Fun and Learning thread

Giving women that right to vote was a mistake.

...

It's not all wrong tho

weak

Okay, argument address:

that's better

Feminism is a symptom of materialism. Women are much more vain than men and consume with much less frugality, divorce rates increase in tandem with more women in the work force, therefore women become less motherly more like whores who don't care about family values.

Still avoiding the content of the argument itself, which makes you look weak.

Maybe because it has no content?

It does.

So what does it say? With your own words.

Why the fuck can't you just read and respond? You're a big boy, you can do it.

I've read it but it's just the usual "feminism is why I don't have a gf :(" whining.

So you didn't really read it, you just reaffirmed your own smugness. Got it.

Stop arguing with retarded virgin Holla Forumsyps and post educational degeneracy.

Human nature

Your problem is reality, which human nature is only a small part of. If you had any experience with women you would know that we aren't equal.

This isn't your board retard. This is Holla Forums territory. We own you.

Going along with his argument, isn't it men who cause the phenomenon of women getting plastic surgery and lots of clothes? After all, it is men like this who expect women to be either only good for homekeeping or sex.

>we aren't equal
top kek user, you are too much for me.

Strawmen?

It is to the benefit of women that they retain a sense of being a good mother/housekeeper. It gives them a better sense of purpose than being whores and money grubbers. Who takes care of the kids when papa is working? Mama? No, she's working too, so you'd better hire some fucking stranger to look after your offspring because making money is the most important thing ever. Nothing is more anti-capitalist than patriarchy.

This is coming from a nihilist. You don't even believe in equality.

pick one

Fight me virgin.

You're right about that, I don't believe in equality because I most certainly think that you're my inferior in every way :^)))

So this cutie has nudes or not?

Read a book retard. PDF related.

Patriarchy is much more deeper than that you superficial degenerate. That is the problem with both capitalism and communism, both only give a superficial understanding of human relations. Only traditionalists and natio.nal socialists understand the depth of such bonds between men and women.

Hey you were the one that made the assertion, why don't you try to justify how patriarchal relations are at odds with capitalism.

I already did.

Here
And here

No you didn't. Capitalism is a mode of production characterised by private ownership of the means of production and generalised commodity production. You said that this is at odds with patriarchal relations. How?

To clarify, how would enforcing patriarchal relations end capitalism?

Why don't you reread the posts, I gave you your answer. It's up to you to make of it what you will. I can't hold your hand through this. I'll give you a hint though: that's not the only definition of capitalism, and for that matter capitalism is only a creation of materialism which created communism as well. Communism and capitalism are two heads of the same monster that needs to be exterminated.

I said nothing of ending capitalism. Capitalism isn't going to go away, it will be altered and adjusted to accommodate for a more traditionalist outlook. Patriarchy is when the man makes the money, and the woman maintains the house and raises the children. Without patriarchy there is no civilized society.

If capitalism can co-exist with patriarchal relations I don't see how "nothing is more anti-capitalist than patriarchy". You're literally contradicting yourself.

Tradition is much more anti-capitalist and anti-materialistic than communism is. Communism has no tradition and therefore is completely disconnected from reality. Women will never be satisfied with either capitalism or communism.

No because I never said that patriarchy would 'end' capitalism, you did. I said it was against capitalism just as it was against materialism. Capitalism is a Hegelian thesis, Communism the antithesis, and nation.al socialism in the synthesis which revitalizes traditional views and patriarchy.

How can something be anti-capitalist if not only will it do nothing to end capitalism but can in fact co-exist with it?

This is just gibberish, the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" dialectic is not hegelian.

And for the record, materialism is an ontological position, not an ethical position regarding consumption. If you're anti-materialist you think that the world is composed of thought rather than matter.

Capitalism will be consumed.

Then you must know nothing of Hegel or materialism.

...

So capitalism will be consumed but still exist? kek.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

I like your concept OP.

Not a problem tbh, individuals have a right to choose their lifestyle.

Kurdish learning group when

marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

...

Good stuff

...

Here.

Have some Nietzsche.

Also, I figured that we needed some male YPG heartthrobs.

Because you say it's to their benefit? Why not let them decide?

So does pretty much any other form of labour, too. What's your point?

So the only two options outside of housekeeping and mothering is to be a whore or someone who just wants money?

Papa can do that just fine. Or you can just not have kids. I admit that there is some responsibility when one has children, though I can't see what that has to do with women as a whole.

Or another member of the family. I agree it's not ideal, but the idea of the nuclear family isn't either.

The destruction of the nuclear family is sufficiently anti-capitalist for me. Patriarchy and matriarchy are irrelevant.

The very idea of the male appropriating female labour and female faculties is anti-Marxist. It's a form of miniature labour exploitation from inside the family.

Part of capitalist exploitation is the exploitation of women and children who they can get away with paying less. To campaign for an end to such exploitation is to campaign for the end of exploitation for female workers, too.

monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/

Pls.

This was really not supposed to be a discussion thread. Just post educational content and lewd content and ignore any mong who crawls in here from Holla Forums.

Sorry comrade, I just don't like seeing disinfo. Good luck with your thread, I don't have anything to offer.

No reason to apologize. I totally get it.

We just shouldn't allow every thread to be derailed.

...

I wish I was well educated enough to understand Tiqqun, but most of the time I can't even make sense of Debord… :(

...

What are you having difficulties with in regard to Debord? I only just started on Tiqqun myself - so I can't answer your questions there.

I simply don't understand what's he trying to say.

The wiki gives a okay explanation of how he presents it, but the central core of the message is related to Marx theory of alienation and Lukacs theory of reification.

I'll just copy-paste what I've written in an earlier blogpost:

If there's something I've left vague, I'll try to answer them in the morning.

Start off by making sure you're really hot on what value and commodities are all about, especially what fetishism is.

Can you recommend sources where I could learn about these? I have some basic ideas about Marx but not Lukács.

Understand how dialectical concepts relate to each other.
Use that to read part 1 of capital.
You now understand fetishism.

Degenerate bump.

...

Böhmp

...

What happened to the Holla Forumslack from before? Did his posts get deleted by a mod or did he do it himself out of shame?

just red pilled an Iraqi Kurd on socialism and Rojava at work the other week.

Feels good man.

who is this pretty lady you keep posting

Her name is Gita Hadizadeh apparently. Beyond that I have no clue.

imgur.com/a/nEsIu

Her hair is really pretty!

Bump.

...