Dude let's abolish hierarchy

What did he mean by this?

women don't have dicks

they do now

Proudhon was spooked by gender, unfortunately. If he followed his political philosophy to its logical conclusion he would have been a proto-feminist, but we all have our blind spots.

more like

shitposting to the rescue

Hes right you know

When did he say this? I don't know Proudhon very well

STOP MISGENDERING ME YOU SHITLORK

The usual way to sideline the real issues of a political philosopher is to focus on irrelevant shit (like their nth century cultural baggage) so that you can immedietaly add that "yup, we need to correct that, raysism is a nono, patriarky is a nono" like if with this pseudo-critical gesture you portrayed that you are indeed critical of him so you can leave aside the real problems of said author…


lel

proudhon said this

>gender

That dude looks like 1800's Sargon of Assmad.

Both of these. my gf asked if i knew who proudhon was and i like a retard i said yeah hes pretty cool without having read anything by him. i just knew he was an anarchist so when she asked me why he was so sexist i was like idk is he

fun blog haha xd

Sage in all fields.

with all the stupid shit proudhon said

enough said

Proudhon was an asshurt politician who wanted to burn shit down because he didn't get his way. He's the worst theorist and his biographical writings are extremely revealing. He was basically a failure at everything.

...

🅱ierre was nazbol

they don't HAVE to thats just the natural way of things.

Modern leftists act as if women need to "liberated" when this has only given them depression

...

You shouldn't judge someone's philosophy based on how successful they were in life, lest we forget that Marx died in poverty.

That's only because he let his daughters marry losers.

fpbp.

...

I agree actually cause production for exchange is still capitalism

No it's not. Saying that really trivializes Capitalism.

To be fair, this would be the case in Islamic Socialism.

production for exchange is an essential part of capitalism tho.
what do you mean by trivialize?

Whilst anarchists reject the external characteristic of bourgeois law - state coercion and the statutes - they preserve its inner essence, the free contract between autonomous producers

Stop being a massive faggot and read Kropotkin.

It is an essential part but it's not the most important or exclusive part. Markets are shitty and inefficient, but what really makes Capitalism shitty is stuff like exploitation, alienation, and lack of control over your own livelihood.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

Interesting thread deserving of bumb.

you're like one of the strawmen rightists make about communists hating freedom.

This. That's why it's called Mutualism and not Proudhonism. Marxists are stuck with all the shortcomings of Marx, and whatever other tankie they hyphenate onto the the end of their MLMDHT blood orgy

Giving everyone their own individual MoP without having a society be dominated by capital, if that were the case, I'd see nothing wrong with it. Mutualism is still dominated by capital, but if that wasn't the case, I'd be fine with it.

...

lmao

lmao

This man gets it.

Mutualism was born from Proudon but we never kept all his shortcomings with it.

We moved on and tried to make it better.

The same can be said about workers and feudalism.

define human nature.

you're like one of the strawmen rightists make about communists not reading anything other than the commiefesto