The advanced liberal democracies actively subject humanity to economic and moral imperatives which destroy culture and therefore all that is human in man. What is left? Man streamlined to maximize the productive process.
This is the "ideal" man that is the necessary conclusion of the liberal project. Stripped of his own non- (or anti-) economic social institutions (family, tribe, religion, neighborhood, guild, education, etc) man is totally mobile and malleable to the demands of the market. His "leisure" time is optimized for consumption of services which further maximizes the total productive capacity. This goes right down to renting versus owning property (like homes), as the individual's investment is not as productive as the centralized and specialized firms.
These social institutions are eroded away by both market and moral imperatives. The moral demand for the woman's introduction into the workplace dealt a fatal blow to the family as the economic viability of the stay-at-home mother entered an irreversible decline. This further paved the way for the school-as-socialization, which in supplanting the family's educative and socializing roles further diminished its power (to say nothing of its implementing and enforcing the basic template of market demands on the producer-consumer). Religion which has its convictions, rituals, and traditions emptied of all substance by both the liberal project and the dopamine-promising market is reduced to a husk if it survives at all, which serves only the much more surface need of social contact (which is itself everywhere in decline). The needs once fulfilled by religion (and aggravated by the productive process) are only poorly and partially satisfied by the therapeutic regime which suggests SSRIs and other neuroendocrine-affecting drugs as first-line treatments.
As is obvious to all but the indoctrinated zealots, if we can say anything at all of "human nature" we can say that this situation is the shape-sorter equivalent of attempting to force a square into a circle. Hence the reactions to this which manifest in forms from vague unease to the welcoming with open arms of Adolf Hitler.
Orwell noted, >Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
Thanks for reading my diary desu. It's hardly novel. Where do I read more about this?
For the 0.00001% who survive the purge that follows mass automation perhaps. Not for the remaining ultra-majority of humanity, nor for those who value cultural or historical preservation in the meantime.
Brandon Allen
I'm down bad
Carson Watson
Yo, Dest. Can you lend me about 10k
Jaxon Jenkins
Hate it or love it. You will confine to capitalism. You will never live in your utopia. You will never be a woman.
Anyone giving any twitch streamer(or online "entertainer") money is retarded.
Aiden Phillips
You should have to read a minimum about of philosophy to post here. You should at least know what deterritorialization is in this context so that can either make a counter argument or just shut your trap.
Oliver Butler
faxt
Justin Ward
>Believes that only under capitalism deterritorialization can take place Good one
Gabriel Butler
I've seen that. He was basically just saying stupid shit and trolling while the other fag just started spazzing out and going ultra-pseud mode. Funny.
Not him but how is the system which actively calls for the destruction of marriage, family, and monogamy not just as bad in that respect if not worse (note: capitalist nations only became pozzed like these past few decade).
Brayden Reyes
Pretty sure under any economic system, troons will be present. The mentally ill are present in all economic system. Troons is a social issue, not an economic one.
Carson Myers
>distinguishing economic systems from social ones
Sir this is Yea Forums, broad retard-tier generalizations only please.
William Hughes
>how is the system which actively calls for the destruction of marriage, family, and monogamy not just as bad in that respect if not worse What are you referring to? The liberal tradition coexists with capitalism. >(note: capitalist nations only became pozzed like these past few decade). That's not true. Capitalism has been eroding the fabric of the family since it essentially necessitated the transfer of workers from the family productive activity (agriculture, crafting, artisanry, etc) to the factory, or from the town and village to the city. As only one example.
It is indeed a broad retard-tier generalization to assume the division of labor has only economic and no social implications. See above.
Economic and social aspects of society are inseparable from one another. Modern troonery have moved far beyond mere sexual dysphoria into the total collapse of gender socialization and now the non-binary phenomena. This is downstream from a long term deterritorialization of gender roles by the requirements of capitalistic profit motive as an organizing ideology of society as facilitated by technological advancements.
Only a system which directly combats the cultural and social externalities of technological advancement under capitalism can be one truly hospitable to humanity. As it is, we merely live out the slow death.
Lincoln Collins
>capitalism hurts family! >doesn't give an alternative economic system that wouldn't hurt family You will confine to capitalism.
Liam Young
Fascism, but unironically.
Henry Bailey
You are giving waaaay to much credit to capitalism, you even know this because half way through your schizo rant you blame technological advancement. Are you perhaps saying that technological advancement can only take place under capitalism? While it is true that economic and social aspects tend to collide, I strongly believe that the social issue that are troons have no relations with economics. So I strongly believe that troons will appear no matter the economic system(unless you know some omega 1984 like economic system that I don't know of).
Brayden Cox
I'm not even arguing for the adoption of anything entirely different. It's obviously not viable. But you do not need to have an alternative to recognize the present situation has profound issues.
What makes you think that? It is exactly the point that current customs (insofar as they can be called customs at all) separate the individual from the family unit to a much greater degree than they did before, and that this has been a long process starting at least with industrialization. Furthermore, it is also exactly the point that this change has become palatable to the general population despite the obvious detriment. The loss of the family is the loss of an invaluable social institution that provides support, sociability, and purpose, among many other roles. A better question is: what replaces the family in contemporary society?
Daniel Walker
>I'm not even arguing for the adoption of anything entirely different. It's obviously not viable. But you do not need to have an alternative to recognize the present situation has profound issues. Yet you still won't bring any solutions for these "profound issues"(btw these are more personal issues because "muh family broken" is not true to most members in capitalism). Looking at actual issues with capitalism such as economic depressions, you will know that these depressions do not last. Capitalism adapts. So complain all you like. You will still confine to capitalism.
Benjamin Ross
>Are you perhaps saying that technological advancement can only take place under capitalism? Capitalism is both an accelerant to technical advancement and an inevitability in the sense that any alternative is out-competed and destroyed. Technics and capitalism facilitate one another and border on inseparability at our current stage of history.
>I strongly believe that the social issue that are troons have no relations with economics The economic needs of the system were the fundamental motivators to the cultural and social changes with put us on the road to troons as we see them today. In this sense the social issue is inseparable from the economic one, and an entirely different thing that the explicitly medical issue which is the extreme minority of the current trans movement which seems to experience medical sexual dysphoria.
Jack Mitchell
if lefties are so principled, why do so many of them love Schwab's rentier capitalism?
Jason Garcia
You will confine to sucking your GF's feminine penis.
Bentley Bell
>But you have no solutions! >You don't need to have solutions to point out problems >But you have no solutions! lol.
Do you believe that the family has some social value to the individual? What is the nature of that value? Can it be found elsewhere? Where and how? Do you deny that the family is weaker than it was fifty years ago, or a hundred, or three hundred? What do you attribute that to?
Jack Perez
>Capitalism is both an accelerant to technical advancement and an inevitability in the sense that any alternative is out-competed and destroyed. Technics and capitalism facilitate one another and border on inseparability at our current stage of history. Yeah I don't really see this as a bad thing. Humans advancing technologically isn't necessarily bad. I don't completely agree that capitalism is the main driving force for technological advancements either. An example: You will see many open source code projects that are under free to use licenses that in return doesn't produce any money for the developer. >The economic needs of the system were the fundamental motivators to the cultural and social changes with put us on the road to troons as we see them today. In this sense the social issue is inseparable from the economic one, and an entirely different thing that the explicitly medical issue which is the extreme minority of the current trans movement which seems to experience medical sexual dysphoria. We are just going in circles. How are the economic needs of the system responsible for motivating people becoming troons? Sure the influence of technological advancements in medicine and social media has made troons popular, but these technological advancements could've been present in other economic systems. Soviet Russia was great when it came to science about space. Stop with this reaching.
Nathaniel Sullivan
These problems you point out were for the purpose of argument, but they have no validity because you do not supply any solutions. I don't care for your nothing burger and crying about how you personally believe how capitalism impacts families. The value of family is to be determined by the experiences and connections you share with the family. These experiences do NOT need to be under capitalism. An example is going on a hike with you family(unless we are going full schizo and need to talk about the modern medicine that has brought you to this moment or the clothes you are wearing for this hike) nothing inherently capitalist about that.
Zachary Smith
>Humans advancing technologically isn't necessarily bad. It's a positive if the externalities are counteracted. Under our current system, they are not.
>You will see many open source code projects that are under free to use licenses that in return doesn't produce any money for the developer. I'm perplexed that you think the existence of open source forks of existing technologies are somehow a refutation of the point, unless you somehow believe they constitute a meaningful portion of innovation, in which case you're just misinformed.
>How are the economic needs of the system responsible for motivating people becoming troons? I don't care to write a book on the process especially when there are a million you could read if you actually cared. In short, the weakening of gender socialization was downstream from requirements to make men and women more interchangeable in the labor pool - in order to expand it - and markets for various good. Deterritorialization further errodes social mores and codes which are barriers to commodification as time goes on. As the end of this is the collapse of gender socialization to such an extent that gender dysphoria is increasingly common.
>Soviet Russia Was in many areas state capitalist in organization, and was not able to innovate as broadly or consistently as the west regardless. Would you also like to advance China as a refutation?
It's pretty clear you've never read anything to do with any of this. I'll explain in more detail tomorrow if you're still shitposting, but I need to sleep.
Cameron Roberts
what a mess
Samuel Reed
Communist adjacent people in the US (Basically Gramsci inspired Neo-Marxists) have spear headed LGBT movements all the way back to the 60s’ before Liberal democracies championed those ideals, they are just as guilty of this consequence when they were inevitably absorbed when it failed to break outdated presupposed contradictions. That Heteronormative society doesn’t perpetuate Capitalism (Since it predates the industrial revolution much less the concept of abstract proprietorship, what drugs were they on?) but rather, as OP as stated above, homosexual exclusives have been economically assess and reconvened to serve global capital even better than heterosexual exclusives ever could and our elites took notice of this pretty early in the making. They started supporting LGBT adjacent human rights movements for 20 years now. The sudden change of heart comes from a position of practicality: No babies means the effortless conversion of traditional by-blood families into work-home secondary "professional" families. Better productivity and far less distraction. Moreover, they can't reproduce and they are reliant upon complex technological systems of capital to complete and maintain the illusion of transition. For this reason, you're witnessing the passing of capitalist/communist favor from homosexual exclusives to self-castrators.
>It's a positive if the externalities are counteracted. Under our current system, they are not. Renewable energy sources are getting more and more attention under capitalism. >I'm perplexed that you think the existence of open source forks of existing technologies are somehow a refutation of the point, unless you somehow believe they constitute a meaningful portion of innovation, in which case you're just misinformed. I never said forks of projects. Open source projects can be new entirely such as the Linux kernal which is licensed under GPL-2. The main drive for Linus, the creator of the Linux kernal, was not money, but was a hobby for fun to test his programming capabilities. >I don't care to write a book on the process especially when there are a million you could read if you actually cared. In short, the weakening of gender socialization was downstream from requirements to make men and women more interchangeable in the labor pool - in order to expand it - and markets for various good. Deterritorialization further errodes social mores and codes which are barriers to commodification as time goes on. As the end of this is the collapse of gender socialization to such an extent that gender dysphoria is increasingly common. Do you believe that under a different economic system the gender roles would NOT be interchangeable? Under communism in Soviet Russia women were given many jobs that men had before. Deterritorialization under any economic system, even authoritarian supported economic systems, is bound to take place. Measuring what economic system has greater deterritorialization would be difficult because capitalism reigns supreme in the current world and bribing example of the past wouldn't give it any justice since socially we are quite different. >Was in many areas state capitalist in organization, and was not able to innovate as broadly or consistently as the west regardless. Would you also like to advance China as a refutation? Oh brother your one of those clowns, "muh economic system was never truly practiced properly!". The economic system is not the only reason we technologically advance in this world. Of course I'm not gonna include modern day China because of obvious reasons.
Honestly I believe you are looking at the trees instead of the forest here. I believe your claim is weak and you want to derail and pick at my examples. Anyways, good night friend.
Ryan Carter
My theory is gay people should not be able to vote as they are not biologically programmed to further a nations interest, such as providing more people for the state.
Zachary Wright
>These problems you point out were for the purpose of argument, but they have no validity because you do not supply any solutions. So the validity of an argument depends on whether or not you have some sort of external "solution." ur retarded.
You seem to deny the deterioration of the family at all, whether a result of capitalism or not. I'm talking about across the entire United States at least, not your family where you go hiking with your parents. How do you see skyrocketing divorce rates, the normalization of "open relationships," the virtual nonexistence of multi-generational households (except among poor immigrants), the rising population of elderly that end up in skilled nursing or assisted living facilities, the absolute explosion of the black family resulting in something like 60%+ black childbirths to single mothers, the supplanting of traditional family roles (socialization, education) to the state, and the academic hostility to the family as an outmoded, authoritarian, and patriarchal institution and still believe that the family as an institution is as strong as it's ever been? What is your explanation for these things and what is your refutation of my explanation aside from "ur just crying about a nothing burger and you personally believe capitalism affects families lol"?
Hop off the dick of capitalism for a second and use your head
Samuel Ross
True, they are agents of modernity and cosmopolitan natured who hold little to no ethical loyalty but to the ones who subsidize them. Their abomination of an existence can only be supported by hyper metropolitan anonymity and government mandated support. Excluding them out of political power (whenever that would be voting) and purging the powerful people who fund them will lead to very little consequences because of how demographically irrelevant they are at the moment.
Kayden Anderson
Your criticism has NO value to me or anyone if they do not have a solution. How is this hard to understand? I don't give a shit about your utopia that will never take place outside of your empty fucking brain. I guess whining is easier than bringing up actual solutions. How can you so easily blame social family issues on capitalism. I'm not gonna break down everyone of those social issues because I don't need to. Some of which, such as authoritarian and patriarchal institutions, are your own beliefs that supposedly measures how strong a family is. These are not simply a capitalism problem. I know it is easy to say it is because capitalism seems to be the only long running functional economic system that we have seen evolve and it's people change overtime. This is fucking reaching beyond and being so broad as to blame your family problems on capitalism is just pathetic.
Zachary Wood
>How can you so easily blame social family issues on capitalism. I'm not gonna break down everyone of those social issues because I don't need to Then break down this one for me, for the sake of argument: >Capitalism has been eroding the fabric of the family since it essentially necessitated the transfer of workers from the family productive activity (agriculture, crafting, artisanry, etc) to the factory, or from the town and village to the city. As only one example.
>Some of which, such as authoritarian and patriarchal institutions, ---are your own beliefs--- that supposedly measures how strong a family is. It's not my belief. Read more carefully.
Juan Watson
Homosexuals do not serve global capital better, because they do not reproduce and therefore do not perpetuate the system. They are probably more prone to be consumers rather than savers, but it's a short term game with fags.
Justin Ward
Damn??? How did I miss the 2138592290 other threads!?!?!?
Jackson Long
Hey. My "write what's on your mind" thread got pruned or deleted. Is this supposed to be it's spiritual successor? Is this where I write what's on my mind.
But the consumer market can expand without the need for marriage (children out of wedlock), a more fundamentally without domestic population expansion at all (economic immigration from other countries). Further, exclusive homosexuals are potentially superior laborers in a capital system because they don't form relationships which potentially culminate in a family of dependents. This is one of the reasons global capital has supported the popularity of homosexual exclusivity for nearly twenty years now. Of course these days, transsexuals (better called "self castrators") offer even more benefits than homosexuals to systems of global capital: they can't reproduce and they are reliant upon complex technological systems of capital to complete and maintain the illusion of transition. For this reason, you're witnessing the passing of capitalist favor from homosexual exclusives to self-castrators.
Unironically both Train and XQC are more intelligent than they give off.and no before you ask I never subscribed do them or have them money. It’s just my observation
Tyler Davis
I never denied that deterioration of family exists. Deterioration of families happened long before major capitalist countries popped up. Now onto your example: >Capitalism has been eroding the fabric of the family since it essentially necessitated the transfer of workers from the family productive activity (agriculture, crafting, artisanry, etc) to the factory, or from the town and village to the city I am guessing that you mean an example family that has some family members working at a factory and not a generalization of the role capitalism plays in a family because not all people living under capitalism works at a factory. Anyways, this is your belief of family deteriorating, and not working on "family productive activities". While the factory could be supporting the "family productive activities" by supplying the son of the family with money to buy better tools for these family activities. The factory working can actually help with "family productive activities", I wouldn't call this "eroding the fabric of family". Eroding the fabric of family would be the soviet russian communists outright killing farmers, usually the fathers of families, because they believe they were greedy.
Adam Torres
Oh also I'm going to bed so won't be able to respond till the morning.
Andrew Powell
>I am guessing that you mean an example family that has some family members working at a factory and not a generalization of the role capitalism plays in a family because not all people living under capitalism works at a factory. I am referring to the historic movement of people from towns and villages into cities following the process of industrialization, as it became less and less viable to live life as had been traditional up to that point. As locally manufactured items (ie the items produced by the town blacksmith/clothier/butcher/grocer/etc/etc/etc/etc) became less competitive and were out-priced by industrialized firms, the prospect of earning a living following in the family business or providing a new good or service or apprenticing an existing good or service in the local or otherwise nearby community became more bleak; the larger business could provide the same good or service for much cheaper. Hence, the economic opportunities in the towns and villages dried up. People seeking work moved to cities where industrial jobs were readily available.
It is my contention that individuals so distanced from their families became unable to as readily rely on them as institutions that could provide the typical functions families provide. As there existed no other similar institution in the city (with the possible exception of the church), this likely resulted in a non-economic burden being placed on the individual (as the result of the economic organization), and also resulted in the fracturing of the family institution by virtue of mere non-proximity at the very least.
But at this point I'm drunk and rambling. If you want to read about the destruction of the family institution for reasons both economic (capitalist) and non-economic, look at Christopher Lasch's Haven in a Heartless World.
