Have you heard of Jean-Claude Michéa (a little bit like Guy Debord and Chirstopher Lasch)? He is a french communist who says that social liberals are the foot soldiers of capitalism to conquer our bodies. The idea is that under the pretense of greater emancipation for identity minorities (gay, trans, whatever new flavor is trending) the very PC "struggle" for "equal rights" is just another dissimulated attempt to push further the boundaries of the market, allowing bellies to be rented to bear babies, allowing the "individual-king" to fulfill its every desires and so on and so forth.
In the same book, while he is doesn't condone traditionalism, he says that if not perfect, traditionalism was a dam against the forces of market by upholding "the sacred".
But, he talks a lot about Christopher Lasch and George Orwell's political writing (most notably on "common decency"), and Pierre Leroux (an XIXth century french socialist) and Charles Péguy so that might interest you.
I think Michéa is going to be translated soon because while he was crucified when he published his research and essays by the parisian intellectual scene (almost a decade ago) he is getting very popular now in light of the recent developments of what happened in the US and the increasingly radical "PC culture" that dominates cultural/women studies.
In most parisian bookshops, his books are now on the same tables as Bourdieu's and Chomsky so that's a sign (imo) that he is getting popular.
Gabriel Hill
so what does he want
Benjamin Wood
So basically traditionalism might not be perfect, but it's still the best thing we have?
Evan Gonzalez
Seems its time to put my ouiabou in practice Donnes moi un pdf
Ian Rodriguez
I haven't heard of Michéa, but if the OP got the gist of him right, I guess I agree with him.
Allow me to make this long-ass statement that may look off-topic at first: Why don't we as individuals perform all the services we need and create all the products we use ourselves? This isn't simply because of evil capitalism. It isn't technically feasible. There are economies of scale when something is mass-produced, this isn't an illusion due to crazy capitalist ideology throwing away all considerations about externalities (well, a good chunk of it is, but not all). If you don't like to measure this productivity increase due to big-scale production in terms of money, you can also look at it in other terms, work-time, some other resource inputs. Plenty of what we now mass-produce we will still mass-produce in the future, instead of everything being unique and done by crafty artisans.
Now, it is usually more satisfying to produce things and provide services directly for yourself or people you know and care about. I want a society where a bigger fraction of my time goes to that, but economies of scale are a powerful reason against doing everything like that.
However, big effects due to economies of scale do not exist for every product and service in the world. They do not exist for sex. Why does the modern Brit/murican "feminist" and "lefty" scene have a big pro-prostitution current? That's capitalist alienation without the benefits.
he's an idiot who seem to think that capitalism is the result of social liberals instead of the opposite.
same as retarded Holla Forumsype think that they can have free market without globalization and immigration.
Evan Gonzalez
Retarded stirnerites detected. OP doesn't say that you should fight globalism with traditionalism, but states the historical fact that it "was a dam against the forces of market." OP doesn't say that the "sacred" (that is, socially distinguished practices) are cool, either.
Justin Foster
traditionalism is worse, than forces of market.
James Brown
Kind of reminds me of Thiriart or Benoist.
Dominic Ramirez
and then: Next time you link a 20000-word salad, be more specific. About 10 % of the text is about Michéa. So, here is what it says about him (I haven't read anything by him, so I can't vouch for the accuracy: 1. Michéa acknowledges that there was a historical phase when liberalism was progressive. 2. He claims both liberals and Marx failed to take into account ecological limits to economic growth. 3. He is annoyed by vegans, fat people (how many fat vegans does he know though?), gay culture, drug culture. 4. He even likes the family. Michéa, the conservative anarchist, likes reciprocity and sharing and stuff and sees that as coming from traditional structures that are older than capitalism, like the family. Comment by the author: That was a blog post with 288 footnotes, and you, sir, are a cunt.
Brayden Wright
What an absurd statement, traditionalism is simply the upholding of customs and meaning which have allowed a society to thrive/survive and form a unique character.
There is nothing inherently wrong with traditions. Granted, some of them are oppressive to categories of individuals but keep in mind that they form in reaction to environment and randomness. It remains to be proven that 1/ alternative social protocols where available at the time and within the context these specific "oppressive" traditions appeared" 2/ they can be undone without creating a greater oppressive reaction down the road 3/ they aren't necessary conditions to human development (after all, we are sitting on the shoulders of giants here)
I think it is incredibly misguided to see traditions as a teleological evil which mean and end is the oppression of people. In my opinion, these are corollaries triggered by externalities over which members of a given society have no control.
Andrew Hill
lol are you trying to make it sound ridiculous
Brandon Butler
*sniff*
Jacob Turner
...
Jackson Gutierrez
Sounds like a twat. Gays are not somehow the lynchpin holding modem capitalism together.
Logan Thomas
So the "non-conservatives" unleashed capitalism uh..
What do conservatives could be said to conserve if not traditions?
