This is not twitter, stop spamming your crap like that

>>83270722
hahaha go to Cuba or North Korea and see what "real love" is like

>>83270783
I've never seen this posted here

>>83270787
Cuba is not traditional. It's a degenerate hell hole. North Korea is based though, wish I could go there someday. TKD Kim!

>>83270814
Cuba is literally a bronze age command economy empire, can't get more traditional than that.

>>83270722
It's not that deep, it's only a part of a much larger picture.

>>83270851
There's plenty or private businesses and foreign investments, and they're very much industrial. They're also very accepting of LGBT and use the internet a lot. As opposed to Best Korea who is very racist, homophobic and agrarian.

>>83270864
So it's deeper?

>>83270787
cuba is much better of than they would be if communism never happened, and nk is the best country on earth (thats why the great satan puts so much effort into demonizing it)

>>83270926
>So it's deeper?
It says some of what is happening but it doesn't really mention the methods they use to make it happen.

>>83270722
Except this is false, and the materialistic nature of human relationships is something described as early as
Socrates and all up through now.
>For mankind censure injustice, fearing that they may be the victims of it and not because they shrink from committing it. And thus, as I have shown, Socrates, injustice, when on a sufficient scale, has more strength and freedom and mastery than justice; and, as I said at first, justice is the interest of the stronger, whereas injustice is a man's own profit and interest.
This from the first book of the Republic of Plato, in which the relations of men in the State (particularly contracts public and private) are discussed, with Thrasymachus arguing the above point to explain the view of human justice (which includes transactionality in relationships) against Socrates. What makes men not abuse each other constantly isn't "love" or "friendship" but the need to preserve an order for the general public, out of fear that they will be abused; this is elaborated on in Gorgias:
>The reason, as I conceive, is that the makers of laws are the majority who are weak; and they make laws and distribute praises and censures with a view to themselves and to their own interests; and they terrify the stronger sort of men, and those who are able to get the better of them, in order that they may not get the better of them; and they say, that dishonesty is shameful and unjust; meaning, by the word injustice, the desire of a man to have more than his neighbours; for knowing their own inferiority, I suspect that they are too glad of equality.
From Callicles, who again takes a position against Socrates.

File: suche.png (916 KB, 1425x1070)

916 KB PNG

>>83270722
Humans have acknowledged this for a very long time, and it neither arose with capitalism nor became prevalent with it, only the rhetoric surrounding how humans SHOULD behave has changed.

For instance, the Christians espoused a unique ideal of "agape" a sort of love that asks nothing in return at all. The fact that Christians thought it necessary to devise this meaning for the verb and to further popularize it shows that it was, at the very least, not prevalent before the rise of Christianity. Now for fear of being called a cherry-picker, I raise this quotation (pic related) based on Laozi:
>Heaven and earth do not act from any wish to be benevolent; they deal with all things as the dogs of grass are dealt with. The sages do not act from (any wish to be) benevolent; they deal with the people as the dogs of grass are dealt with.
Which is the idea that human beings are functional, and one's dealings with them are transactional. Thinkers like Confucius (who Zhuangzi argues against):
>"Before the straw dog has been offered in sacrifice," replied Shih Chin, "it is kept in a box, wrapped up in an embroidered cloth, and the augur fasts before using it. But when it has once been offered up, passers-by trample over its body, and fuel-gatherers pick it up for burning. Then, if any one should take it, and again putting it in a box and wrapping it up in an embroidered cloth, watch and sleep alongside, he would not only dream, but have nightmare into the bargain.
push their ethics of how relationships should be structured but not relationships as they are.

Now before you reply, I will make clear my only points:
>1. Relationships were transactional before capitalism.
>2. Capitalism did not make relations transactional.
>3. There is substantial evidence of transactionality prior to capitalism.
Your refutation must prove that the reverse is true. I am also not a capitalist, rather I very clearly prefer Marxism, but I am not keen on things which are not true.

>>83270722
>>83271148
>>83271166
(Note that the quote is not from Confucius but Zhuangzi, which wasn't clear.)
These quotations were chosen due to their very old origins, but I could raise examples of dowry, arranged marriages, war brides, etc... from all points of history and from many texts. This is not particularly relevant. Now for exceptions: Relations being inherently transactional does not mean that no interaction is ever selfless. There are obvious cases of charity and self-sacrifice, but these were not the norm then and not the norm post-capitalism.

A greater critique of Capitalism is that it is inherently liberal, and the liberal nature of "freedom of association" (and similar) is what increases the transactionality of relationships by creating a very large selection of potential relationships that one can exploit (and the freedom to do so). When people are not free to choose their relationships, this does not eliminate, but reduces, the transactional components of relations. When people are free to choose who they form relations with, it is a general rule that they will form them with those who are more beneficial.

Really the problem you are witnessing is that of unrestrained social liberality, which is concurrent with capitalism, and which capitalism necessarily supports.

>>83271148
>>83271166
>>83271276
I'm sorry but I don't see how that refutes the picrel lol. I don't think it's saying that transactional relationships didn't exist before, but that love for example was put on a pedestal (with courtly love for example). But that doesn't mean many people didn't see it as a transaction.
Capitalism just made it the default option by turning every interaction into systems of consumption and choice.

>>83270722
holy fucking cope
>pre-capitalist love
I wish we could go back a couple hundred years and ask men in the middle ages what they thought of women and their alleged affection towards men. What an absolute fucking joke.

>>83271452
Because capitalism did not break down human compassion. Capitalism is not what made people obsessed with money, wealth, and power. Capitalism is not what led to what the OP describes as a "social war" where people put their interests above others. If the only point of the post is social attitudes rather than any of the various unsubstantied claims in it, then it doesn't say anything worth refuting, I only refuted the claims made. Nevertheless, whether people espoused a standard of ethics or not doesn't really matter when the reality of how relationships were and are formed is very different. For instance, most people in a capitalist society still espouse that relationships are about true love and meaning and other nonsense while they look for very material criteria. But there is a kernel of truth in the observation in the image, that in the past there was a fundamental difference between how people perceived love and how it is perceived now. In that respect, it is not entirely false.

>>83271468
>People in the middle ages were just as cynical as us guys

>>83270926
>cuba
>accepting of LGBT
lol. lmao.

>>83271512
probably even more so

>>83271510
>Because capitalism did not break down human compassion. Capitalism is not what made people obsessed with money, wealth, and power.
Capitalism institionalizes and ideologizes the obsession with consuming and wasting wealth as the defining feature of modern civilization. It converts wealth and virtue into a synthesis where power and money are promoted and celebrated.
The result is fairly obvious I think. I don't think the picrel is saying capitalism *created* that notion but that it's actively promoting it.

File: trotsky negro.png (1.6 MB, 1920x1080)

1.6 MB PNG

>>83270722
>dude capitalism bad
but things were trad and wholesome under capitalism, it was only after new deal progressivism that we became a poz'd hellscape who manage to be miserable despite modern technology and prosperity (developed by capitalist white men)

it is not capitalism that led to a breakdown in trad values, it is rather a later development caused by progressives and socialists, they in fact had it all planned from the beginning as this trotsky (jude) quote proves

>>83271547
Not true. Huizinga's book on the medieval mindset is very good

>>83271561
The guy in the post actually talks about new capitalism being pushed by Trotskyists in the same thread. So he'd probably agree, and it may have been what he was talking about.

File: bdde11c538028f0635fb771dd(...).jpg (136 KB, 1057x724)

136 KB JPG

>>83270722
People dehumanized each other since ancient tribal times. It's human nature to find something to sacrifice fellows to
It's easy to overcome but consciously people prefer to be pieces of trash

>>83271468
This. You young fags really really need to get it through your heads your idealistic anime love romance has never existed. Its a male fantasy from fiction. All that's changed in modern times is we put women permanently in the workforce and let them engage in politics. Females have always been like this and will only act monogamous and loyal out of threat of social damnation and shaming or death. That's why religions pushed their rules so hard and made up hell and sins. It literally was just men trying to keep women from being whores and trying to get them to raise their children right for a harmonious society. The Muslims are right to demand virgins and to stone whores. Keeping women in line might be what leads them to slowly conquer western nations from the inside out.

>>83271593
People at least had the decency to pretend back then however. Now you can't even be friends with someone for more than two weeks.

>>83271547
Well in his defence, while it wasn't that everyone was a peppy optimist, it's very reasonable that pre-Enlightenment peasants had a much more earnestly Christian view of love and relationships.
>>83271555
"Fairly obvious" is not an argument, though. I have told you the facts, I am not looking for an opinion. Intense war, slavery, strife, and social wars over class have always existed. Wealth for instance has essentially always been considered a virtue, and here is Plato quoted:
>SOCRATES: Then let us see whether what you say is true from another point of view; for very likely you may be right:--You affirm virtue to be the power of attaining goods?
>MENO: Yes.
>SOCRATES: And the goods which you mean are such as health and wealth and the possession of gold and silver, and having office and honour in the state--those are what you would call goods?
>MENO: Yes, I should include all those.

Now if your only point is that capitalism affects society in some way and we could argue that it encourages commodification in some way, then there would little be little else to be said besides
>Probably.
But wealth has always been considered a good and men have always viciously fought for wealth and power and considered both to be virtues.

>>83271555
Compare this to Aristotle by the way:
>If then a government of many, and all of them good men, compose an aristocracy, and the government of one a kingly power, it is evident that the people should rather choose the first than the last; and this whether the state is powerful or not, if many such persons so alike can be met with: and for this reason probable it was, that the first governments were generally monarchies; because it was difficult to find a number of persons eminently virtuous, more particularly as the world was then divided into small communities; besides, kings were appointed in return for the benefits they had conferred on mankind; but such actions are peculiar to good men: but when many persons equal in virtue appeared at the time, they brooked not a superiority, but sought after an equality and established a free state; but after this, when they degenerated, they made a property of the public; which probably gave rise to oligarchies; for they made wealth meritorious, and the honours of government were reserved for the rich: and these afterwards turned to tyrannies and these in their turn gave rise to democracies; for the power of the tyrants continually decreasing, on account of their rapacious avarice, the people grew powerful enough to frame and establish democracies: and as cities after that happened to increase, probably it was not easy for them to be under any other government than a democracy.
Who makes an observation that is very similar to Plato's about the stages of democracy and the way people see wealth in a liberal society.

>>83271658
"Fairly obvious" was just me asking you to put 2 and 2 together anon. The result is the increase of what we've been talking about.

>Wealth for instance has essentially always been considered a virtue, and here is Plato quoted
Rich man? Eye of a needle? How is Plato representative of all western values throughout the ages when Christianity has obviously had a much bigger impact?

>>83271555
>>83271658
>>83271691
And to specify on the Meno quote, there is a distinction between good and virtue, which I believe you already implicitly understand. In a capitalist society, wealth is good, and the ability and process of attaining a "virtue." We distinguish today the separation between wealth as an object, a good, and being a wealthy person as virtuous. And there are many capitalists who consider rich terrible people not to be virtuous on account of wealth; the two are different. Capitalism really in this sense valorizes the accumulation of capital, which has always been the case.

>>83271746
>Rich man? Eye of a needle? How is Plato representative of all western values throughout the ages when Christianity has obviously had a much bigger impact?
Those were not Plato's views, those were the alleged views of Callicles, Thrasymachus, and Meno. Plato was refuting the common materialistic views of society with his own moral prescription, but this does not mean relations weren't transactional regardless of how people saw them.

For example, Christian societies still practiced economic marriages, wars for resources, etc., this is not going to be a point you can refute.

AAAH I'M DEBOONKING AAH
It is actually people in modern times who are especially obsessed with romantic love. In many societies of the past, being in love was just this funny thing that teenagers did. It was not necessarily something to strive for nor expected past a certain age, especially for grown men. In fact a lot of cultures thought that it was kind of pathetic and womanly for a man to be in love with his wife, unless he was still very young and therefore immature. In East Asian cultures the manliest man was one that didn't give a shit about any women, not even his own wife whom he only saw as a baby incubator for producing male heirs.

These cultures might still have to some degree romanticized the idea of being madly in love, but even then it was seen as something dangerous and not as something to aspire to, almost as akin to tragedy.

>>83271779
Yes but these weren't virtues? Wars were much smaller in scale and damage under Christian Europe because they had to follow certain rules. A war was considered just by the Church only if:
-Every means to avoid it had been tried
- If the result in terms of moral "good" is much better than how the situation was initially
- If the goal is for the greater good and not for some secret selfish goal
- If the war is limited (NO total war)

A degree of pragmatism always had to be applied because not all rulers were benevolent or agreed on what the steps taken should be

>>83271828
Wasn't modern Romantic "love" (flowers, poems, rings, courtship) created by poets in the 18th century?

>>83271828
Well I only about the west so maybe you're right about East Asians. One more proof that we are the most sovlfvl people on earth

File: 1749472559703x.gif (1.93 MB, 722x480)

1.93 MB GIF

>I can't get laid because I have to CONSOOOME

>>83271838
I am not talking about how people perceive such and such like "love." Can you stay on track? Here is my post where I explain my position: >>83271166
>1. Relationships were transactional before capitalism.
>2. Capitalism did not make relations transactional.
>3. There is substantial evidence of transactionality prior to capitalism.
Whether historical societies perceived love to be an ultimate aim does not matter. Whether people in a capitalist society believe things like "happiness" or "equality" are virtues does not matter. We are discussing how things were in practice, and this argument:
>Wars were much smaller in scale and damage under Christian Europe because they had to follow certain rules. A war was considered just by the Church only if:
Neither has substance nor refutes the claim. Even today people make the same rationalizations about what makes a war just or unjust, the practice is very different.

>>83270722
I'm not reading all of that. If you can't paraphrase your own thoughts you're a midwit.

>>83271869
Half of medieval literature is just dude A doing crazy shit just for lady B to notice him

>>83271896
Sounds very transactional.

>>83271885
I already responded to that. I am talking about what virtues the people in power are pushing and how it affects modern societies. The scale of war is one very obvious example. It is the consequence of the systemic breakdown of traditional western European values

>>83271910
>Love me and I will love you
Seems like a good deal to me

>>83270722
it's not capitalism you retards, it's liberalism. hierarchy and dominance have always been characteristics of civilisations. it's only when those who benefit from those hierachies become woke and corrupt that they should be killed and overthrown

>>83270722
Stopped reading after the first sentence because it's retarded

>>83271984
Hierarchy and dominance couldn't always have been achieved through hard work though. People had a role to play in society and they were expected to accept it, not endlessly grind for selfish goals.
It's why that kind of shit is only compatible with Protestanism and Judaism in the West.

>>83271942
>The scale of war is one very obvious example. It is the consequence of the systemic breakdown of traditional western European values
That is an opinion, not a fact. But that there was less war is false, and that the ability to sustain such massive long distance wars became greater with industrial society is true. The weaponry and logistics of modern society contributes to the scale of war.

As for war in Christian Europe, there was a lot of it. Still, this does not alter the fact that the practice of how people acted in relation to each other remained transactional. Regardless of the truth value of this particular statement, it does not benefit the OP image, so it is both irrelevant and false (attributing the scale of war solely to the breakdown of "traditional values" moves it from the domain of opinion to an assertion of fact, in this case false).

>I am talking about what virtues the people in power are pushing and how it affects modern societies
This is more properly the point of your post, but again these ideals are not unique to capitalism in any way. Severe and intense wars and genocides for material gain have always been a thing, and societies for as long as recorded history have valorized war and considered wealth and its attainment a virtue.

The degree to which capitalism affects social attitudes is debatable, but as I said:
>if your only point is that capitalism affects society in some way and we could argue that it encourages commodification in some way, then there would little be little else to be said besides
>Probably.
>But wealth has always been considered a good and men have always viciously fought for wealth and power and considered both to be virtues.
Whether periods of Christian rule affected the verbalized social attitude towards wealth does not change the fact that people still strived to attain it, that wars were fought for it, and that peasants would later rebel over it.

>>83272050
>>83272073
>So, after all, there was not one kind of Strife alone, but all over the earth there are two. As for the one, a man would praise her when he came to understand her; but the other is blameworthy: and they are wholly different in nature. For one fosters evil war and battle, being cruel: her no man loves; but perforce, through the will of the deathless gods, men pay harsh Strife her honour due. But the other is the elder daughter of dark Night, and the son of Cronos who sits above and dwells in the aether, set her in the roots of the earth: and she is far kinder to men. She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbour, a rich man who hastens to plough and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbour vies with his neighbour as he hurries after wealth. This Strife is wholesome for men. And potter is angry with potter, and craftsman with craftsman, and beggar is jealous of beggar, and minstrel of minstrel.
Hesiod, roughly 700BC.

>>83272050
>People had a role to play in society and they were expected to accept it, not endlessly grind for selfish goals.
so collective competition against other collectives? fine, still not egalitarian flower child nonsense

>>83272104
It's also a hint that this was not capitalism, but the force of liberality (people's freedom to choose their aims, rather than that of Kings) which has led to this. As I said earlier: >>83271276

>>83272073
I never said there were less wars? I'm talking about the scale. There's a very clear fact that the scale of war greatly increased with Napoleon (a man who did follow Christian virtues) right after the French Revolution (there's also another fact of the Church trying to act as a mediator to avoid WWI). Advancements in technology didn't suddenly make it possible to have hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield.

And yes wars have always been a thing, but I'm talking about what's been promoted, again.

"Peasants" may have rebelled here and there, but the fact is people are protesting much, much, much more today than back then. I had to find a source online which took me forever but in the 20 countries with highest riot frequency, there were more than 80.000 incidents in 2024. As opposed to one of the densest known cluster of peasant uprising occuring between 1500 and 1525 which saw 18 uprisings. And this is just another example that Christian attitude did have a great impact on the perception of the world.

File: 1758975463776036.gif (261 KB, 148x111)

261 KB GIF

>>83270787
there was a north korean lovers webm that showed how good north korean guys had it with girls, from video captured over the border from south korea, but i cant find it, and the archive is dead right now

>>83272262
I meant a man who did not* follow Christian virtues

>>83272262
>I never said there were less wars? I'm talking about the scale.
I am saying the scale is irrelevant, and this has nothing to do with Christian values.
>there's also another fact of the Church trying to act as a mediator to avoid WWI
And there were other mediators. Mentioning one sect of Christianity in lieu of many secular forces, and Christian forces who were pushing it, is not a workable argument.
>Advancements in technology didn't suddenly make it possible to have hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield.
Actually it made it much more feasible, and this is commonly known as well as an easily accessible view:
>There are several reasons for the rise of total warfare in the 19th century. The main one is industrialization. As countries' capital and natural resources grew, it became clear that some forms of warfare demanded more resources than others. Consequently, the greater cost of warfare became evident. An industrialized nation could distinguish and then choose the intensity of warfare that it wished to engage in.
>Additionally, warfare was becoming more mechanized and required greater infrastructure. Combatants could no longer live off the land, but required an extensive support network of people behind the lines to keep them fed and armed. This required the mobilization of the home front. Modern concepts like propaganda were first used to boost production and maintain morale, while rationing took place to provide more war material.
One (1) example of a Christian man fighting a war with many nations with industrial technology is not an argument. As I said, industrialism increased the scale of war dramatically.

>>83272262
>"Peasants" may have rebelled here and there, but the fact is people are protesting much, much, much more today than back then. ... And this is just another example that Christian attitude did have a great impact on the perception of the world.
And this you cannot attribute to the social values you believe capitalism "promotes." Honor, wealth, hard work, etc., have been promoted long before capitalism. You are making unsubstantiated claims and statements of opinion.

This "what has been promoted" is an amusing nothingburger. It is something you keep repeating, but how it differs from that previously, how it has changed the nature of human interaction, etc., is all unsubstantiated. The fact is, long before capitalism, during the reign of Christianity, and before it too were relationships largely transactional. "What has been promoted" is nothing.

File: michel-houellebecq-690303.jpg (134 KB, 640x852)

134 KB JPG

>>83270722
totally true but nigger chuds get annoyed cause is not what their favorite retarded gay right wing youtuber told them, fucking houellebecq wrote about this in 1994, is nothing new

>>83272262
>>83272489
And to clarify, France possessed industrial technology during the Napoleonic Wars. It was not fully industrial (as compared to Britain at the time) but still possessed factories, industrial firearms, and made use of industrial technology purchased from other nations during the start and especially up to the end of it.

>>83272543
He's talking about liberalism.

>>83271148
>>83271166
>>83271276
Based scholar

>>83272262
>>83272489
We can also raise up the disparities in population and the changes in infrastructure and logistics that arose before the fall of "traditional values," a comparison in Napoleon, again one singular example of very recognizably technological, mobilized, and industrializing societies does not prove
>Capitalism and the values it promotes ...
means anything.

>>83272590
liberalism is the ideological expression of capitalism

>>83272543
We need a modern-day Robin Hood.

>>83270722
The one element this retard who tries to boil it all down to "capitalism" leaves out is the ideological indoctrination of what makes a "good person" under this judeo-kleptocracy which includes no doubt a bunch of retarded shit they believe about the holy brownoid/foreigner, manufactured and/or out of control gay shit, etc..

>>83272610
And it isn't capitalism. But if you read this you would know I already said something very similar: >>83271276
>A greater critique of Capitalism is that it is inherently liberal, and the liberal nature of "freedom of association" (and similar) is what increases the transactionality of relationships by creating a very large selection of potential relationships that one can exploit (and the freedom to do so). When people are not free to choose their relationships, this does not eliminate, but reduces, the transactional components of relations. When people are free to choose who they form relations with, it is a general rule that they will form them with those who are more beneficial.

>Really the problem you are witnessing is that of unrestrained social liberality, which is concurrent with capitalism, and which capitalism necessarily supports.
But the two issues are distinct and separable.

>>83272621
>robinhood who steals sex from those who gets lots of it
umm... based?

>>83272489
>>83272511
>>83272573
I was writing a response but I give up since I don't feel like quoting a thousand different books to hopefully actually make you understand what I am saying instead of going in circles (especially since I'm phone posting from outside). I say that with no animosity but are you perhaps autistic? You seem hell-bent on sticking to your original "factual" argument that I've answered a thousand times while misunderstanding half of my points. Either that or you're just glancing over my posts and coming to quick conclusions. You might need to read the thread again.

Anyways I'm going now. For how long we've been talking we've actually made very little progress towards convincing one-another (again, just going in circles 24/7). So I'm gonna be the bigger man and let you have the last words in. Bye bye

>>83270722
>OP got nostalgic for a post he got a few (You)s on, probably all calling him retarded

>>83272691
Your point is that capitalism led to X (implied from the OP)nor the values pushed by capitalism led to X, but these problems have always been around, and saying that Christianity's fall led to larger wars doesn't amount to either a defense of the original OP image or this >>83271452
>Capitalism just made it the default option by turning every interaction into systems of consumption and choice.
Or this: >>83271555
>Capitalism institionalizes and ideologizes the obsession with consuming and wasting wealth as the defining feature of modern civilization. It converts wealth and virtue into a synthesis where power and money are promoted and celebrated.
When the default system of interaction has always been transactional and people have always had this desire for wealth regardless of what philosophers/religious leaders thought were the ethical standards to which people must adhere. The extent to which capitalism is affects society is debatable, and I already acknowledge that one can make the case that it has some effect in some way, but each of these claims are soundly and textually refuted.

>again, just going in circles 24/7
Hmm
>And when you say this, can you wonder at your words not standing firm, but walking away? Will you accuse me of being the Daedalus who makes them walk away, not perceiving that there is another and far greater artist than Daedalus who makes them go round in a circle, and he is yourself; for the argument, as you will perceive, comes round to the same point.
Socrates from Euthyphro, similarly. Of course this was in definitions (Euthyphro felt he was going in circles because Socrates kept returning to "and what is pious?"), here it is on the point to be refuted. But I am remaining at the one goalpost and I am not following whichever one you try to set up, that being solely that capitalism is not the originator or the primary or unique mover of these ills outlined in the OP and your later posts.

Thanks for the final word though. Bye bye.