Go to "radical leftist" meeting

...

Fair enough, honestly.

Says the generic normalfag Holla Forumstard that most likely never read a book or listened to a symphony

...

...

Just like here.

...

Hey not I'm 24

I don't see a problem with this.

pretty reactionary tbh fam that's borderline feudal music

Most famous symphonies are like 18th/19th century you simp

oi now

...

...

...

Revolution deferred.

7/10 are Qt's

Qt's are 7-8/10

anything above that is a hot chick and she will leave you for Chad always

don't feel bad user

the only leftist i've ever met was an absolutely disgusting fedora marxist-leninist che guevara t-shirt lib fag who was autistic and an idiot

i've never ever met someone who you would find on here

my soc teacher was a qt half asian but basically just a soc dem idpol feminist idiot

i really wanted to cuck her husband but i am fundamentally against chadding other men especially married men

A lot of people like Harry Pottery. The books and movies did so well because the story is relatable. It's almost entirely real life bullshit with MAGIC as the backdrop. It's basically "wow, these neat wizards who can conjure matter, energy, and a facsimile of life out of nothing still have to deal with the same shit I do."

...

How the fuck havent you grown out of leftism yet?

How the fuck havent you stopped being a cuck wageslave?

prove your nuts have dropped right now.

...

Jack off and you'll feel better in the morning.

After reading the first of the Harry Potter books and some Orwell essays and watching Ripping Yarns, Harry Potter strikes me as sort of a School Story with magic, and I think outside the fantasy element's draw it appeals to people for the same-ish reasons Orwell posited School Stories do (it's posh, comfy and escapist). It's funny too, from what I can tell the antags had squeeing fangirls even back in the day.

hey! I'm a burger thank you very much fam

...

They're pretty shit tbqh

Why do you oppose feminism? If it's just because you dislike liberal feminists I'm sure you could find a left-wing party to join.

Well let me clarify. In another thread I've already made my views pretty clear, I think it's the one where the guy asks "why don't feminists realize sexism and racism will go away when capitalism go away?".

For starters, let me say that with the defeat of capitalism the *power structure* behind sexism and racism will go away, but not necessarily those ways of thinking. I think that's all we need (and I hate that I have to say this but I'm a racially mixed person saying this), because you'll never really stop ignorance in totality. To me, taking away the power structures (like comrade Carmichael succinctly explains) and replacing it with a universally supportive one will sufficiently protect the people that need it, which is the proletariat as a whole.

Anyway, why do I oppose feminism? Let me just say that I would work with anyone who calls themselves a feminist. I don't mind, as long as you're down to take down capitalism as the immediate goal then call yourself whatever you like.

But men as well as women are oppressed under capitalism, and just as any woman can give examples of how sexism affected them I am of the position that any man can as well. Workplace deaths, the expectations that men carry the heavy load, military deaths, homelessness…these are also ways in which men suffer under capitalism.

But what's funny is that my disagreements are somewhat semantic, but important at the same time. You'll say "but CA, feminism aims to help liberate men from patriarchy as well!" And therein lies my two small, but very important disagreements.

1. Patriarchy is a system in which men are in control. I disagree that patriarchy is a problem anymore. Perhaps in the past that could would have been true but we know that as of 2016 women as well as men can be capitalists, and capitalists are the people in control of the economic superstructure that controls every aspect of our cultural lives. Gender is no longer the basis of power; capital and possession of it in order to wield it over workers is the basis of power (at least the power that means anything which is economic power).

2. Feminism as a name inherently implies that women as a gender are the subject of the primary oppression we should consider concentrate on. It's very name implies that "men take heed, women are oppressed. But don't worry, be aware we are including you too in a movement named after our liberation!". This doesn't jive with me. Just like how "Men's Rights Movement" doesn't jive with me because how the fuck are you going to claim you're 100% in for women but name your shit after your own camp.

All in all, I know sexism exists just as much as the racism I know exists. I know women must be liberated, but men must be liberated as well. These are both included in the proletarian movement that is communism. I am no men's rights activist even though I know men are oppressed. I am no feminist even though I know women are oppressed. I am a *communist* first and only, because socialism is the only way we will ensure that no capitalist can oppress others with any accumulation of capital. Taking power away from capital (and therefore the racist or sexist hand that wields it) will be the death blow for their power to racially or sexually oppress. After the revolution, any further measures can be decided then.

But communism/socialism is too weak to be dividing anyone up at this second. This is my inherent disagreement with identity politics; it is the rot that is weakening our movement. So please, I know r/socialism and some people here will say "CA just has a shitty understanding, and isn't aware that feminism will liberate him too." Ok cool, good job. Theyll stand there and feel dignified because they put down another "brocialist", and then wonder why more people aren't flocking to the movement.

Pic related as well.

Well I disagree with you about patriarchy but I'm surprised you were told to leave a socialist group for having those views (unless they just heard "against feminism" and assumed the worst), it's not like that makes you a woman hater.

I mean buddy, we can disagree all day. But if you're down to fight capitalism, I'm with you 100%. We can all decide whatever the fuck to do after this monolithic economic system is defeated, because we need every hand we can get.

And so was I, really surprised actually. I think someone has the screen capped story I told about my experience with social alternative. I was literally sat down and told "we're a feminist movement buddy, and this isn't the right thing place for you if you possess those views". I repeated that I was a communist first and foremost, that I believed in women's as well as men's liberation but to no avail. I couldn't believe it dude, I was so fucking sad afterward because I wanted to feel apart of something. It still makes me sad.

And to be honest, I mean…if this happened to me how many people has it happened to? I don't want to say feminism causes it, rather people that just call themselves feminists. I know all movements attract assholes. *sigh*

One point I'll give MRAs - whatever else I may think of them - on this in comparison to the vast majority of self-identifying feminists I've ever met is that they will tell you straight up that explicit advocacy for women's issues is beyond the scope of their "movement". First time I ever talked to any MRAs my initial impression was "at least these guys are upfront about it"

Beyond that, I remember your original SAlt post and still really hope that your attitude becomes more common on the left as this possible new period of radicalisation goes on because otherwise we'll be excluding a whole lot of good people who would be with us if the left wasn't still living in the 1950s on a lot of these issues.

...

sheeeeeeeeet

are there qts there?

Great post comrade, I hope you stick around.

fucking normalfags

So a bit like here then?

would debate with

I'm Portuguese. We south europeans exist in Holla Forums. Been here for over 3 years.

t. Alberto Barbossa

Im 29 and I live with my mom

Get it together Grouch.

...

Não há tugas de esquerda! Não me enganas.

é aí que estás errado kiddo ;^)
bem-vindo à terra dos gulags, o governo de esquerda não é o meu governo.

Sure, what do you want to discuss?

Why would you expect workers?
A worker doesn't think, and doesn't want to think, a worker works.

need for leadership in order for a social movement to operate.

Occupy, Indignados and Arab Spring ideas of spontaneous movements for social change don't work and they follow at it's core a liberal ideology. We need to delegate higher roles to some people in order for the movement to be more efficient. In many situations we can't have a direct democracy kind of system to decide things.
The principle of the Bolshevik party of strong debate and opposition inside the party but unity in praxis should be a maxim.

bookchin would agree, the workspace socializes the worker with the dominant ideology.
Bookchin was still a tankie inside i want to believe

That's quite a generous estimate. Though honestly, based on what you wrote, I fail to see how you can be included in this category. Your primary ambition is evidently to talk to people on forums.
Anyway, modern radical leftism is mostly just LARPing because all political movements with actual power which supported anti-capitalism have collapsed or sold-out long ago and the ideology is widely discredited in the eyes of the people it's supposed to recruit.

this thread pops up on leftypol all the fucking time

if you're going to pre-established meetings and you find that they're full of faggotry then you should just organize your own meetings

i know this is a tough pill for neetcucks to swallow but there oftentimes must be a social component to socialism

Social people aren't interested in politics.
They're busy getting laid, getting drunk, and pissing their life away.
If you have the time to stop and think about politics you already have too much time in your hands and it makes perfect sense for a big part of such individuals to be neet.

To be honest yeah, I agree but only to an extent. That type of democratic centralism led to the type of situation that exists in r/socialism. What you refer to as the party should be an entity consisting of everyone who wishes to participate. Direct democracy, to me, should be consulted for most major decisions and goals. But there should be a smaller body whose task it is to carry out these goals with their methods available, transparent and subject to recall at all times.

Can you point out by what logic you came to the conclusion that "my primary ambition is to talk to people on forums"?

Para quem vê de fora, deve concluir que temos um governo de extrema-esquerda, tendo o partido SOCIALISTA, COMUNISTA, e o bloco de ESQUERDA no poder.

Mas isto tudo nem dá para uma social democracia.

That you literally only talk about talking to people. IRL too, I suppose, but that's much the same crap in terms of effectiveness.

You're wrong.

Lol what the fuck are you talking about dude, because you must be mistaken. I'm gonna assume you've never read any of the other shit I've ever written on here for the last year or so I've been here, to include the few articles on bunkermag.

feels gud man thank u guys. ye there's shit to dig through but that comes with any chan this one surprisingly has relatively less shit and more decent discussion than many others despite the low traffic of the board (although this may actually be a contributing factor to the overall quality)

Prove me otherwise.

This is the extent of the political involvment of most people that have active, healthy social lives out there.
If you consider any of these stances to be "interested in politics" then your bar is set extremely low to say the least-

No Brasil era a mesma coisa.
:_;

This is you.

You're not really giving me an answer, instead you're just insulting me and avoiding having an actual discussion.
This leads me to think you want to be right at all costs, but are too lazy to propely argumentate your way into a proper conversation.
This is the shit i expect from Holla Forums, not Holla Forums, else you might as well just start shitting out "projecting" "SJW" "cuck" "generalizations" and all the usual slop.

It's called cultural revolution. Rojava are experimenting with it right now with their anti-patriarchal struggle sessions, coleadership between men and women, the YPJ, and so on. Not that I'm implying that ignorance can be stopped in totality. Only that there are steps that can be taken in order to accelerate cultural change, and that's done by enforcing changes in material social relations outside of production.

If you take this line with any competent feminist you'll be shredded. Patriarchy doesn't mean a literal monopoly of control on capital, the state, or the family by men. It's a social relation between men and women, one that allows men to control women's labor – and it's important to note that this means housework too, not just waged work. It's also a fraternity where all men, no matter their class, are capable of dominating women. A feminist would argue that society could undergo the transition from capitalism to socialism and remain patriarchal.

Again, any competent feminist will readily assert that men can be oppressed under patriarchy, but it's womens' oppression which is fundamental. Patriarchy is not a simple hierarchy of men over women, it's one where particular genders fill particular places in society: these places are generalized to that gender. Women, as men, are subjected to different degrees of patriarchal oppression. Women themselves may exercise patriarchal power over men lower in class, race, or through things like family connections. Nonetheless, for the majority of women patriarchy oppresses them in a double sense: labor in the home for their husbands, and labor at work for male capitalists.

Of course, for most feminists, if the hierarchy is made more egalitarian they have no problem with hierarchy as such. For most feminists, if men can no longer control womens' labor in the home, and women face no barriers from men in the workplace to their advancement, then the fact that women still have to go to work doesn't trouble them. And this is where I part ways with most feminism.

But I would read some feminist literature to get an idea of what their arguments are, it's the only way you'll be able to challenge them. Simply being a communist won't be enough, and wasn't enough for you in the past.

I'm going to jump in and tell you the same thing he said.You have autism and you also have no friends, pal.

Go unfuck yourself before it is too late.

There's nothing to answer. You made a ridiculous statement without any sort of facts or evidence and then demanded that your preconceived notions be proven wrong.

Just kill yourself.

So did you.
You claimed social people are interested in politics, and then proceeded to provide zero evidence for your claim.

I'm on mobile and will be until next week so if I miss some things hear with me, but as for feminist literature the class I mentioned above included queer theory as well as feminist theory (the only one of which I remember right now would be Judith Butler). So it's not like I'm in here like a polyp, but I'm not going to say I'm some expert either on feminist theory.

As for the above post, I guess I was trying to make my arguments as general as popular for the audience which would be reading this post. When I said that "patriarchy is a system of men being in control", please do assume I was encompassing what you said regarding relations and housework, as well as their reproductive functions (if we're being specific that's quite important). But again, I find these concerns to have changed in the atmosphere of 2017. Men don't dominate women within the cultural space, and I would argue that the the momentum has indeed shifted to a point where in certain spaces women are coming to dominate. I don't dispute your definition of what patriarchy is, I would only dispute its existence at all to this point. And if it doesn't exist, it cannot be carried over to socialism if and when it is established. This is of course referring to the Western nations; Kurdistan's culture probably does require cultural acceleration (at least by what I witnessed of them in 2009). Having said that, patriarchal structures do exist in many cultures and heierchies in the world, I'll give it that. But when I'm speaking here I suppose I'm speaking from my stance as a Westerner, talking about the West (America in particular).

As for your point dealing with feminism recognizing women's oppression as a fundamental, you've already proved my point. It is precisely *not fundamental* any more than men's oppression is fundamental. Secondly, patriarchy doesn't exist in the way you describe it (where men are oppressed in the workplace and women at home) at least in the West. I mean, even the term patriarchy loses its meaning and reason for the name when feminists can say that women exercise patriarchal control over men. That is capitalism, which again oppresses men and women eagerly regardless of their gender here in the West.

You sound like a wonderfully reasonable person, and as I said before I wouldn't have any problem working with you for common goals that I'm sure we both have. But feminism never jived with me and still doesn't, and is obsolete as far as Western society is concerned in 2017. And while I'm sure your knowledge of feminism is much more vast than my own, the concepts you laid out didn't much change what I said before and in fact further solified what I thought about its relevance to Western society.

I will concede though that 1) Patriarchy as it exists today (dont get it twisted leftypol, it exists in non Western nations that are yet undeveloped by capital) will have to be eradicated. And the ways in which that will happen will definitely have to take notes from what is happening in Rojava (I was aware of their bringing women into leadership positions, but not of their anti-patriarchal sessions). 2) Patriarchies that exist currently will not fade away with the downfall of global capitalism.

I think you've pointed out a major flaw in my thinking though, of being too Western focused in my commentary. I want to concede my mistake and again clarify that I mostly, like I'm sure many of us do here, speak about conditions that exist in my own country (USA). I certainly cannot apply my commentary on patriarchy's absence in America and how defunct feminism is here to say a society like that which may exist in the rural Congo in which men still control women in the household as well as the extent of their self expression in society as well as the community. Feminism I think has reached its limits in Western society, but as for the rest of the world it certainly has a place.

Bonus round

there's a difference between feminism and "feminism."

that's literally not even what the patriarchy is composed of. The simple economic relation of capital is no longer patriarchal, but the social and cultural aspects of society and their relations all are. Gender is very well a basis of power and people still interact with each other on a basis of gender, ignoring the current tides of reactionary and liberal identity politics is only proof that feminist discourse is still needed.
Marxism inherently implies an ideology for one man, the name of an ideology means fuck all, feminism was implemented to liberate woman firstly because they were legitimately oppressed nearly a century ago, hence its name. Ideas aren't some static entity free of ideology.
what type of victim complex is this, is this what you say to justify your reaction against feminism?

i feel you broseph

She's a big name but there are more valuable people to read imo. Juliet Mitchell, Shulamith Firestone, even De Beauvoir. Ocalan's writings are also readily available if you want an idea of what Rojava's feminism looks like – I've attached one that addresses this topic.

I was very clear to point out that patriarchy isn't dominance of cultural space – it is control of womens' labor, and through that their activity in the rest of society. In much of the world, male cultural dominance follows from restricting women to laboring in the home. And in the West, we are yet to see the majority of men gestate and rear children, do the housework, and often hold a job to boot. Patriarchy endures in Western society not by male cultural domination but by material social relations where women fill particular places and perform certain labors; labor is still very much gendered. Only bourgeois women are able to effectively outsource the labor expected of them – for this reason patriarchy will not be abolished until there is a revolution.

I explicitly said that women face a double oppression: the home and the workplace. Women escaped the sole oppression of the home to find themselves exploited in the workplace the same as men, only with the duties of the home still weighing on them. Perhaps they could rid themselves of an abusive husband, but that still did not relieve them of their dual labors.

Simply being married to a capitalist is enough, or being a member of a certain well-heeled family (as a daughter, for example). Owning capital is certainly more fundamental in that instance; however, women don't have to literally own capital in order exercise patriarchal control. It also doesn't negate the fact most women do not have access to that kind of control.

I don't know if you follow PissPigGranddad but he joked about apologizing for his gender to the lovely ladies of Rojava; that's what I'm talking about.

Feminism reached its limits in Western society the moment it introduced women to the workplace. Unfortunately that's not a widely appreciated view.

80% of the posters here are just fascists from Holla Forums fucking around

Not really.
Unless you get triggered and consider anyone who say "faggot" and don't give a shit about idpol to be a fascist.

If that is the caliber of arguments feminists will "shred" him with, I dont think he has much to worry about.

Vast majority of workers are idiots that need to be controlled and directed by those with higher experience and understanding of politics OP. You can`t expect them to participate in bodypolitc.

can we ban socdems already?

O bloco e o pcp não estão no poder, mas tem alguma influência sobre o orçamento de estado.

eu já fui do bloco e depois anarco-parvo, ao lidar com anarcas e troskos tornei-me mais autoritário e a defender o comité central. Que no fim do dia é bem mais democrático que a fantochada da mesa nacional do bloco.

If anything I'm more left-wing now than I've ever been before

Work was probably what radicalized me the most

...

I identify with this whole post tbqh

Well, at least we had a couple hundreds subscribers. I've been invited to mod another subreddit but I don't if I'll accept as it looks a lot more idpol then the subreddit I used to belong to.

*spams the sub

just because men can "become" house-husbands doesn't mean it's a socially, culturally or psychologically acceptable position for men to do so. Ignoring the engenderement of capitalism on society with the nuclear family and its effects on both the social and reproductive spheres of society is ignorance. Just because men and women can seek work on equal grounds doesn't imply that gender roles have been abolished, or that patriarchy has ended. It's in the same vein that if you removed men of all positions of power, implemented matriarchy, and then gave men their rights back a hundred years later that you would've abolished this very system.

It seems like your view of feminism and gender is very non-dialectical. So long as people identify with each other not as workers, but off the basis of gender, race, or other physical characteristics the social antagonisms of society haven't been ridden of. And so long as patriarchy, racism and etc exist, they will manifest the system/base in whatever forms they can ideologically and change the superstructure of society.

"Peaceful" hippies literally told Shulamith Firestone to pop her top.
Simone de Beauvoir was a Nazi.

When you say it isn't socially or culturally acceptable for men to become house husbands I feel you're living in a different world than me. Even my Trump loving Army friends constantly joke with their wives about their longing to be house husbands, and how amazing it would be if they could stay home and play with the kids/dog. One almost pleaded with his wife in a conversation I was apart of, telling his wife he'd "have all her lunch and dinner made, and would scrub the grout clean every day" for the chance to do so. I think it's much more acceptable than you think, which is why the conditions that feminists speak of in this country don't exist (to me, and apparently many people here).

And again, please note I no where said that the social antagonisms that exist in society don't exist. Please take careful note of this. Sexism and racism are very real things, but feminism is not the answer anymore in Western society.

If you wanted to ask me what I think about gender relations anyway, human sexual dimorphism will never allow us to get past the point where people don't see gender when looking at one another. In a perfect future I still feel that hard, manual labor will be performed overwhelmingly by men but will not lock out women who can do the job. In this future men will be able to be nurses and no one would ever feel the need to male a "murse" joke. But I still think women would outnumber men in certain jobs that they already do outnumber men in because I think as a whole they can be said to have more emotional capacity, and men with their undeniable physical capacity will fill other jobs more.

Does this mean we should be steering women into pink nursing uniforms because we put a societal label on their work as "feminine"? Absolutely not. But as I was discussing this very topic with my girlfriend, she agreed that with the scenario I presented (capitalism overthrown, gender relations normalizing into an equal parity where men and women see each other as equal proletarians) she thinks women and men will diversity in their labor but would still by necessity gravitate to certain things. I think I agree to a certain extent. The only difference between the traditional gender division of labor Engels mentioned and our post-capitalist society would be no one is forced culturally or socially into certain types of labor.

Like I said, I believe the best thing we can do at this second is remove the power structures behind racism and sexism which would be capitalism. Not that I don't think they exist which would be "brocialist" I guess, but that that the solution would be to remove the economic power that is wielded by racism and sexism. I don't think patriarchy as any of you above describe it exists either, even after my reading. But as I said before, I'm a communist first and foremost and I'll gladly extend a helping hand if our common goal is the destruction of capitalism. I feel that a lot of Marxist-feminists don't feel that way, and are thus sectarian and overall hurtful to the movement of international socialism.

Yeah. they shouldn't have the right to organize or vote because they're all stupid children.

I have a terrible addiction to food and shelter.