Traditonalism and Marxism

[Anonymous No.6120642]

Can Marxism's critique of Capitalism be synthesised with Traditionalism? It seems to me as though both Marxists and Traditionalist are opposed to Capitalism, (albeit for different reasons) and that the wealth of Marxist theory is invaluable useful for both ideologies, especially the theories of groups like the Situationalists.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120707]

Both systems seek to free us from material concerns, but beyond that they're incompatible. Marxist theory analyzes a lot of culture from the opposite perspective of traditionalism--even if Marxist cultural analysts have common ground with traditionalists in detest of pop culture, traditionalists would never approve of the experimental art Marxists support as a solution. Traditionalists would abhor Schoenberg, for instance, whereas Marxists thought he was pretty cool. There are right-wing critiques of culture that are friendly to experimentation, of course, such as futurism, but that is very different from traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.6120729]

>>6120642
Don't worry. The moment material communism is reached, people will have nothing to do all day and will embrace a new spirituality and we'll invent even more aesthetic forms of monarchy. Dugin is the semi-Marxism traditionalist if you want something more concrete.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120742]

>>6120729
I really think that philosophy would become more complex rather than degenerating back to Romans 13

[Anonymous No.6120743]

Sorta. As movements, they're both historical and antiliberal, but that's as far as you're gonna get. On one side history is justification and on the other side it's damning. Traditionalism seems to be most likely to slip into moral aestheticism, as they long for an earlier class rule which was based on principles championed as ahistorical before the bourgeois formulated their own.

You can use any critique of capitalism you want, try Veblen's. I've never read a single word of anything we wrote, but I do know that his name doesn't provoke kneejerk terror in amerifats, which may be used to anyone's advantage.

[Anonymous No.6120747]

Yes, since both ideologies are for deluded teenagers. You can combine it with Lord of the Rings and Objectivism as well

[Anonymous No.6120753]

>>6120729
>People will have nothing to do all day.
Besides living in constant fear of a Totalitarian government observing their every movement whilst hoping against hope your food won't be stolen by the police in order to serve the glorious state?

[Anonymous No.6120755]

How do I ride the tiger?!

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120760]

>>6120743
Veblen is autistic and criticizes things like religion and sports and "unproductive", and basically fetishizes usefulness and scowls at anything else, which includes property ownership. This is more of a product of his respect for science than workers, he considers scientists to be the most productive members of society, and workers to be the next most productive, and everyone else to be moochers.

That said, he has a great wit and is easily the most entertaining critique of capitalism. Almost a satire.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120764]

>>6120753
Material communism isn't a state with the ideology of communism, it's a hypothetical material achievement that's basically Star Trek where things can just be replicated and no one needs to use money.

[Anonymous No.6120765]

>>6120743
>Marxism.
>Antiliberal.

How exactly is that the case. Marxism comes from the very same school of thought involving equality and egalitarianism as Liberalism does. They are both forms of Secular Christianity. Blessed be the poor and so forth.

[Anonymous No.6120768]

>>6120753
kid can't into positive liberty.

[Anonymous No.6120771]

>>6120764
So it's an impossible utopian pipe dream like the rest of Communism?

[Anonymous No.6120775]

>>6120768
>positive liberty

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120777]

>>6120765
Neither of them are secular Christianity, populist egalitarianism stretches back to ancient times, and Christian states were never egalitarian.

They don't have the same roots. Both were greatly inspired by revering the ancients, such as the Roman Republic and Athenian democracy, but leftism as a philosophical movement was greatly influenced by the study of natives who didn't have privet property, whereas liberalism was mainly driven by obsession with reason as opposed to tradition.

[Anonymous No.6120780]

>>6120765
Except for Liberals freedom never extended beyond the freedom for the class that birthed it ("Economic Freedom",Property Rights, etc).

A lot of Marxist see themselves as more Liberal than Liberals and they believe they are carrying out the liberal project to it's conclusion.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120785]

>>6120771
Yes. But so is traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.6120796]

>>6120765
And conservatism proper is the biggest ally of Christianity. So I don't see the point really.

Also this a really strange thread. I lurked since OP posted it, because I wanted to see if it even get any response and what kind of response it would get.

Only interesting thing ITT was the mention of Futurism. But I wouldn't say Futurism is conservative, it's progressive right-wing. It wants to destroy the current world through war and technology, which is the opposite of pastoral view of most conservatives.

[Anonymous No.6120798]

>>6120764
>replicated
Stick to Fascism.

[Anonymous No.6120801]

>>6120796
another piece of evidence the left-right maymay needs to die.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120806]

>>6120798
I'm just giving an example. It might not be the same thing as a replicator, but things function like that economically since production requires little to no labor.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120813]

>>6120796
I never said it was conservative, I said it was right-wing.

But futurism doesn't believe in historical progress, so progressive is not the right word. They believe in change and development, but not in any teleological idea.

[Anonymous No.6120826]

>>6120813
I meant progress as "change and development". Because technological progress (that is exactly change and development) is still progress.

And I won't say I'm the biggest expert on Futurism, but they feel extremely Hegelian to me. Almost obsessive in their idea of progression towards some new world that could be described as absolute spirit.

[Anonymous No.6120829]

Such a synthesis is both unnecessary and impossible.

>The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

You could fold Marxism back into the Tradition from which it sprang, but it would cease to be Marxism, and only the Tradition would remain, unchanged. And it shall always remain so, for it has always been.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6120834]

>>6120826
Well, The Theory of Mind as Pure Act was written in 1916, it probably influenced them, even though futurism had been going on for a while by then.

[Anonymous No.6121005]

>>6120829
Ah, yes, the Acme of Moral Aestheticism; The Rule of the Ape.

Human achievement quakes in the face of one man's remarkable ability to remain smug.

[Anonymous No.6122612]

>>6120642
Replace Marxism and put Catholicism and things will work better

[Anonymous No.6122618]

>>6122612
>distributism
>traditionalist