How does one stop capitalism from wiping out entire cultures and traditions...

How does one stop capitalism from wiping out entire cultures and traditions? Such anti-civilizational force is unprecedented in history. Never before has existed such a powerful machine that turned so many distinct identities into a single one. For the first time in history we have an entire world uniformed as a single consumerist hellhole, filled to brim with mindless drones working, buying, spending, consuming, and not much more. No deeper meaning, no endgame, no goal. Just the simple instinct of a parasite, logic of a cancerous tumor: expand and grow just for the sake of growth. We are all already living in a dystopian nightmare and it will only be worse. A world filled with humans, billions of them, but humanness is nowhere to be found.

Other urls found in this thread:

The answer is simple; an international socialist revolution. After that point, people will be able to carry on traditions and religions freely, because without this globalizing force that destroys such things through commodification, it will simply be up to the people to decide what they want to believe and what traditions they want to carry on. The only thing that will have to end are capitalist traditions which have no place in the socialist world anyways.

Bring back footbinding!

This, socialism is the only means by which decentralization is possible, whether it's ☭TANKIE☭ or anarchist

You have lots to learn

Pick one.

It is a physical impossibility to "save" cultures and traditions, as they are not even static entities to begin with. Cultures bleed out into others and intermingle, and develop in accord to the material reality around it.

Why don't you just stay capitalist then? You havs nothing to lose except your pride.

While that may be true in traditional examples of culture, the Americanization of the world brings a toll on other cultures even ones far detached from America.

1. Fuck spooks
2. "Culture and tradition" arise out of material conditions and once those material conditions no longer support them they're no longer "culture and tradition" but pantomime Disneyland bullshit. You'd have better luck ordering the sea not to come in.

The fact remains, unless you're dirt poor and have no home, why do you complain about capitalism at all? To you, socialism is about as spooky as god is. You have nothing to gain from socialism from a non-spooked perspective, so why aren't you content sucking bourgeoisie dick for a living?

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your stupid question. Could you possibly phrase it less idiotically?

Effectively ancom will smash every community into a cultureless wasteland where everyone is interchangable and anyone can be in any community anywhere

Christ. Purge this petite bourgeois filth.
There is plenty of culture nowadays. If you don't want consumerist trash, don't consume it or seek it out.
Make your own art, organize your own events, learn an instrument, go cook with your friends, go take a hike.
If you need mass media to give you a purpose in life you are beyond salvation.

Any attempt to revive dead traditions absent their context just results in tasteless kitsch. Even before capitalism as a dominant mode of production cultures were constantly evolving and changing. You don't like the dominant culture? Create your own.


Yeah man, culture is when you go do things on your own devoid of society.


Cultures have been replaced with subcultures, which are being replaced by sub-subcultures.

Culture of the Ego > Culture of the Sheeple


A good example that I found that highlights capitalism cultural destructive tendencies is in languages. The Occitan and Bretton languages in France and Irish in Ireland have suffered far greater diminution in total numbers of speakers in the recent "free" 50 years than in the 19th century when the French and British governments were actively suppressing these languages in schools and legally persecuting people who spoke them in public.


There is nothing against Ego taking part in a society of other people you ignorant tool. There is no such thing a culture of an individual person, that's just habits.


How much are you guys willing to bet that all the anti culture posting is by american?
Or blackflags, but they are so retarded that it doesn't even matter

Why bother asking it with superfluous words in it?

All hierarchical traditions ultimately need to end, not just the ones created by capitalism.

I agree with that quote.

I'm a left wing nationalist like many Latin American socialist seem to be. Western socialists seem to be internationalist and anti-tradition.

I think left wing nationalism is the way.

Nativism and autarky.

The same values that guided Thomas Sankara, he encouraged people to make and buy national products. They achieved agricultural self sufficiency in under 4 years.

Economic Nationalism seems to be a dirty concept amongst western Socialists. For a reason unclear to me.

I also think that we need to engage in non partisan campaigning against intellectual property rights, to break the legal monopoly.

When good and medicines can be produced by anyone with the capability, it will radically drive down cost. It will also lessen the necessity for aggressive marketing campaigns. And seeing as the marketing industry shapes culture, that will help stop capitalism from destroying cultures.

You are Kim Jong-Il and I claim my five pounds.

Because economic nationalism is two steps removed from imperialism.

Not that I care about these things, but the only way to stop capital doing anything is to abolish it. Otherwise it will do what it will do until it has commodified all. The answer is always socialism.



It's not American but Anglosaxon. Even French ruler like Robert I. who invented Anglosaxon finance system already iniated culture clashs. Anglosaxon culture depends wars since it exploits humans and nature.
The struggle for ressources drives it to see other clans as enemies. Anglosaxon culture extends it ecological niche to the whole universe. Quick reminder by that being said also the Austrian Habsurger dynasty are counted as Anglosaxons.

In order to get rid of this threat to diversity and human freedom. But there is hope in this world. Just don't wait for revolution. Evolve into the most humanistic and elated being you can be.

And cultural practices transform material conditions. Don't be a naive materialist and transcend your dialectic conception.

Second that. The world without hierarchical structures are abolished

Left philosophy claims egalitarian values and is thereby universalistic, hence cosmopolitic. Globalization and ecologigcal phenomena like climate change also require global regulation. For this reason, global governance is needed.

Next people will want to go back to feudalism because muh capitalism destroys cultures. "Leftist" reactionaries I swear.

Absolutely this.

When will you guys realize a hierarchical structure is vital to the strength of a society as a whole?

Why is it so hard to accept that? We are still humans. We still have human needs,wants, desires etc. Humans succeed best in hierarchical systems, sense the dawn of man.

What advantages does hierachy offer as opposed to anarchy? You can do better than muh human nature and is implies ought ffs.

Hierarchical are simply more organized.

and why must you scoff at human nature? I'm sorry, I didn't realize you where somehow above human nature? Are you somehow able to escape your only realm of existence?

I explicitly talked about seeking out others to do stuff with.

Better yet: Why is hierarchy by definition undesirable, and why is equality desirable?

And what benefits do anarchy provide? Unless you suggest we all go live in our own bubble, we're going to have to come to some joint agreement, if only about how to manage the commons.
The need to manage the environment is actually one of the biggest arguments against anarchy. Unless you want Ancap Mining Inc. to dump heavy metals into your water supply, or put carcinogen emitting smoke stacks next to where you live with your family.
Until that time were we live in boundless post-scarcity and are completely independent from everyone and everything around us, social structures of some sort are inevitable.

Why? Why can't workers communicate with each other instead of going through a useless do-nothing middleman? Seems more efficient and therefore more organized to cut out the fat. Put that do-nothing to work.
Better get off the internet. The internet is only a few decades old so human nature isn't used to it. You wouldn't want to be unnatural would you?

What a fucking idiot

Easy, because they realize they cant prosper desirably under a hierarchical structure.

I don't think you know the difference between hierarchy and organization. Organizations don't need gods or masters.

Fuck that image makes me sad. Vietnam and Japan were on par economically for a very long time. Japan now is a global power and Vietnam is a hellhole. The only difference between them was one was a victim of colonialism and imperialism, and the other wasn't. All of the third world could have been beautiful.

I fucking hate white people now.

And what does organization lead to…?
What if a small group decides to hoard all the resources? What happens if the 51% decides to seize the personal property of the 49%, or simply override their opinion?
Even "free associations" develop power elites and hierarchies over time. In fact, those that shout the loudest that there is no structure or hierarchy tends to form the most secretive, unaccountable and tyrannical of elites.

Read The Tyranny of Structurelessness.


So your argument against anarchy is that tyranny of a majority might happen. And your argument for hierarchy is that… tyranny of a minority will happen? Really gets the ticker tickin.

Yes….. Yes…. thats the only difference between the two that could have led them to their current economic state.

Thats right…. shift the blame. Refuse to take personal responsibility, your faults arent because of yoooou!

its like im imagining you rubbing your hands together as you larp as the eternal joo, get out

Theres your problem. Is this something that needs to be explained?

I'm specifically talking about structures humans succeed best in after 2+million years of selective pressure. your argument was half-assed, lame, and doesn't pertain to topic.

Not really. I'm more challenging the (frequently) made argument that "anarchy" would result in less tyranny. I don't think anarchy is desirable or undesirable per se. Just that it will (d)evolve into hierarchical power structures over time anyway if you inflate the number of relations involved.

Actually no. I don't make any argument for or against hierarchy. In fact, I believe the whole point to be moot. I argue for it's inevitability. The question then becomes how to mitigate and prevent the undesirable elements that emerge within it, or at least minimize it to the maximum possible extend.

Two examples in one post. One in which a majority overrides the will of a (sizable) minority, the other in which a (secretive) elite acts in their own self-interest.

Only real answer is to make sure political process is democratic and transparent, keep politicians beholden to voters.

The larger your society gets, the more need you would have for it. Not just in government, but in almost all aspects of society.

4.6 billion years of selective pressure makes humans naturally hunter-gatherers/eating whatever we can get. Better throw out agriculture.

Democracy is the whole problem. Popular democracy gravitates towards populists and unaccountable charlatans preaching to the lowest common denominator. It's the debasement of politics, not it's apex. It reduces the Res Publica to an arena of spectacle. The whole 20th and early 21st centuries stand in testimony to that fact.
We could do with less democracy. Not more.

And why would they be? When they don't live where their voters do? When they have no stake in the game? When they can expect lobbyists and subsidies to bankroll their campaigns no matter what?
In terms of effectiveness it's better to leave governing to local communities. Higher positions of authority are better left to figures that aren't beholden to the constantly swaying moods and appetites of the masses.

In terms of accountability pre-modern rulers had more to fear from their populations than modern ones. Popular democracy breeds complacency where pre-modern societies would have reached for the gun, dagger or the sword.
The answer to tyranny is tyrannicide, not democracy.

monarchists are the apex ideologues

You're missing my argument completely. I was hoping to actually argue with you about the role of a hierarchical system but we cant even get past the idea that's its good (OR could be needed) in society.

Stop strawmaning everything. Its obvious you don't appeal to nature with every idea on earth.


Stop scoffing at human nature and throw out your internets and doritos thanks.


You say not to appeal to nature with every idea on earth, yet you appeal to nature where it's convenient for you and insult when someone scoffs you for it? Not really any point trying to have real dialogue when we're just shitflinging at each other like the apes we are. See: human nature some millions of years ago.

I don't agree with an appeal to nature when its convenient for me. I agree with an appeal to nature where it makes logical sense.

National Socialism is not socialist. I would have thought people here would know that.

I linked to an article on intellectual property rights, which talks about the philosophical and utilitarian arguments for no property rights. It adds to the case against intellectual property rights.

I don't believe in echo chambers and purity spiralling, because IME it leads to 'intellectual ghettos'.

The problem is, the natural capital and capital is different from country to country. Universal policies are not pratical.

Bad Samaritans By Ha Joon Chang is a good book arguing against universal economic policies (though it's core argument is against neoliberalism).

Or autarky and green tech.

And how is it that we can evolve from hunter-gatherers to agriculture or internetless to internets as it becomes more convenient to do so. But given the means of production of our current time being more convenient under anarchy than hierarchy we need to stop? Especially with tools of mass communication like the internet and tools of mass production like agriculture and factories we're capable of transfering to anarchy quite easily but noooo, you say we can't because different people in different situations in the past did something more convenient to them so we have to obey that archaic tradition even if it's worse for us.



It seems as if you have this idea that progress must always be evolving in some sort of way. Its almost as if you believe something current must be replaced with something else. And that forever going forward, we must constantly be replacing these systems.

I think your error of thinking comes from the fact that progress works best under These systems.They have been tested and put in the primary place for a reason: They work.

You know the age old saying: If it aint broke why fix it?

Hoo boy you must be new here. There was a saying we used to have back on 4chan in the good old days: lurk moar.

I'm making an argument for hierarchical structures in society.

I'm cringing.

Your argument is the classic is implies ought fallacy. In the eternal words of Stefan Molyneux: not an argument
Like I give a shit about the opinions of someone who uses logical fallacies as arguments and won't learn a place's culture before trying to preach at it.

I don't think you're following along very well. You're kinda all over the place.

Yes massuh I'll follow you wherever you lead me almighty hierarchy god just because you told me so.