/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17919835]

why does the West and most of the so-called "first world" lack close-knit community?

In "poor" or "third world" countries, community is very strong. People will spend all day hanging out with their neighbors and lifelong friends. Not just children or younger people, but even adults and the elderly. It seems like life would be more fulfilling with such a strong community identity to hold onto your entire life. Not to say that it doesnt have its downsides, but it seems to beat the hell out of Western loneliness. What caused this?

[Anonymous No.17919847]

>>17919835
wrong

[Anonymous No.17919858]

It can be said that education’s primary function is to remove children from their parents.

[Anonymous No.17919861]

I wonder if it's related to the fact that people in poor countries don't read books. When I visit shitholes I get the feeling I really creep people out when I sit alone reading.

[Anonymous No.17919866]

>>17919858
Also, robust information technology networks and easy access to them. The only real exception I can think of to this one is China and that’s changing.

[Anonymous No.17919868]

>>17919858
Can you expound on its relevance?

[Anonymous No.17919871]

>>17919861
Actually from what I've seen places like India read the most https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-countries-that-read-the-most.html

[Anonymous No.17919874]

I think the lack of community occurs more in larger cities, as the increase in crime makes people more weary. Small towns in any country in the world are more likely than not to have a strong community aspect to them

[Anonymous No.17919877]

>>17919835
in rural communities you can drive to any given gas station or truck stop and there's bound to be a gaggle of men standing around shooting the shit for hours. even at some of the breweries around my town there's dedicated groups that come in at 2pm and don't leave until close, sucking down beers and hanging out all day and night.

[Anonymous No.17919878]

not literature, OP is probably a leaf

[Anonymous No.17919883]

>>17919835
the dogmas of the human rights is the glorification of individuality.
Which is why all the secular drones whining about ''individuality'' in the west while craving to preserve the human rights are utter morons.

[Anonymous No.17919884]

>>17919835
Because having a good time with your family and friends is time lost on being productive. Back to the cage wagie, you need to create surplus value.

[Anonymous No.17919965]

>>17919835
In a broad sense, the increasing specialization, fragmentation, and division of labor across all organized spheres of life (cultural, economic, military) as technology becomes further instantaneous results in the alienation of people from their work, work (in the sense of labor allocated for specific social functions resulting in a tangible social benefit for those who perform their duties) in less automated societies is used as a binding social force from which community is derived. These communities which originate from necessity of co-operation have no sudden shifts and breaks in their culture from external sources as of now beyond neocolonization and are thus able to develop/change at a pace consistent with their actual biologies. Due to this slow pace of communal sense and communal change, there is a lack of major conflict (conflict in this sense meaning irreconcilable value dissonances) requiring intellectual adaptation to rapidly and often times ineffectively meditate different groups within these societies to each other, meaning there is a lack of hard individualism outside of exceptionalism in social roles.
tl;dr they work really hard with each other for each other because they have to in order to survive and everyone is connected to that survival process

[Anonymous No.17919974]

>>17919835
I think it has to do with group sizes and space.
Obviously, if you're poor, you and your family isn't going to be able to afford a lot of houses between each other, or large commutes.
There's also not a lot of money around for other things for entertainment, so obviously you hang out with other people more.

Another thing is the group sizes. There are a lot of studies- and historically, humans can only thrive is groups up to a certain size. We can only empathize with about 150 people, and a group loses cohesion after about 50. And because people form such close-knit social groups, they're much more stable.

People in first world countries are so far removed from our natural social behavior because so much space, time and relationships are diverted away from social groups and into other things. You can see exceptions to this (or parallels) in small minority groups and hick towns.

[Anonymous No.17920003]

>>17919974
best post. Can you post some links to the studies? I'd like to read them

[Anonymous No.17920033]

I think it's more of a cultural thing than it is a poor/rich thing. In America, babies get their own rooms to teach them how to be independent and to not need their parents with them all the time.

[Anonymous No.17920034]

>>17919871
Probably just math textbooks

[Anonymous No.17920036]

>>17919835
It's because there's too much to do in the West. You don't need to draw much entertainment from others because you've always got cinema restaurants phone-scrolling television-watching gaming reading drinking driving, etc. In third world countries (and just dull countries, such as Bahrain (it's a nation that consists of one air conditioned mall) - which has a strong expat community despite them all having good amounts of money) there's no such cheap-dopamine providing distractions, and so you chat. If you want a lite version of this sense of community with minimal effort get locked up in a psychward with a strict policy on phones and TV, for better or for worse you end up hanging out with people for a significant amount of your day

[Anonymous No.17920038]

>>17919868
It’s a quote from Sōseki in Kokoro. He also says “loneliness is the price we pay for living in the modern world”. I think he and his books are particularly relevant given the time and place and the changes that were happening at that time. What exactly he means is probably too layered to get to adequately here. You should read the book. The Gateway Editions English translation is very good.

[Anonymous No.17920041]

>>17919861
>When I visit shitholes

Why do you go if you have such disdain for them?

[Anonymous No.17920052]

>>17919835
Really depends where desu. When I visit my family in a small town they know most of the people there but in the city where I live most people don’t know their neighbors. I think it’s more of an urban rural thing, I doubt thirdies packed into mega ghettos have great community.

[Anonymous No.17920062]

>>17920052
>I doubt thirdies packed into mega ghettos have great community.
They do. I’ve been to a couple of them.

[Anonymous No.17920082]

>>17920052
I would disagree strongly. I've noticed that "thirdie ghettos" usually have very strong communal links, which is why I don't fully buy the city being the sole cause

[Anonymous No.17920103]

>>17920082
Do you think religion plays a part as well? Poorer countries tend to be more religious for the most part, and religions are basically oriented towards building strong communities.

[Anonymous No.17920115]

>>17920082
Add the automobile into the equation, those in ghettos live in close proximity to everything they need to live, a localized cluster of people within walking distance. Anti Urbanism is just Technophile cope

[Anonymous No.17920117]

>>17919874
Small cities are the same, everyone is just atomized in their houses. I’m from a third world country and I’ve never seen anything similar to OP’s pic in Anglo-America or Europe. Technical progress and modern labor practices kill communities and families, that’s it.

[Anonymous No.17920127]

>>17920003
No direct study links, but Wikipedia for the "monkeysphere", Dunbar's Number:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

[Anonymous No.17920134]

>>17919965
>>17919974
Meta question: what differentiates these two posts? They are both on the mark with regards to the thread topic, but the first one feels emotionally more well-rounded. The second one leaves me cold emotionally, while it is intellectually well-reasoned and informative.

[Anonymous No.17920145]

Because modernity introduced state individualism. Not only does the market itself corrode social relations in order so that everyone is a single, individual consumer(the Amish for example know this, which is why they refuse to engage in social technologies such as insurance), the state is also complicit in this by introducing a handful of technologies designed to make individuals less dependant on other people.

I mean, for example Social Security(which some Amish sects also won a Supreme Court case to be exempt from), is a technology that allows old people to get money from the state when they can't work, which means the state has taken over the responsibility the old person's children previously had to care for their parents.

There are innumerable other things like this which are designed to make people into individuals who aren't bound by a duty or obligation to anyone else.

[Anonymous No.17920155]

>>17920134
Because the second just focuses on simple statements about simple things which, when put together, form a jigsaw picture of a blackpill.

[Anonymous No.17920172]

>>17920103
No, you’ve got it backwards. Technical progress and division of labor kill religion, as it creates distinctions that cannot be monetized.

[Anonymous No.17920173]

[Anonymous No.17920174]

>>17920115
That's a really good point I hadn't thought of. The mere act of walking puts you in contact with people on a regular basis. But why does that not apply to those that live in NYC or London and walk/take public transport everywhere?

[Anonymous No.17920189]

>>17920117
Can you expound on why in your opinion it does tho?

[Anonymous No.17920194]

>>17920173
Are they close? I feel like them having trouble talking to eachother their kids and their wifes is a major reoccurring plot point

[Anonymous No.17920222]

>>17920134
you are taking note of underlying rhetorical choices which are reflective of the attitudes either post encourages as they work towards their end of informing you, the reader - the first encourages open discourse and dialogue, the second presupposes a conclusion.
it might just also be because of punctuation.

[Anonymous No.17920225]

>>17920172
>as it creates distinctions that cannot be monetized
I’m not sure what you mean by this

[Anonymous No.17920250]

>>17919835
Modern technology and by extension capitalism deconstruct the original unity of traditional life and reconstruct it to be amenable to commodification. News at 11.

[Anonymous No.17920263]

>>17920250
I'm more interested in the why, it's obvious that it occurs

[Anonymous No.17920268]

>>17920174
Different anon here. I would add on that an individual is much less tied down to location in Western World, in regards to work (having a much more service-based economy may have something to do with it). In a place like London or New York especially you could find your neighbors and co-workers often changing as they find other work, or want a change in living circumstances. How common is the story of someone moving across the country for a new job? Physical communities are hard to establish if you don't have a long term physical presence in a single area, and why bother anyway if you are going to be gone in a few years

[Anonymous No.17920277]

>>17920174
Read Marshall McLuhan.

[Anonymous No.17920288]

>>17920277
which work would you recommend?

[Anonymous No.17920312]

>>17920288
Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, which has an entire chapter relating to this problem, which in itself relates to broader concepts regarding technology the book investigates.
You can then go on to read anything else he's written.

[Anonymous No.17920327]

>>17919835
Capitalism and Technics. Simple As.

[Anonymous No.17920350]

>>17920312
>You can then go on to read anything else he's written.

Thanks for your permission.

[Anonymous No.17920360]

>>17920350
Any time.

[Anonymous No.17920419]

>>17920145
So much of our modern world is made up basically of systems and the thing about systems is they need a constantly replenishing supply of people for the creation, maintenance, and updating of those systems. Then, the systems contribute, even in novel ways, to basically privacy and isolation. An obvious example is the transition from the public theater to the movie theater to the home theater to Netflix, a progression from entertainment wholly in communal? public life whether you wanted it to be or not to a form of entertainment, which is wholly individual and private if you want it to be. The system creates the conditions which perpetuate the system.

[Anonymous No.17920495]

>>17919835
>why does the West and most of the so-called "first world" lack close-knit community?
With the exception of a few hikikomoris we don't lack close-knit community, we lack loose community. There's a "missing middle" between close family and friends and absolute strangers that has been lost in western countries. Lots of things to blame but mainly it's because there is a lack of public space; this has been eaten partly by private space but mostly by domestic space. People are alone because they expect to be left alone, as if they were in their homes.
I don't think it's really anything to do with westerners as people. My experience with non-westerners is mostly with Arabs. I've seen westerners dropped into arab environments and they chat and hang out as comfortable as locals. I've also seen Arabs move to Europe and become isolated, anxious and reclusive. My refugee friends complain about the lack of a social life in Europe.

[Anonymous No.17920918]

>>17920495
That's a really interesting point. I suppose it is true that many Westerners will have close family relations. Any works you know of addressing this phenomenon?

[Anonymous No.17920950]

>>17919835
Angloism and Americans which is predominant in the west teaches people to only care about themselves and to see everyone else as stepping stones to reach success/wealth.

[Anonymous No.17921002]

>>17920918
>>17920918
>I suppose it is true that many Westerners will have close family relations. Any works you know of addressing this phenomenon?
Mostly it's just shit I've seen, but I know Hannah Arendt talks about the shrinking of the public sphere, and I can't remember where but I've read studies that point that westerners tend to have fewer, but very intimate friendships with correspondingly weak networks of friendly acquaintances. Intimate relationships are usually promoted but being able to just chill with people in a low-stakes way is really important for a social life.
Sorry I don't have more anon, this is half-remembered stuff from a year or two ago.

[Anonymous No.17921051]

>>17921002
I appreciate you sharing regardless. It does certainly make sense

[Anonymous No.17921060]

lefebvre

[Anonymous No.17921070]

>>17920950
That phenomenon started way before America became the main power and even in places that explicitely rejected American influence like the Soviet Union.

[Anonymous No.17921091]

>>17920134
one is a word salad from a npc and the other is from an actual human being.

[Anonymous No.17921112]

>>17919835
First world relationships are primarily transactionary and we are constantly prodded by a culture that tells you if you're not making smart transactions or aren't worth transacting with you're unfit and even undeserving of participating in society. We don't build things for people to communicate and interact, we build things that maximize transactions and people communicating are just another medium to advertise new transactions to make.

[Anonymous No.17921180]

>>17921051
One thing I'll add is that being in a very social environment has a lot of drawbacks too. It feels like being back in school, lots of petty bullshit and you end up spending a lot of time around people you don't like or trust. It's definitely better than the isolation we have now though.

[Anonymous No.17921197]

>>17919835
I used to live in a small comunity in the so-called "third world". I've always live here and I see the change over the years a sour taste chante. When I was a kid used to go a lot to the curch with other kids and its families, there was a sense of comunity, and also we were keeping our traditions. People read a lot, the bible, some traditional poets from the country, even poets from the comunity. It was a good life, a quiet one even for a country like this. Of course there was (and still) precariousness, the streets were (and still) shit, not enough water and electricity. The time passed, the goverment started doing something, some streets (just two, fucking two over the years) seem better, people start buying more things, TVs, cable, internet, the houses looked better, not everything was fucked, but the sense of comunity dissapeared, there was no people together. Yeah, the economy improve, that's good, but the people we're worst, the crime increased, and all the people became strangers to everyone.

Today I could say that everything is fucked, and this little town became the fucking hell, and I don't know how it went all wrong. There was peace, at least a little bit.

[Anonymous No.17921289]

>>17920041
It's really no denying it man. I'm not him, but I live in turd world its nothing I wouldn't call it anything beyond decent .

[Anonymous No.17921299]

>people are oversocialized
>no actually they're more isolated than ever
Which one is it wise guys.

[Anonymous No.17921304]

If only there was a book that could explain the problem.

[Anonymous No.17921319]

>>17921112
You can find people who reject the transactional model of relationships

[Anonymous No.17921320]

>>17919835
>In "poor" or "third world" countries, community is very strong.
I don't deny this in any way. It's just that those "Strong communities" tend to leave corpses in the street and ignore safety at the their own cost.

[Anonymous No.17921334]

>>17921299
"Oversocialized" doesn't literally mean "you spend too much time socializing." It's more like "tame" or "domesticated," but without the animal connotations. It's very much possible to be oversocialized and isolated at the same time.

[Anonymous No.17921363]

>>17919835

individualism vs collectivism

[Anonymous No.17921394]

>>17921363
Wow thanks for your 5th grade insight

[Anonymous No.17921446]

>>17919835
The instantiation of the nuclear family as the single worthwhile unit of social formation. Add to this the hegemonic pressure to move away from one's forebears, the atomization of divergent communities through alienating working situations, and (as always) the upholding of the individual and individualized conflict as natural and good.

[Anonymous No.17921495]

>>17921319
True but it's not feasible for most people to follow in their footsteps and remain financially stable. The people I know who are less interested in transactions tend to be pretty poor or lucky enough to have a job that pays nice enough for their time outside of work to not be about finding more/better work to do.

[Anonymous No.17921568]

>>17921112
>>17921319
My experience is basically exactly the opposite. First-worlders have a hard time interacting with each other because they are uninterested in simple transactional relationships. First worlders expect every interaction to be "meaningful", and the thought of hanging out just to pass time to be distasteful, where as this is how most social activity happens.

[Anonymous No.17922407]

>>17921304
How

[Anonymous No.17922548]

In the first world it's easy to find something else to do (internet, automobiles,public transport) rather than hang around with your neighbors all day. Do you really think these places are paradises where everyone loves each others' company?

[Anonymous No.17922609]

>>17922548
B-but /pol/ told me about the trad anarcho-primitivist communes!

[Anonymous No.17922616]

>>17922609
yeah /pol/ are big fans of the third world

[Anonymous No.17922716]

>>17922609
Imagine having a SJW busybody with aposematic hair color on your case all day, but you can't "log off". That's Trad Society.

[Anonymous No.17922725]

>>17922716
the sjw would be burned as a witch

[Anonymous No.17922726]

>>17921299
Someone who spends all their freetime on the internet consuming outrage and tragedy porn is oversocialized, but they are still isolated by virtue of spending all their time alone at their computer on the internet

[Anonymous No.17922734]

>>17922725
Not really, they were the witch-burners in the past.

[Anonymous No.17922739]

>>17922734
The content of being a witch is not arbitrary

[Anonymous No.17922743]

I think it has to do with land ownership laws. Most third world countries have very lax rules concerning public/private lands, where slums can be built up along roadsides and frontiers without much consequence, unless a corrupt official decides to evict everyone for their vanity project.
Meanwhile, you see hobo camps torn down every week in first world countries. If those urban and rural poor could just build a small hovel, tend a garden, and sell cupcakes on the side of the highway then you'd see a lot more people living like that.
Instead there's a high barrier to stuff like basic land ownership, having a business, just selling stuff on the streets, etc. that prevents the bottom two thirds of society (I believe only 1/3rd of people own land) from having that basic level of self-sufficiency. Even when you own land, you are expected to pay taxes so unless you continue to participate in the economic system you'll be forcibly removed (from your own property). This mass disposition of public lands was what actually triggered the industrial revolution in england, and its been used to this day to provide a desperate labour base. Basically we are all slaves and not allowed to live independently of an economic system which is built explicitly to benefit a couple elite families and classes.

>>17922548
Most thirdies also spend their time online or riding around on a bike or car. It's not like the internet doesn't exist as soon as you cross the border.

[Anonymous No.17922763]

>>17919835
We did have that, at one point, but industrialization kind of fucked it up. That was common in early 20th century. It’s also common among rural poor, like in Appalachia.

Japan and China also used to have that, but obviously not anymore.

[Anonymous No.17923720]

>>17919835
For one, having self-decided groups puts an organized state, its citizens, and its private constituents at a disadvantage, so it's only heard of when it revolves around a scheme (sports, politics, work, childcare). Tons of migrant groups in my area have these kinds of communities, but it's hopeful to think that they don't have their own internal systems and power structures that aren't favorable to people who choose to leave their group for their own personal pursuits.
Famous people always tell of their 'old friends' whom, intentionally or not, wished to hold them back from success, only to ask them for help after they made it. In this scenario, both parties are at fault to each other. As with all things, all it takes is one mutation to fuck everything up and send it all spinning out of control. Maybe it's fate, maybe just causal progression. One member of a group decides to leave and make a million dollars. Resentment forms in the group, and the millionaire makes another generation of individualists who in the end find their lives empty without community, but never get it.

[Anonymous No.17923885]

modernity has fragmented man. latest nails in the coffin were TV then pc/mobiles. real social commitment is seen as a non profitable high demand endeavor. all relationships are selfish

like share retweet
socialization complete
back to work

[Anonymous No.17923922]

>>17919835
i was privileged to experience something like this during a baptism in a very distant community. unfortunately these people are dying out and the new ones are seduced by modernity: they are coming to the city to provide better "opportunities" for their sons. they dont want the rural life, they think they need study. if only they knew how bad things are

[Anonymous No.17923947]

Consumerism leaves no time for it or interest in it.

[Anonymous No.17925090]

Retards go and denounce tribalism and all its forms and then wonder why everyone is so isolated. Heres, the thing nigger, if you want a community, youre gonna need to be excluding undesirables. And to hell with them being "human" beings too, that has never meant anything substantial and is the ultimate pseud concept

[Anonymous No.17925124]

>>17919835
There's no lack of it, you're just lonely and depressed.

[Anonymous No.17925368]

>>17919835
>give me any answer other than the obvious one, capitalism

[Anonymous No.17925406]

>>17919835
There's a lot of reasons but my personal deduction for the biggest contributions

1. Competitive and objective centric cultures. It make a relationships a tool, time as money, and culturally determined status very important.
-In a more subjective and non competitive environment, people can connect for the sake of it.

2. Materialism and consumer driven cultures spread into how we treat each other. Again people are tools or products for our own usage. This gets into our subconscious when we are used to consuming and tossing.
-in cultures where the social is more favored, people again value connection first. Both capitalist and communist systems are purely materialistic.


Basically humans work for machine instead of machine working for humans.
Whoever runs that machine basically controls who we are and how we act.

[Anonymous No.17925419]

>>17919965
Yeah in such a diverse culture you really cannot maintain cohesion with specialization
In general really.
People could maybe lean one or a few ways, but they should still snack all over the place. Without this we grow too alien.

[Anonymous No.17925443]

>>17919835
What kind of extroverted normalfag thinks that hanging out with people all day every day, in huge groups no less, sounds like a good thing
That sounds suffocating to me, I need my space

[Anonymous No.17925463]

>>17925443
It's all cultural conditioning
These people are closer to "one" and unified. They largely -are- each other.
We have become very secular and divided so we are more or less annoyed with the people around us who have become foreign to us through our secularization, dissociation, "independence" and "individuality"

[Anonymous No.17925464]

>>17919883
based and alain de benoist pilled

[Anonymous No.17925469]

>>17925463
Eh, no. Not in my case. Having an abusive family as a child can make you uncomfortable with the idea of groups

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.17925522]

>>17919835
>What caused this?
Capitalism

[Anonymous No.17925563]

>>17925522
It actually is in the center of it all. Cheap import destroyed small farm production. Villages died out, cause people moved to cities in search of employment, although the trend seems to be somewhat reversing lately due to lack of jobs in cities.
There is possibility to develop a community in cities too, but with people working long shifts, coming home too tired and entertainment being easily achieved between own four walls, it has become harder to make it happen.
Even religion can't help. My grandmother knew most if not all people that would come to her church. Not the same can be said about people coming to churches now, besides their family and maybe some neighbor, they are all perfect strangers there.

[Anonymous No.17925632]

>>17925522
democracy is shit
so is "capitalism"
have group leaders

[Anonymous No.17925636]

>>17919835
Having strong relationships inclines people towards corruption. Third world countries are held back a lot by the incredibly high levels of corruption, which happens because people in power there have deeper relationships with other people than first worlders do, and so they want to share that power with friends. That's why the governments in first world countries try to dismantle tradition and family values, as those are some of the last things left that promotes strong relationships left.

[Anonymous No.17925637]

>>17925636
>Having strong relationships inclines people towards corruption.
the fuck? no it doesnt?
corruption happens through a lack of connection

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.17925641]

>>17925632
Justifiable hierarchies, sure. But we can only bring community back by enfranchisement. Don’t be a dolt

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.17925644]

>>17925637
>corruption happens through a lack of connection
Uhhh. What?
It’s profit motives, usually.

[Anonymous No.17925778]

>>17925641
Hierarchy is self-justifying

[Anonymous No.17925872]

>>17925778
Your mom is self-justifying

[Anonymous No.17926968]

>>17919835
because the nuclear family destroyed it

[Anonymous No.17927042]

>>17920134
First one is Marxism rhetoric designed to make you feel enlightened while not saying a word, second one offers actual analytical hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.17927054]

>>17926968
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.17927407]

>>17919835
What does this have to do with books

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.17927422]

>>17925778
A parent over a child, a teacher over a student, an expert over a novice, yes. Not much else can be justified

[Anonymous No.17928352]

>>17925778
hierarchy is contextual to values and environmental demands/pressures

[Anonymous No.17928359]

>>17927422
my cock over your head.

You looking up at it :3

[Anonymous No.17928414]

>>17919835
Access to written word and technology. Also, note the skintone - not black, its all the same.

[Anonymous No.17928471]

>>17919835
The man reading the newspaper is based.

[Anonymous No.17929122]

There are more communities and opportunities to socialize in the West than anywhere else. Y'all are just obnoxious insufferable communist faggots who can't stop gaslighting people for owning their houses so naturally they don't want to associate with you, now fuck off and consider the rope

[Anonymous No.17929129]

>>17921394

That's about all that's required to figure out this communist horseshit

[Anonymous No.17929151]

I knew a somali once and he asked me every day if I was going to marry my girlfriend lol

[Anonymous No.17929801]

>>17929122
> T. Faggot with no perspective who thinks every flaw in capitalism is a fictitious commie ploy
This is just a consequence of an industrial economy, it applies to e.g. ex-Soviet urban culture too, the difference is that commie countries were less developed so there's more holdouts in the smaller cities and rural areas
But any materialist system will drive the same social decay

[Anonymous No.17929814]

>>17929801
>ex-soviet urban culture is a consequence of communism

now this is peak retard

[Anonymous No.17930104]

>>17929801
>every flaw in capitalism
There's no such thing as capitalism, the term itself was created by and is almost exclusively used by self-declared anti-capitalists. It only makes sense in the dialectic faggotry of Marx's historical fiction otherwise(ie in the real world) it's utterly meaningless.
>But any materialist system will drive the same social decay
There is no immaterial system and most of the so-called social decay is a by-product of the regime of popular sovereignty. Any country without formal power structures and which is in a perpetual economic civil war is obviously going to undergo a process of social disintegration and cultural degeneration.