth to it

>countless economic collapses

Oh boohoo Capitalism doesn't provide perfect constant growth :'(
We need to upend the entire economic system and risk millions of lives again because some niggers might be unemployed for a while

The order they created worked for hundreds of years and ended up creating the largest economy in the world and one of the longest-running democracies in history. Nothing laughable about what they attempted.

Might be nothing laughable about the economy, but the idea America is a democracy is laughable. It's still a republic.

> The GULAG system was horrifying.
I had family members there, and it generally wasn't too different from an average jail in Murica where you're forced to work, with a bit worse climate at times. Though I am talking about the time from 60s on, before they were definitely more hardcore.
But hey, even at their peak, fewer people were even near a gulag than are stuck in jail now.

>Vastly worse than someone who isn't you dying half a world away.
It could be you if you got drafted into some dumb war, besides, if you're not a complete sociopath, knowing that motherfuckers die for your comfy life is pretty horrible too. And not everyone can block it out with a stream of entertainment.

Besides, unless you got chance going your way, capitalism in Murica is fear about losing your job, which has similar consequences as jail and the stress of it happening it similar too.

Sure but the synergy is fantastic. No other ideology encourages it as much as a solution, maybe sans some religious extremists.

>Sure but the synergy is fantastic. No other ideology encourages it as much as a solution, maybe sans some religious extremists.
Not so sure about that, the USSR promoted socialism heavily in South America and flat out invaded certain countries.

>Traditional bonds got destroyed when the forms they took were debunked by progressives who were critical of capitalism.

No, traditional bonds got destroyed by industrialisation and urbanisation. Capitalism was the primary driver of this. Commies tried in Russia and China but they weren't even competent at destroying things so they ended up with much closer social bonds and stronger traditions than the capitalist west.

>It wasn't corporations who were critical of religion
They didn't have to be. They still created a world where traditional bonds were completely indefensible against the ravages of modernity.

I'm not a commie, I'm actually fully on-board with captalism, I just think it's necessary to recognise the collateral damage that comes with it, try to recognise the changes capitalism makes without solely focussing on GDP and without completely dismissing the complaints of people who can't portray their concerns in terms of quarterly staistics.

>and it generally wasn't too different from an average jail in Murica
Shut the fuck up. Look at the death rates of American prisons and compare then to the rates in Siberian GULAGs. What a fucking absurd moral equivalency. You people are jokes.

Dude, the commies suppressed religion heavily, what are you talking about they had stronger traditions

>Dude, the commies suppressed religion heavily
look how that turned out.

They became more capitalist and got more religious?

They failed at suppressing religion.

Give them a hundred years of capitalism and development and we'll see how religious they re.

Where do you get your alternative history from? The people enacting a self-proclaimed cultural revolution ended up with stronger traditional elements? No, the truth is that the events that lead to the erosion of traditional forms of cohesion weren't simply economic in nature, but were social and cultural as well. And the social and cultural critiques came from the very same people who overestimated the economic component of that erosion. It was a self-fulfilling prophesy on their part.

Really?
Cause you see the same trend in China
Socialism actively tries to destroys the old traditions and to build new ones

The 'misuse' is embedded into the system. Social media is a Pavlovian psychosis machine by design, not by accident. Remember ' like everything else under capitalism it is driven by the profit imperative. Minor tweaks to the altgorithms can have momentous psychosocial and political consequences. That's what I don't get about conservatives, they can only offer vaguely nostalgic platitudes and hence they will get steamrolled by the techocapital juggernaut every fucking time.

It was more of lending their hand to insurgencies that supported their cause. When did the soviet pull the absurdity of Murica when they are supporting one side, and bombing them to shit a bit later?

The numbers need to be compared with the average death rate in the country to make sense. But hey, let's give it a try. (feel free to look for more accurate number for gulags, that shit is a mess obviously and I picked the first result from google)

From 50s to 53s, the death rate in Gulags started at 1000/100,000 and went down to 300/100,000. (it's silly to include wartime and postwar time numbers due the state of the country) While a bit higher even in the latter years, we're talking about Soviet Union in the early 50s vs modern fucking US of A.

In Murica we got:
>Between 2001 and 2014, there were 50,785 prisoner deaths in state and federal prisons.
>(256 per 100,000 state prisoners) was 14% higher than the federal prisoner mortality rate (225 per 100,000 federal prisoners) between 2001 and 2014.

and then take the fish from him and give him a fraction of the value of fish so he has to come back tomorrow and do the same

I wonder if they covered people in their own shit and made them face off with a combat dogs until they piss themselves in the gulags?

gulags were fucking terrible and the soviet union was shit but the idea that the soviet union was like 1984 was just cold war propaganda.

as if you have the slightest idea about what war is

Driving your tanks into Eastern Europe comes close.
China's involvement in Vietnam and Korea, USSR basically staging a coup in Afghanistan.
So you don't have an issue with the U.S supporting lets say the Mujaheddin or Contra?
Imperialism is not a capitalist thing, that's what the original claim was, and it's flat out wrong.

>as if you have the slightest idea about what war is
>Hurr ya no nuffin Jon Snow

Like I give a shit, I don't intend on fighting I intend on there being an awareness that fighting is going on. Let the hoopelheads kill babies and come back have schizomanic

You're the conservative in this discussion. The realities of material progress prevents one from going back in time prior to the invention of a disruptive medium. Your perception of the world also completely discounts the possitive elements of disruptive media, like the fact that we're able to have this conversation right now. Does the fact that book-printing indirectly lead to the Protestant reformation and various bloody wars prior to the Treaty of Westphalia suggest that the mass distribution of books was a bad thing for civilization? The vicissitudes of material progress aren't worth getting rid of material progress entirely.

>Driving your tanks into Eastern Europe comes close.
Yeah, that definitely counts.

>China's involvement in Vietnam and Korea, USSR basically staging a coup in Afghanistan.
They were supporting an ally, it's closer to Mujaheddin and Contras, which is pretty basic politics, although the latter didn't even support American politics, but hey, divide et impera. Changing your support all the time is the bigger clusterfuck.

Obviously imperialism isn't a capitalist thing but capitalistic states tend to be more friendly to it, since it's good for the market.

See I can't agree with your last point, a fascist regime has as many reasons to invade countries and put a puppet regime in control.
It's simply that the U.S is the biggest military force.
I don't think you can really claim that if the biggest player was a communist or a fascist regime that they'd be less imperialistic, the exact opposite I think would be the case.

A couple of hundred years is a drop in the history of the world. This is not tradition that you are holding to, you are holding to your dads jacket and you are complaining that it doesn't fit you as well.

Your golden age literally lasted 10 years and it was the post-war economic boom. The post-60s sexual revolution has lasted by now more than your golden age.

>Socialism actively tries to destroys the old traditions and to build new ones
and it routinely fails. Capitalism doesn't try to destroy traditions, it just bulldozes over them without realising it.

Show me an American prison where the death rate is 176/1000, and without a trial by jury.

Capitalism isn't a force, it's the people that do it.
I'd rather the people voluntarily give it up than a regime trying actively to destroy the countries history.

tell the truth

>A couple of hundred years is a drop in the history of the world.

Not really, recorded history is only like what, 6000 years old? That means 3-5% of all of history depending where you draw the line which is hardly nothing

241 years of a single government uninterrupted, with the same constitution throughout, is actually a pretty remarkable feat in historical terms.

>Capitalism isn't a force, it's the people that do it

Ridiculous logic

>Where do you get your alternative history from?
Nothing alternative about it.

>The people enacting a self-proclaimed cultural revolution ended up with stronger traditional elements?
Yes, the "cultural revolution" failed miserably.

>No, the truth is that the events that lead to the erosion of traditional forms of cohesion weren't simply economic in nature, but were social and cultural as well.
Yes, but the root of it was economic, and it was expressed entirely in terms of economic productivity.

>And the social and cultural critiques came from the very same people who overestimated the economic component of that erosion. It was a self-fulfilling prophesy on their part.
I assume you're talking about feminists and the like but the story goes back way further than that. They're a product of the breakdown of social structures not the cause.

>I don't think you can really claim that if the biggest player was a communist or a fascist regime that they'd be less imperialistic, the exact opposite I think would be the case.
Well, with fascist we do have examples proving it. With communists it would vary a lot based on their interpretations and goals. Wasn't the soviet union noticeable less imperialistic compared to USA, despite having almost just as powerful military? Besides, the arms race hurt them much more, while the States benefited from it.

>42
Hey, the financial crisis is bad and all but America isn't in any official war while the country is undergoing a system change as the Soviets were at the time. It makes much more sense to compare the numbers from the 50s when things stabilised, and we're still left with a much poorer country and medical knowledge from the 50s.

Capitalism is simply giving the people freedom, what they do with it has it's upsides (incredibly innovation and productivity) and its downsides (loss of tradition, rampant consumerism)
Socialism is the opposite, it's not for freedom so you can't say it's the people that do it like you can with capitalism.

>working your slaves to death doesn't count if it's during a war

>economic recession
vs
>tens of millions executed and starved

this has got to be one of the most pathetic things i've ever seen

No the Soviet Union was more imperialistic.
The USA left western europe to vote for what they wanted, socialist parties were allowed in Europe, the same cannot be said about how the USSR handled Eastern Europe.
The USSR spread it's ideology in South America with disastrous results, the US tried the same.
The USSR occupied Afghanistan, the U.S.A invaded Vietnam and Korea.
Roughly equal, USSR has a worse track record imo.

>You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.

Great addition to the discussion

>The USA left western europe to vote for what they wanted
>Implying the US didn't constantly sabotage left-wing parties in Italy and France

Not feminism necessarily, but more Marxist critiques of religion. Marx himself said in his "opiet of the masses" passage that criticism of religion was intended to get rid of the one reactionary comfort people had in order that they could focus on bettering their economic condition. He said that criticism of religion "plucked the flower from the chain" so that man could "break the chain."

>Implying the US didn't constantly sabotage left-wing parties in Italy and France

lol git gud loser

Did they forbid people to vote for them or what?

Does JP literally believe in God and the events of the bible? I saw in one interview he was asked if he believed that Jesus existed and rose from the dead and he struggled to answer.

Social norms during war can't be compared to norms during the peace time. Everyone is paranoid about everything and resources are scarce, so a human life isn't worth shit. It's like blaming the current deaths and torture in Syrian jails on the country being capitalistic.

>socialist parties were allowed in Europe
While McCarthyism went rampant at home. Besides, they supported tons of right wing terrorists in Europe, take stuff like Operation Gladio for example. US war a lot more clever about their goals than than Soviets for sure, but not much more democratic.

>The USSR occupied Afghanistan
They supported the government after the coup, and their relationship wasn't the best.
U.S.A. had their hands in a much more clear attempt in Iran, and let's not forget Cuba.

Wouldn't call them equal though USSR indeed had a worse record.

Not really.

It's a pretty average run. Ancien Regime lasted longer, Holy Roman empire, Papal State, the roman republic. There is plenty of examples.

Plus the US had a civil war so it's not uninterrupted.

But I guess I'll go file this anyway under "american exceptionalism"

>Social norms during war can't be compared to norms during the peace time. Everyone is paranoid about everything and resources are scarce, so a human life isn't worth shit. It's like blaming the current deaths and torture in Syrian jails on the country being capitalistic.

Dekulakization and the belief in Lysenko's pseudobiology lead to a complete collapse in productivity that forced the Soviets to rely on slave labor. I'm not gonna blame them for having to deal with tee Nazis, but I'm perfectly entitled to blame them for subscribing to an ideology that forced them to do those horrific things.

>US war a lot more clever about their goals than than Soviets for sure, but not much more democratic.
Not clever, they were more free, an absolute fact
Even comparing the democracy in Eastern Europe with the western part is a joke, you can't possible think they were just slightly less democratic, please.
>They supported the government after the coup, and their relationship wasn't the best.
They trained the ones who committed the coup
For my original position to ring true they don't even need to be equal, it's clear both were imperialistic, to ascribe it to capitalism like I see socialists often do is a lie.

He admits that capitalism has flaws. Just because someone doesn't support the polar opposite of something it doesn't mean they are a proponent of it.

You can't really compare the lifespan of ancient regimes to those of contemporary ones, given how modern technology compresses progresss. A nation wasn't able to double its GDP in a matter of decades, or trade with the other side of the globe 2000 years ago.

Leftists don't want to end depression at all. They will declare depression a social construct in the near future and claim people who want to be cured from it are just suffering from 'internalised oppression' all while defending the right to commit suicide as a protected cultural practice. You know it's gonna happen. It's all about 'power relations' for them.

>for subscribing to an ideology that forced them to do those horrific things
Which often happens during horrible periods, especially in a country that's still finding their feet, trying to adapt to modern times in a record time. During early stages of industrialisation quasi slave labour was pretty common and USSR had to catch up centuries in the matter of decades, now add the rush of finding a way to deal with basic shit while fighting the worst war in human history and their idiotic decisions make sense in historical context.

As seen by the numbers from peace time, things improved massively.

>you can't possible think they were just slightly less democratic, please.
Yeah fair point, made the brainfart of comparing them to current democracies instead of West - East countries.

>They trained the ones who committed the coup
Does it matter when it wasn't their call to make?

>For my original position to ring true they don't even need to be equal, it's clear both were imperialistic, to ascribe it to capitalism like I see socialists often do is a lie.
Yes, fair enough too. You right, user.

There's nothing inherent to industrialization that requires slave labor. The 21st century demonstrates how successful free and open trade is when it comes to lifting a nation out of absolute poverty.

Regardless of America's history of stifling political dissent, no rational person can deny that the Soviet Union and its show trials was much more totalitarian in how it enforced its state ideology. That, coupled with bad administration (inherent to a command and control economy) and resentment towards success (let's send our most productive farmers to work camp!) lead to a really horrific atmosphere for the average person in the USSR that didn't exist in America unless you were a poor black man living in a white neighborhood.

>capitalizes on anti-SJW situation
>realizes anti-SJW people also tend to be massive losers
>starts patreon to extract said losers parents money
>supports capitalism
fixed

it was the government, though

>realizes anti-SJW people also tend to be massive losers
Have you seen antifa congregate? Post wrote an article about two antifa NEETs a couple weeks ago. Both sides are chock-full of losers

Yeah and you can't mix traditionalism with a hypermodern nation like the united states. Maybe you don't see it but all people hear is: I like change but only until it's convenient for me.

No reason to disguise it in lofty ideals while using greco-roman statues for graphics.

>the idea that the soviet union was like 1984 was just cold war propaganda
under Stalin it was dummy

You can absolutely create a synthesis by plucking elements from our past traditions and bringing them into new contexts. Isn't that what the medieval Christians did when they appropriated elements form the Greco-Roman civilization that preceded it?

Aren't the antifa people mostly rich kid "revolutionists" ? The ones that will have high paid jobs once they've got bored of this?

I honestly wonder how many hippies actually helped during the civil rights movement and it wasn't just an excuse for drugs and sex? I wonder how many of them dodged the draft? i wonder how many of those hippies became the yuppies of the 80s?

The two in the article were troubled NEETs who were looking for a purpose in life. It's anecdotal, but a lot of the people in I know personally who subscribe to extreme political movements tend to be smart people whose intelligence isn't keeping them from being poor. Once they get a real job their activism dies down.