Somebody made a socialism thread on /r9k/ and somebody who isn't me created this original post

Somebody made a socialism thread on /r9k/ and somebody who isn't me created this original post.


Other urls found in this thread:

My thought is that virgins are apparently incapable of forming meaningful opinions.

Not everything is about pussy.

I'm not buying it.

And that OP is a fucking faggot for actually talking about the 'patriarchy'.

Anyways, the sexual market is like any market under capitalism, driven by competition.

OP of that thread sounds like a fag

He isn't wrong, Normies gotta norm. Even under full communism Chad and Stacey would still find things to be petty and abusive about.

That is no reason not to demand a different society of course.

Of course the best society for wizards (I don't care for robots, bunch of failed normies) is a NazBol society in which wizards are in charge, by a combination of what Evola called the Order of the State and something like the Order of the Jesuits, I'm talking an elite Order of volcels ruling with an iron fist over Chad and Stacey.

Wizards could never hold on to power for too long. I have been on wizard chan, my god those people are nothing generic dumbfucks. They're just normies who can't get laid.

It's just another retard who thinks communism is just capitalism with different bosses, don't waste your time.

i think pol pot was right and that this sexual insecurity is primarily driven by capitalism. even if the desire is natural, the depth to which they dwell on it is the fault of capitalism.

though i still hope they suffer for it, because i was blessed with being literally autistic and thus not wanting any sex.

How will social and sexual relations be noncompetitive under socialism? Describe how people will choose to join into friendships and sexual partnerships, and how it will be meaningfully different than how it is now.

Personally, I look at hippie communes as proof that it's possible to make social and sexual relations non-competitive

But I don't have any problem getting laid so I haven't given it much thought

I do not go to wizchan, bunch of crybabies. They've been degraded by their conspicuous consumption of mass media, they should really read a book but they won't because "muh brain fog" , I was once like them until I saw the Light of NazBol.

They will continue being competitive, even under a theoretical post-scarcity society there will still be status signaling, it can be physical fitness or the accumulation of cultural capital or just being a huge special snowflake, imagine Facebook but in real life, hipsterism and special snowflakery running rampant.

We need to make these poor saps accept that natural differences exist. Last thing we want in a socialist society where there's a bunch of mad as fuck Elliott Rodgers running around.

Hopefully we can help them out with shit like sexbots. In socialism envy will become the number one problem imo.

Do you have any ethnographic accounts?

I think there's a variety of problems with the example. One is probably selection bias. Hippie communes attract socially adept, narcissistic lifestylers. It's uncertain whether everybody could become such a person.

Secondly, I think you're just wrong. Hippies tended to be obsessed with gaining reputation. In the Electric Kool Aid Acid test, there were cool people and lame people, those accepted in and those kicked out. Sixties organizations with rampant drug use and sexual promiscuity had an aging out process where unstable thirty year olds invested in every form of therapy which could make them look young and attractive again. People were in it, in large part, to be hip- to differentiate against old, lame people caught up in organizations and inauthentic presentation. It was all blatantly socially competitive, and represents a mode of social organization narcissistic to repellent extremes. It was a great example of leftist community being adopted by narcissists who wanted to feel superior to other people.

Your first paragraph could be readjusted with limited word change to a hereditarian defense of capitalism.

Also, saving images like that from facebook is pretty cancerous.

If that's true than surely you an alternative to the current way sex is done? Sexocalism if you will

Holy fuck why are all these kids opinions tied to getting laid

Because they haven't gotten laid.

He isn't wrong. Communism isn't any kind of social utopia, it's only another kind of society.

But it is still a better one; at least under communism, you don't have to pile wageslavery on top of the social isolation. Insofar that you are worse of for losing forced socialization at work (which is very poor anyway), it could conceivably be replaced by either the state, or volunteer organizations the second option is a joke by the way.

Sounds spooky tbh famalam

I don't think he's wrong about anything. I think the people here who greentext >human nature and think they'll make a society without alienation or individual social dysfunction are impressively retarded and probably sheltered.

Niconiconi has such fucklable footpussy…

i'll stop mocking hooman nacher fags when someone actually understands and explains what hooman nacher is

(i know what he meant, that only spooks are legitimate in promoting social cohesion because he's a bootlicker, this kind of shit is why robots, unlike wizards, really are a threat to civilised society, entitled little shits)

as i already said in another thread, 4chan is getting more unspooked day by day.
We should raise our presence there, to put 4chan at a more neutral level at least.

What is good in life if it makes no difference whether this or that person is talking to you or fucking you? If it's all the same? What is enjoyed?

Genes are related to personality traits and behaviors, including aggression, shyness, political belief, and addiction. Variation in human behavior reflects variations in human biology, and what is general in human cultures may reflect biological constraints imposed by human beings generally. There may be many conceivable societies which are not cultural possibilities because they demand behaviors of human beings which humans either lack the will or capability to sustain. Saying that in several generations we may have societies "without self interest" demands a much, much more rigorous description of that process, and a deeper understanding of psychology than the theory crafter is presenting.

This does not mean that humans are naturally competitive, it means theory ought to be backed up with historical analysis and empirical investigation.

I made this post and it's good.


Looking at pre-modern and pre-industrial societies, it's extremely apparent that the level of social dysfunction and alienation robot's feel just doesn't exist, and Communism is supposed to be better than that, not equal to. Will there be sexual competition in Communism, effectively excluding wizards? I don't fucking know, it depends on how prevalent free love philosophies are and whether there'll even be wizard-tier people, I do know it won't matter very much because their problems are because they're not getting laid, it's because they're fucking alienated.


This person sounds incredibly pathetic and maladjusted. I'm so glad I've never been on /r9k/. It's insane that anons who've never had sex, or even a gf, can be so obsessed with sex and finding a gf to the point that it literally becomes their single defining characteristic. Also, this is a waste of a thread.

When I read his manifesto it really connected. I could emphasize with the depression, the hopefulness and subsequent despair, the narcissism and the angry bitterness. For awhile afterwards I wondered what factors happened that separated the different paths we took.

This is an extreme generalization. There are plenty of reasons why people get alienated. Although I think that life under capitalism is pointless, it isn't my primary cause of alienation. It is that people are boring to me. Normal people don't interest me in the slightest. I am far past hating them, and I would happily cooperate with them. But I don't feel any real connection to them.
As for robots. I also do not see how robots will have an easier time finding what they believe they want under socialism. There won't be any discrimination based on class. But does that really change the fact that robots suck at socializing? Will social anxiety really disappear? Wouldn't they just feel even more insecure about their looks or personality? Wouldn't economic liberation lead to women staying single for longer, waiting for that perfect man, without looking in a poor robots direction? I don't have the answers, but that is exactly why we shouldn't try to inflate socialism to "waifus for everyone". It is dishonest. Socialism is a change the base, which will affect the superstructure. How it will affect can only be speculated.

I also empathized with him, even to the extent that I wanted to shoot up some fuckers. I never did though. That was years ago

Nowadays I'm still a wagecuck loser that disgusts everyone. I have a fat gf now though, but I hate going out in public with her because I imagine everyone's gaze in me, judging me

Then we'll help out. Isn't that obvious? Robots don't have a strong social support base. People will take steps to help you out, they'll find dates for you or whatever, drag you outside to socialize. It's in the group's best interest and in OUR best interest that we don't have people as alienated as robots because a socialism where every other dude is an Eliott Rodger ready to shoot up someplace at a moment's notice, society would hardly function

But one reason normal people is so boring is that communication via people is being replaced with communication via commodities and consumption choices.

That's kinda sad user, for you and her.

That's because you're alienated from them. When people are actually connected to each other they don't need to share interests to find each other interesting.
Lack of socialization and social anxiety cannot exist in a non-alienated society. Imagine being a villager and never seeing your fellow villagers, or having anxiety when you see them even though you've known them your entire life and they're essentially family.
Possibly, but they wouldn't be told to feel insecure or look and act a certain way by advertising.
People tend to not like being lonely. If the only reason a woman stays single is because she's waiting for the right sugar daddy, then she's likely brainwashed by capitalism.

This also.

You wrongly assume that communist societies will have small scale social integration, and you underestimate the role of technology in semi-voluntary social isolation.

For a lot of reasons communism will likely be less socially integrated than pre-industrial societies. People won't need anybody for material reasons under communism, it's all for fun.

Mostly accurate.

This applies to an equal degree to capitalist society. At your college, nobody had an interest in there being friendless kids, but there were plenty of friendless kids and minimal efforts to help them.

Capitalism doesn't make social relations a ritual of gradual self-revealing, fear of rejection does.

Read what's under my first quote.

Ads are not the fucking cause of this, they're an exceptionally minor part.


You're making the assumption that if people don't literally need to interact, they won't, when that's just nonsense. Modern alienation isn't because of modern technology, but because of the way Capitalism isolates and atomizes people, and actually creates factors that dissuade people from seeing and spending time with each other.
Not sure how that applies to my sentence, but even still, you're ignoring the aspect Capitalism has in making people fearful of rejection. Obviously it has and always will be there, but Capitalism acerbates it by making people and relationships (especially romantic) into commodities to buy and sell. Certain communities have very little fear of social rejection because that commodification hasn't taken place.
There's an extensive amount of research done on how ads and mass media in general shape people's ideals and contribute to insecurity. When robots are talking about chad thundercock, they're not thinking of some guy they knew in school who stole their waifu, but a certain idea they've inherited from mass media and from each other. They imagine a 6'1 guy with tough jaw, gregarious personality, and lots of friends. They don't think of the other types of people who have good friends and a gf because they're not taught to think of them.

His first point is (in spirit anyway) correct. There's not much to say about that.

But for the second point I don't think he's giving capitalism enough credit. What is "attractive" or "unattractive" at the present moment has a lot to do with what is marketed to us and reinforced in the media/in broader capitalist society, and a lot of that has to do with exploiting (or even creating) insecurities so as to generate profits from people hoping to fix something that never really needed to be solved. I mean up until very recently it wasn't reinforced as attractive to be as thick and juicy as possible, that was called fat. Yet now after rap music spilled the beans that many men actually really like that those body types are visibly celebrated. Often there are things that many people like that we're basically told not to express.

Similarly I'm sure the NEETs of /r9k/, at heart, aren't totally irredeemable people. I mean yeah, unemployment, hatred of women, waifuism, letting yourself go and playing video games all day aren't attractive - but we must consider that these are by and large symptoms of their greater alienation.

Beyond that I'm sure they must be in some ways interesting, or fun, or visibly attractive to some people. But in western society there's such a slim window of what is reinforced as attractive in men, and women are very much socialized to take the passive role in relationships, that it's easy to see how it would be difficult for men that don't fit into this and that don't have the personality to be the active partner in dating would wind up very lonely. Part of his mindset is that robots are not at all interesting, or entertaining or sexually desirable to anyone and could never be (unless they undertook such radical change as to pretty much be a different person). I don't think that's true, from my male perspective there's very few women I meet that I would say are totally unattractive and I would assume it's much the same from a woman's perspective. Maybe I'm wrong and women have absurdly high standards, but judging by some of the guys I see with gfs I don't think that's the case.

That's why men go to asia to look for a partner, it's where the strong independent womyn are at.

Actually it's where the women are poor enough they'd shack up with a random dude to enjoy the benefits of western life

How do you respond to this Holla Forums?

How do you ensure that communist society isn't dominated by Alpha Chads ostracizing all the betas?

I think he was talking about East Asia. Like Japan, China, Korea.

Yes natural differences exist, this is why we must practice eugenics and deport all the niggers and mudslimes, I'm glad we finally agree.

I don't need to respond to that since the very notion is ridiculously retarded

"Chad Thundercock" is not a real person nor is it a real sociological phenomenon. It's a made-up boogeyman by internet virgins to personify everything they see themselves as lacking.

there actually are good looking guys with big cocks out there btw

Are you saying there aren't guys out there fucking all the girls? Really? Really?

Were you homeschooled or something? Did you completely skip high school and college? Have you never been to a bar at all?


No, I'm saying the guys who have lots of sex are an extremely diverse group of people that aren't personified by an internet caricature whereas the insecurities of /r9k/ are. Hence why "Chad Thundercock" changes definitions based on who you ask, what exactly that entails is coloured by their own worries.

Well if we use that logic, the bourgueoise doesn't exist because rich people are a diverse bunch who came to own their wealth by various methods and many of them aren't even aware of their classifications and see themselves as persons rather than by class.

Hence why "Bourgueois" changes definitions based on who you ask, what exactly that entails is coloured by their own worries.

gee if you just change all the words in a paragraph it will have a different meaning, who wouldathunk?

"Bourgeoisie" has one consistent definition and that's the people who own property so do not need to sell their labour to survive.

I can already hear your reply
And I will pre-emptively point out that we both know that's not true. If you take one look at /r9k/ it's very obvious that "Chad Thundercock" has an idealized form and personality that as I pointed out is subject to change.

And no before you say it here on Holla Forums depictions of the bourgeoisie as pigs wearing top hats is not the same thing.

The guys I see fucking all the girls very rarely meet the chad stereotype of being well build sports types.

Usually it's some hipster faggot or "competely generic white male NPC who's kind of a bit hipster but not really" kind of guy.

And I say this as an outright autismo, even I pick up on it.

That's stupid, that's like saying Steve Jobs wasn't bourgueois because he wore jeans and a black sweater instead of overpriced luxury shit. It doesn't change the fact that he still extracted all the wealth from his workers.

We all know who Chads are, the guys who get lots of sex and all the girls because they have the personality and/or looks to attract them, stop dancing around the issue.

You're still missing my point, it's not that guys who have lots of sex somehow secretly don't because they aren't all ripped football players. It's that "Chad Thundercock" as an archetype hasn't actually come about as a way of describing these people, it has come about as /r9k/'s way of externalizing their insecurities into quasi-Tyler Durden like figure. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the real guys who get laid but it tells us a great deal about the way robots see themselves.

No, if you want an analogy here's my point.

You're whining about "the rich", the people who tend to own the means of production. (i.e. "chad", the person you'd expect to have a lot of sex.)
Whereas in reality the issue isn't the rich/chad, but the bourgoise (i.e. those who own the means of production, even if they are poor because they suck at owning them / those who get sex, regardless of attributes.)

That r9k externalizes their insecurities on a type of person doesn't mean that this type of person doesn't exist. He's a trope exactly because he is so common and familiar.

In the media.

While you're fuming about the gang of chads with girlfriends Harry Potter over there has fucked more women than you've made eye contact with.

Of course that type of person exists. No one is disputing that there are ripped confident guys that have lots of sex, that much goes without saying.

But you need to understand what I'm saying. Beyond this robots have a vision of Chad that isn't by design what women want (not necessarily that women don't want that), rather it is by design who that robot wishes they were. This is the importance of where I pointed out that what exactly "Chad Thundercock" entails differs from person to person, each of them has different insecurities and so externalizes them in different ways.

Here is the thing. "Chad Thundercock" getting a monopoly on women isn't such a fear for /r9k/ because there are real guys that somewhat resemble what they're imagining. It's because Chad epitomizes (by design, since it was designed inside their own heads)everything they wish they were and despair that they never will be, it's worrying because they believe that because they are not this person that represents the antithesis of them (in their head anyway) they are basically worthless in any kind of relationship. And even if they succeed it's only temporary until Chad comes along to "cuck" them.

This is what I'm saying to the original poster. The "Chad Thundercock" you're worrying about getting a monopoly on women in a communist society is in your mind.

Reading Marxist theory turns you into Chad, baby.

Just look at this cunt, he's an ugly autistic manlet yet he was slaying quality puss well into old age because dialectics are the key to a woman's panties.
/r9k/ is discussing communism
Get in here, guys.

To a huge degree it is. Social contact is uncomfortable for a lot of people, and as isolation becomes more comfortable it will become more common.

You cannot sell people. You can exchange your attention and entertainment for theirs, though. This will happen in any social environment anywhere where social interaction is voluntary.

The worst thing about this board is the social science understanding that literally all competitiveness, all greed for reputation or attention, comes down to capitalism. It's grossly underdetermined.

Quite probably none of it is replicable. Marketing is a narrow slice of the media now that there's an internet, anyways.

Explain to me what does it mean to "feel lonely"?

It's not an exchange. Everyone is focused on him/herself and considers everyone and everything else as a glorified prop for talking to yourself. It's even more sad when it's unconscious.

Did anybody inform him about state-sponsored nubile Nazbol QTs?

Why is this even a problem? Why should I care that some ugly loser can't get laid? There are hundreds of more important things to talk about.

I agree, but when those "ugly losers" turn to right wing ideology, it becomes a real problem