Neoliberalism hate thread

Wew, quite a meme. As if everyone who lived in pre-capitalist societies were hungry all the time and couldnt provide for themselves. It's more dripping with white guilt and misconceptions then the very people it is criticizing.

MRAs are idpol bullshit through and through.

Sure showed me. Wow. I'd better cry about losing this argument on the internet. 😢 😢 😢

You DO belong on tumblr

Sure.

I dont recall anyone mentioning MRAs unless you think anyone who disdains feminist ideology is one.

Definitely seems like what Tumblrinas do in their free time when they aren't yelling about the patriarchy like it tho

One word responses deserve one word replies Tumblrina. Maybe you should take your emojis and talk of MRA Boogeymen back to whatever shithole you came from. That shit doesn't fly here. This is a radical brocalist board.

Its terrible for the developing world tho because it tells them that the best way to industrialize is to eliminate tariffs, accept or even expand parasitic rentier interests as part of the development process, and eliminate state support for industry and labor.

A lot of these proscriptions are the opposite of what the bourgeoisie used to industrialize the West (even if colonialism and slavery was a great help.) and some other developed countries.

Many NICs followed exactly the opposite of neoliberal policy proscription.

I was being ironic, literally mimicking the post before. Being afraid of men is not a real, radical feminist argument.

Ah ok, sorry fam. nice porn, makes the feminist in me feel deeply guilty

Listen to me: the opposite of radical is superficial–the opposite of liberal is stingy; the opposite of conservative is destructive. To be radicalized is to not take the paradoxes of ideology, language, and freedom at face value.

womynkind.org/scum.htm
Feminism is a garbage ideology. Radical feminism is especially shit. It's basically the paranoid ramblings of the female equivalent of a neet from r9k.

Horkheimer did this.

Tell me more about why I have to conform to your idea of what feminism is.
Better, tell me why I have to address this baseless equivocation about misandry and feminism.
Is it because you're triggered by someone calling themselves a feminist?
*tips Freud cigar* m'subject

You do realize that SCUM was a joke, right?

You really like futa, huh?

Im more a fan of statues myself.

Tumblr if there is one thing you're good for it's porn
saved

They have hey have funny gifs too

Meow.

I just wanna be friends.

Statues have no friends.

At least they're cute. Chisled, marble men really get me wet.

Usually it's rain that gets me wet, because I'm a statue.

You can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. It doesn't change the ideology's fundamental flaws nor the motives and underlying problems of the people associated thay that ideology. Feminism has no redeeming qualities is a a school of thought and it's proponents have demonstrated a clear pattern of bigotry and hatred. You can stop with the no true Scotsmen crap.

It's "satire" in the same way that Holla Forums memes are "satire". I don't buy that shit for a fucking minute. Claiming something is "satire" while openly practicing bigotry seems to be a common tactic for you femshits.

It's like I'm really reading a libertarians blog.

Calling me a libertarian isn't an argument faggot. Feminist's claims of wanting equality between the sexes is the equivalent to white supremacists saying they just want to preserve their culture and race. It's a flimsy poorly made facade and no ones buying it.

A shame, then, that you'll only get softer when we needed you to be as hard as a rock, sempai.

Wanting equality is now the same as wanting an artificial instituting of inequality? Are you seriously implying that white supremacy's opposition to multiculturalism is the same as a legitimate critique of supposed multicultural values? The point of being feminist is not to say us women are inherently better, muh anything a man can do I can do STRONKER, but rather that such arises out of spectacle disillusionment, which ultimately either reaffirms property relations by identifying with a commodity—which is a material object embedded with social and metaphysical assumptions—or "smashes" such in an attempt to show why bourgeois capital crises rely on the reproduction of ideology, whether "left" or right.

Please stop posting porn without a spoiler.

My rigidity and uncompromising solidity are beyond reproach or question as I am made of only the finest marble.

You've made no arguments either, just assertions. It's fun, right?

Hmph. No fun allowed.

Someone is just going to have to test how rigid you really are, one of these days.

I possess the rigidity of master crafted stone for that is what I am.

you sound extremly familiar…. you live in the American north east?

This only makes me question whether rain is the only thing wet against you putting your hardness on trial~

I could only wish I was in a place so cold and cozy.

...

This right-wing woman makes me fucking RAGE.

youtube.com/watch?v=67Fr-xKukco

Boys do love pussy,
So I thought I'd oblige.

reminds of people hating on law enforcement for the lone reason of so they can commit crimes without being interrupted or facing consequences.

I assure you, the hardness of me and all materials used in my creation were tested by my crafter, a master sculptor and as such it is beyond question.

False, boys love sculptures.

Even so, this does not stop those that want to feel for themselves, mind their…sticky centres kissing up on your stiffness

Vini Oliveira is getting sooo much shit on his FB page for this cartoon.

It's almost scary how angry SJWs get when you criticize a mainstream pop star who profits from slave labour just because she's a black chick.

are you a grill ?

No I'm saying just like white supremacists the claim of wanting equality is a lie made to mask the actual female chauvinism and misandry embedded into the ideology. That's not even getting into how moronic some of the issues the vast majority of feminists care about like the wage gap and the "glass ceiling". At least MRAs are concerned with issues involving working class men like education and the judicial system. Not to say they aren't flawed and their desire for liberal reforms misguided. If feminists spent more time talking about issues effecting men and more time talking about issues facing working class women like daycare and raising the minimum wage. I'd have a much better opinion of them. As it stands now feminism is. Ineffectual ahistorical reformist garbage at best and man hating bigotry at it's worst.

Oppression of women predates the existence of the working class. Just saying senpai :–)

Seriously, what white supremacist claims to want equality, real bona fide equality, wherein supposedly socioeconomic imperatives don't make up the majority of reasoning to protect white capital?
Bringing up MRAs again as if I was actually'' against them…
SMH
The ends of MRAs and Feminists, in general, are not necessarily in conflict nor ultimately bourgeois v. proletariat, since they both concern themselves with how certain gender roles, like a patriarch, nonetheless alienates both man and woman, especially in commodity capitalism:

you are so intellectually dishonest that you imagine everything in terms of mutual exclusives, decrying idpol but sparing one identity for yourself, as a supposed egoist-rationalist protecting muh male values, feminists wunna destroy MEN hurrrrrrrr

No seriously, what you value in MRAs, as a critique of bourgeois capitalism is also ever-present in Feminism, and what you find cringey for defending supposed "idpol" in Feminism is also ever-present in MRA discourse; my point is this, anyone can call themselves anything, but this does not imply that there are, or even should be checks against identity politics since doing so ultimately brings about this or that bureaucracy.

Stop accepting these so-called academic distinctions at face value.

tl;dr
You are undialectical as fuck, comrade. Please despook yourself and read a fucking book.

Indeed.
Pussy power.

Yet they still really shitty living conditions

Really have*
Fuck

just end my life

You saying when men co opt feminist spergouts it suddenly becomes idpol?

Can we just agree that there's a difference between Marxist and liberal feminism and just stop this constant circle of triggering already.

I'm saying that the distinctions of what is and isn't idpol is increasingly blurry in a capitalist system. Its like how a capitalist will sell you a watered down version of a revolutionary, like a Che tee shirt, in a final act of consolation for supposed "leftist" values. But remember, just because a capitalist can co-opt something doesn't mean the former wasn't really revolutionary.

The point of being an MRA, I believe or imagine I understand from what I've read, is to focus on a different product of revolution/emancipation and critique how patriarchal values have constantly alienated men too. This, I think, is how both camps really differ, not in any degree of necessary idpol, but of emphasis on different forms of oppression, and makes both MRAs and Feminists compatible for their belief in class absurdity.

I'm ready to agree with that,
But a lot of anons here seem to think being a feminist also means you disagree-with/exclude Marx as a revolutionary. This is patently false, and makes it all the more fun to trigger little boys in their safe-spaces.

Elaboration: the former, as in, Che Guevara is dead, not that capitalists co-opting is revolutionary.

...

That is the attempt, but most people are simply unaware that there even is a distinction. Once you teach someone the difference, they will be able to see for himself.

In other words, to "take the red pill" is to see the world in the opposite fashion as Holla Forums. Ironic.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. It's just a whole paragraph of baseless assertions and pop psychology. For starters I don't view feminism is having an idpol problem. Feminism is idpol. So is the MRM. The MRM is only slightly less shit them feminism is. It's still useless idpol crap that won't accomplish anything. I just have less of an awful opinion ofMRAs compared to feminists. It's like saying that as a communist I prefer embedded liberalism to neoliberalism. It doesn't mean I support either position. Gynocentrism is just as moronic as patriarchy theory. I don't even know what this "male value" crap is. I never even talked about masculinity. It sounds like you're constructing a strawman. Viewing traits is masculine or feminine is illogical. I don't care for the distinction.

No we can't. Obviously. Which is why there's an argument going on. I have absolutely no respect or tolerance for feminism in any form.

"Oppression of women" is a result of division of labor based off the move from hunting and gathering to agricultural. The patriarchal and nuclear family models were and are used to maintain property rights. Oppression is directly related to hierarchy and class asshole. Fuck off. Your post reeks of reddit.

If only ideology could be so examined in one fell swoop.

How do you reconcile these two views? Because in one paragraph you're telling me that patriarchy theory is moronic, and then you go around and tell this user that patriarchy enforces unity through property relations, even affirming them that hierarchies existed before the emergence of the "working class" or what I believe he means to refer to as the mercantilist, proto-capitalist states of relation: instead of "I sell my labor for wage" it's instead the functionally equivalent "I sell my property for the good of society"
I just find it funny how dissonant you are when you conflate gynocentricism with feminism.

buzzfeed.com/alexrees/8-arguments-in-support-of-sweatshop-labor?utm_term=.fprD204Og#.pn40NnVZy

Also included is Buzzfeed in a nutshell.

Fuck off.

every time. How many times must this be posted?

keep fighting comrade. Don't let the idpol get you down.

Christ, reddit cross-posting and threads really were a massive mistake, but this place has been going to shit in general. I think anyone of any ideological worth left this place long ago, mostly because they have actual party work and don't have time to make baseless speculations on imageboards.

The less I go on Holla Forums the more I see how shitty it has gotten.

Ultimate cringe.
Do you even Rosa Luxembourg?

*tips chan authority*
m'user

Btw this was the original before Holla Forums edited it:

this

Holla Forums at times seems to be unable to distinguish between satire and genuine identity politics; it's paranoid ideology

Ok, so either Holla Forums is infested by Holla Forumstards, or you guys are just the same as them, since you use the same stupid caricatures of feminism, and are probably some cave-dwellers.

...

You can call a dog a cat, that doesn't make it a cat.
lol, you think Rosa was a feminist. I can't believe this level of cognitive dissonance.

however, I was unaware of this and apologize for it.

It is one of the myths of socialist history that Rosa Luxemburg had no interest in the women’s question. If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.
marxists.org/archive/draper/1976/women/4-luxemburg.html

Why is it that I always find Stalinists to be such reactionary retards when it comes to putting theory in praxis?

keep up the good work femposter

FUCK OFF ATTENTION WHORE
WHO GIVES A FUCK IF YOU ARE A GIRL?
YOU ARE DERAILING THE THREAD

You apparently; nice caps. The point is to be so apathetic.

Pretty sure Rosa advocated for the liberation of women from their gender roles m8, same with Lenin.

We don't want your new-internet tumblr Instagram vine filth here.

Nice appeal to the perceived concensus!
Great argument, nerd.

hurrr
Women's liberation is within every marxists interest, Rosas interest in women's liberation does not make her a feminist, it would be like calling nationalists fascists because fascists use nationalist practices. While nationalism is certainly reactionary it is far different than fascism.

She advocated for liberation of women from their gender roles because she was a good marxist, because she understood that the gender roles of capitalist society were perpetuated by the class hierarchy in said society.

You are disgusting, you cling onto Rosa's thematic of women's liberation without addressing the class basis behind it, and without addressing the marxist roots of her writing. She was not a feminist by any definition of the word, and no matter how much you revise history she will never be. She is a good marxist.

most of the thread was in agreement on this though.

Tell me more about how this is not what I'm advocating.
You just can't escape your spooks.

Holy shit this picture
Why can't anime catgirls be real???

Soo… you're actually saying you can't be a good Marxist unless you're a feminist?

if the stalinist says it, we must go in the opposite direction.

powerful enemies

Also, what the fuck happened to this thread?

I've been seeing a lot of liberals defending her by saying that the only reason she's getting criticized for it is because she's a black woman, and that white male oppressors get a free pass for their hypocrisy (e.g. Trump and his hats that are made in Mexico/China). Top lel.

Fix'd

Feminism: A bunch of talking cunts.

Same with me comrade. I haven't posted here in over 3 weeks. I come back and it's even worse then when I left. Fighting off idpolers is just exhausting. I mean look at this stupid asshole . It's the same argument over and over. You're a reactionary if you refuse to accept my super special idpol.

>patriarchy enforces unity through property relations
Yeah I never said anything like that. I said the family unit is used to maintain property rights and reinforce hierarchy. I'm not really sure what you find contradictory about my views. Patriarchy is simply a style of social organization. It isn't an institution that still exist or is even relevant today in the modern western world. The nuclear family that replaced it is also dying. Neither one is anything accept a temporally useful tool for maintaining hierarchy and it is one of many tools. When it comes to the idea of masculine and feminine traits I view it like any stemfag should. You can't refer to a trait is belonging to one group if it can often be demonstrated in another group. Men and women both demonstrate traits of the opposite gender in statistically significant rates. So the distinction isn't particularly logical. In the same way the classical interpretation of race isn't a particularly useful classification in anthropology.

top kek

...

You realize that they're quoting something, right?
Fucking spazzes.

IE: A property relation.
Fetishism in anthropology refers to the primitive belief that godly powers can inhere in inanimate things; Marx's use of the term "Commodity Fetishism" extends this mysterious character of the object-form to therefore simplify in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men's own labour as so-called "objective" characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things. This effect is caused by the fact that, in a capitalist society, the real producers of commodities remain largely invisible. We only approach their products through the relations which the act of exchange establishes between the products.
You fucking daft, m8? American males ages 18 to 25 who fail to register for the draft can face stiff fines or will become ineligible for student financial aid, including Pell grants, college work study, guaranteed student/plus loans, and National Direct student loans.
Again, a misrepresentation of what you think gender theory is against. To put it informally, gender concerns the way human society deals with human bodies, and the many consequences of that deal in our personal lives and our collective fate.
Gender-expansive is an umbrella term used for individuals that broaden commonly held definitions of gender, including its expression, associated identities, and/or other perceived gender norms, in one or more aspects of their life. These individuals expand the definition of gender through their own identity and/or expression. Some individuals do not identify with being either male or female; others identify as a blend of both, while still others identify with a gender, but express their gender in ways that differ from stereotypical presentations.
Precisely, but that doesn't mean norms do not exist or that they've already been abolished or are "[irrelevent] today in the modern western world." See above for an example of how patriarchy today alienates men.

You're a reactionary when you can't even examine your own ideology.

Fucking reactionary scum.

saved

Lumpenproles are the lackeys of the capitalists against the workers.

Didn't Napoleon the III and the lazzaroni provide a good enough lesson that the lumpens will support anyone who gives them free shit?

And, Soros, along with other wealthy porkies and the government, are giving those lumpens all the free shit to attack the working class.

And no, I won't fuck off and I'm no reactionary. However, the modern "left" pretty much consists of modern Muscadins and lazzaroni, and you seem keen to support the lazzaroni of the modern age.

...

exploitation isn't a separate problem from not having enough food or anything

I tend to think that the mass petit-bourgeoisie and upper-stratum of the peasantry are bigger enemies in that regard tbh

The upside to that is that lumpen can be brought around to the communist side by offering them jobs and sometimes free shit

I've always found lumpen to be a very slippery concept following Engel's Condition of the Working Class in England as he pretty clearly says that theft is a form of unbridled and unintelligent revenge on the part of the working class.He also situates the victimization of workers by other workers as a form of social alienation caused by the war of all against all that capital entails.

If you think real proles don't steal or sell drugs and its just these dirty lumpen, I've got some bad news for you bucko…

The fact that a reserve army of labor of structurally unemployed is implied by Marx's scheme of capitalist reproduction makes separating lumpen from workers more difficult.

I guess if the only job you've ever held is pulling licks and selling drugs, even if you exist within a working class community that situates you pretty squarely as lumpen. I think in reality the lines are more blurred especially since N E O L I B E R A L I S M

...

What have women ever contributed to the revolution nor the vanguard?

Shitty bait fam
>>>Holla Forums

They gave birth to the great men.

tbh, that is about all they can do.

During the days when everybody was looking for a job, when jobs were more plentiful than they are now and have been for a long time, it is easy to see how people could accept Marx's definition of the proletariat. Unemployment was viewed as unnatural and temporary. Politicians promised full employment. Capitalists said that after the economy picked up from its slump there would be work for everybody. Soon there would be a chicken in every pot. But this never happened. What did happen was that more and more people found themselves unemployed, permanently out of work. At the same time, the economic system was becoming so modernized through electronic controls that complete job categories were eliminated. Objectively, this should be viewed as a good thing, because human beings have been struggling all down through the ages to emancipate themselves from the drudgery of work. The more that work can be done by machines, freeing human beings, the better. But in the context of a capitalist system, the advance of technology becomes a tragedy to the workers who are displaced by machines. Thus the stories of workers smashing machines or greeting a brilliant technological advancement with hostility and opposition. To this very day, Labor Unions still fight the introduction of new machinery and technology to the productive process precisely because their members are displaced and thrown back onto the heap of unemployed or permanently lumpenized.

So that it is clear that the basic condition of the dispossessed people, those who are cut off from technology, is not the proletarian condition described by Marx, but the Lumpen condition. The proletarian condition is that of those who have lifted themselves out of the Lumpen condition. When workers become permanently unemployed, displaced by the streamlining of production, they revert back to their basic Lumpen condition.

Once upon a time, when there were jobs to fight for, the Lumpen fought for jobs, for better working conditions, etc. Gradually, they won concessions from the capitalists. But later on, and even more so today the Lumpen realized that there are no jobs to fight for. Ideologically confused, perceiving their true situation unclearly, the Lumpen has been side tracked. But still the Lumpen posed a constant threat to the capitalist system, by their demands of the poor. They demanded to be let in on consumption even if they were blocked out of production by the absence of jobs or even future prospects on jobs. To cool out this situation, the capitalists responded with the dole - the system of relief. From the point of view of the Lumpen, the dole plays the same function as a job - it allows them to get in on consumption. But the dole, the system of welfare and relief, can never really deal with the situation, nor is it intended to. Relief is only a stop-gap measure resorted to by the capitalists to cool people out and buy themselves some more time, by dividing the Lumpen by buying some of them off, thus postponing the showdown between the Lumpen and the capitalist system of production and consumption.

It is in this regard that Marxism has had disastrous effects upon the revolutionary movement. Marx, misunderstanding this technological and ideological condition of oppression, identified the proletariat, the working class, as the most revolutionary element of society. So that for generations, revolutionaries have been trying to bring about the revolution by relating religiously to the working class. This has gone on until today, to the point where it is now absurd, if not insane.

—Bakunin in Marxism, Freedom, and the State

tl;dr
Fuck off, reactionary cancer.

Well, the feminists are a bunch of liberals that we all hate, so it kind of makes sense.

Using liberal as a slur kinda just begets this paranoia of perceived decadence. In my experience, it's a bald and intellectually dishonest critique, a term of abuse on par with "Commie," "SJW," and "Un-American."

Now I guess feminist is one of those slurs today.

I love seeing ultra cogent socialist feminist arguments / anons on here, and how triggered every single idiot boy on here gets as a result. Unfortunately I don't think you're going to convince anyone because this board is fucking stupid and equate MRA shit and actual left feminism and can't see even minor differences between the two.

Well, every board has some stupidity. Even I've had some posts where I feel like I could have explained myself better or been less hostile. I guess what I'm saying is…no one's perfect and I'm really just doing this for my own ego, to critique other feminists and other people's—who don't consider themselves feminist—interpretation of feminist theory, and ultimately because Holla Forums (which I consider to be a very good board at times; it's even my homepage) has largely left it's own ideologies uninvestigated. This should only signal my want to return to philosophy/history probably better declared by Socrates' famous dictum "the unexamined life is not worth living."

I dont get people like you, there are a million leftist communities where you can fellate feminism to your hearts content… Yet you insist hanging around here being triggered and trying to force this shit on us.

Do you have some sadomasochists need to be triggered or some such?

Nobody is forcing anything, otherwise the contrasting opinions would be banned. Maybe it's you who's triggered by imagining the big Other.

I know this is your favorite retort feminist-flag, but please be honest for a moment. It´s well known that leftypol is against idpol compared to other leftist communities, yet people like him and you who love that shit insist on coming here. On top of that you get salty when we dont wanna buy into that shit!

I Just dont see your motivation for coming here over other communities, savior-complex? Rage-addiction?

No one gets salty. Maybe initially I actually got upset, but at this point its purely amusement at the sheer undialectical energy required to rage against what is obviously not an idpol brand of very basic materialist feminism.

Also y'all do it to yourselves, as if this is really an external phenomenon, every 4th post on here is self-triggering idiocy about "IDPOL FAGGOTS!!!!!!!!" referring to what is either clearly a joke or not worth anyone's time.

I'm very aware. I am, after all, a poster here. However I think that most of leftypol would call anything concerning theory to be identity politics. Why? Because they've misunderstood Marx himself when he says that commodities are even inhered with dialectical energies, seemingly contrasting ideologies. You seem to think that ideology is BAD muh materialism GOOD, but don't actually know the real distinction, or purport to know unadulterated objective reality.
I'm not salty at all. Corrosive, maybe.
I cannot make you examine yourself anymore than you're willing. Like user below you said:

Well of course, we come here because we dont like idpol! Thats part of the appeal of this community for us.

The question is why YOU come here when you are pro-idpol and get salty when your idpol views are challenged? If you just wanted to laugh at "reactionary neckbeards" you could just go to We hunted the mammoth or some other shitty site that caters to you.

I don't need to go anywhere to get a laugh from your idiocy about ideology.

I'm already here lol, the majority of my time is spent in non "idpol" threads and so I can't help it when I see the opportunity to engage.

Also it's much more satisfying and painful to see people who are clearly otherwise competent and intelligent leftists get so mouthbreather when you drop something about gender. You expect it from reactionary thugs elsewhere, but its so much more at odds (I guess, now I don't really think any man regardless of political location is surprising for doing this) with what I tend to believe about leftists.

What are you guys arguing about?

Struck a nerve did I? But oh well, shitpost away, It´s not like I´m gonna lose any sleep over my curiosity over your irrational behavior.

Fair enough, But I think your needs could be better satisfied elsewhere.

This 2bh.

...

Seems like I did :^)

I dont see how anti-idpol is anti-intellectualism. Also, why do you like this board if you are pro-idpol?

Sure, I'll concede it was one nerve. A whole neuron just burst into flames, no axon, dendrite, or synapse was spared.
I'm not pro-idpol. I'm pro-theory, discourse, différance, dialectics, &c.
The modern shape of anti-idpol discourse has tended to the use of ad hominem like "SJW" and the submission of philosophical expression to what you call "materialism." Not only is this a cover to the problems concerning things like class-based oppression it is entirely deluded into thinking that you own the monopoly on objectivity, neutrality, and even imagine yourselves to be the true proprieters of justice for the proletariat.

tl;dr you haven't actually become anti-ideology merely by declaring it; only you've reaffirmed traditionalist notions regarding what is and isn't.

What covers up class-based oppression is constantly bitching about shit that has nothing to do with class.

You seriously think that American males being drafted in the military has nothing to do with class? Reread the thread.

Would it fix the problem if American females were to get drafted as well?

I don't think there is a simple fix to this problem, like you've assumed. The point is to cut the dusty balls of capitalism off at its root. Personally I think military membership should be voluntary, as should the working class be allowed to assemble and determine their own militia. But that's just my opinion. There are many others.

Oh and here's a fun video of a Žižek joke:

youtube.com/watch?v=80X0pbCV_t4

So what's your solution? What do you think the humans should be doing?

This is not for me to decide alone. The collective fate of humanity has had many "targets" throughout history. With capitalism, to put it in a simplified way, it is wealth that influences federal-policy that influences wealth that influences federal-policy and so on and so on…

My own belief is that we should utilize every methodology available to lambast, or perhaps to just point out the contradictions of, capitalism in order that we raise class-consciousness and become aware of our own shortcomings.

The problem itself is pretty simple though. Rich people advocate conscription but dodge the draft themselves. They also bail family and close friends out of the draft to keep their influence strong

If it were up to me I'd take a list of every known influential dodger and make them serve a combat role

Indeed.

What do you mean by "voluntary?" Should servicemen be allowed to quit whenever they desire to?

They are already allowed as much for all the good it does.

No war but the armchair war!

At least feudal warlords were actually expected to do some actual fighting themselves. The bourgeoisie have never seen combat.

Man, I wish I saved that Holla Forums banner whenever I first saw it.
Sometimes, doing nothing is the most violent thing to do

This is getting a bit too moral for my taste now, even if that's what I implied. However, I do believe prejudicial wars should be objected to. Sometimes the duty of the citizen is precisely called upon to reject the violence of the state, like we see with Vietnam war protests.

This only makes me wonder if both sides of the 2nd amendment argument are rather the same in an effort to fluster and pick out so-called radicals…but I don't know. I really really don't.

I'm surprised that you're an anarchafeminist and don't outright oppose the military.

Those aren't examples of the "patriarchy" that's just capitalist exploitation. All those examples also fall under the MRM's theory of gynocentrism despite you saying it's laughable to compare it to patriarchy "theory". Like I said to me the patriarchy is just a form of social organization. It doesn't exist anymore in modern western society and giving a load of examples of how capitalism alienates men won't change my position anymore then if you used women as an example.

Are you being sarcastic? I can never tell with you. You've really been overusing that word buttercup.

I'm pretty sure she's a Marxist feminist not an anarcha feminist. There just isn't a flag.

Don't actually intellectually engage people who are trying to shit up the place. Just tell them to fuck off.

Fuck off.

It's over everybody, a key foundational organizer of all material history is just gone because we're in the third wave now.

In all seriousness I think you're missing her point / the larger point here. We're saying that patriarchy and class mutually constitute each other (wow! dialectics!) and have identical root causes: exploitation. Patriarchy exploits women because it seeks to control the means of reproduction and is therefore a necessary component of cut and dry exploitation by property owners of workers because it reproduces this outside of the venue of the work and labor. Men are drafted and forced into the military because women need to remain at home having babies and doing domestic labor - men can't do the first one and are nowhere thought to be competent at the latter, but women (as we saw in World War II) are easily drawn upon as a spontaneous reverse army of labor and can still have children and deal with all of the tasks reproductive labor entails. It's not patriarchy OR class, it's both.

(wow! bullshit!)

There is no escape from the world-wide mad deadly communist gangster patriarchy using all of the deadly gangster mysogynist controls!

Well…to be moral about it doesn't really help. The fact is that militaries do exist and people do support them.

Capitalists "exploit" everything within their own state apparatus. The ultimate condition of production is therefore the reproduction of the conditions of production. Even Marx says that no production is possible which does not allow for the reproduction of the material conditions of production: the reproduction of the means of production.

"How is this reproduction of the (diversified) skills of labour power provided for in a capitalist regime?" you ask…

Here, unlike social formations characterized by slavery or serfdom this reproduction of the skills of labour power tends decreasingly to be provided for on-the-spot (apprenticeship within production itself), but is achieved more and more through outside production: by the capitalist education system, and by other instances and institutions. Much of this lack of awareness of the central political-economic realities of today’s society is a product of market mystification, which cloaks capitalist property relations, and which constitutes the system’s primary advantage over all previous systems of social repression. Why is profit the motive of industry and not the general welfare of mankind? Simple: an appeal to demographic properties. From each according to their gullibility, to each, according to his greed.

During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names. To a certain extent for the "consolation" of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. (refer to >Its like how a capitalist will sell […] a Che tee)

I masturbate every day. It's quite healthy.

Well…I disagree with some of the things Marx says…but Marxism in general (which I must distinguish, because Marx himself said he wasn't a Marxist) is a good tool for critiquing the flaws of capitalism and capital circulation.

In other words…
be stagnant in your beliefs and never consider what you merely perceive to be idpol!!!11!1

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Really? All tankies are reactionaries in disguise.

Also, yes, I'm being sarcastic. It really brings out the inner tankie in some people though.

I'd say that at least working class women are mostly those who are in power when it comes to anything with reproduction. And if anything gets in the way, then it is just the regular economic exploiters of the bourgeous kind.
Because a working class man can only consult with his woman, the ultimate decision whether to have children is up to the woman. They both live together, they both made that decision. Sometimes they have heated arguments. But how can any exploitation occur in this framework?

The exploitation in economical sense is simply like if you do not work, you starve to death or become lumpenprole.

Exploitation regarding reproduction of humans is laughable because no one is forcing anyone to breed like livestock. If anyone is forcing someone, then of course that would be exploitation, or when there would be no choice but to breed, like when it happened during the periods of slavery. Where in the world would not reproducing mean death or serious social/economic implications for a woman making that decision?

Firstly its wrong to state that pregnancy is always the woman's choice, and it's often forced upon her either through sheer male force, lack of access to abortions or birth control, and general cultural realities surrounding natalism and rigid gender roles. Secondly, reproductive labor (obviously) describes not only having and raising children but all labor that takes place outside the explicit sphere of productive (ie wage) labor - cooking, cleaning, emotional labor, raising children, caring for dependents, everything that's necessary for workers to reproduce their labor power for the next day. This is obviously exploitation because women aren't compensated at ALL for this work (because it's depicted as not being work, and this is intentional); by and large they don't determine the conditions under which they work (you can't simply decide to stop doing domestic work unless you're okay with your children starving, in the exact same way that there's no "choice" for workers who don't want to sell their labor); and the products of their labor are consumed by everyone else in the household who typically don't help (maybe girl children help, but husbands and sons as a rule do not yet still enjoy the products of women's reproductive labor).

This isn't some hrrrrr idpol femnazi argument either - Engels literally addresses this explicitly in Origin of the Family, and Marx explicitly describes labor as being both productive (waged labor) and reproductive (whatever external labor necessary for workers to reproduce their labor power).

Ultimately this is what is so annoying about this fanatic "get out idpol!!!!!" rhetoric - this is a fundamental component of seminal Marxist theory, INCLUDING Marx himself, and the refusal to reckon with it reveals just how militantly stupid it is because its in these holy texts of leftist thought.

I disagree with this notion, especially for the working class. The choice of having and raising children is always more difficult for the working class since they do not have the capital to invest in child-care services like daycare as they work. Even when abortion was illegal, however, many ruling class women could have it done secretly and safely by a private doctor, or travel to a country where it was legal to have the procedure. On the other hand, working class women were forced to endure dangerous and unsafe conditions, with abortions performed by people who were often not trained medical professionals. Many women died or were severely injured by the procedure. Low-income women are more likely to experience an unintended pregnancy because not only are they less likely to use contraception—they are also less likely to get an abortion. Why is this? Not only are abortion clinics becoming less accessible, and sparse (Mississippi has four times more S than there are clinics), many policy-makers believe that there are only certain circumstances in which a woman may have an abortion. Targeted regulation of abortion providers comes not from the popularly known supreme court ruling Roe v. Wade, but the recent Planned Parenthood v. Casey which allows states themselves to determine those circumstances. With outpatient surgery center building requirements that are unreasonable to expect these certain medical practices to uphold especially since 90% of all abortions occur in the first trimester and are NOT surgical (involving just taking medication or hardly intensive measures).

...

kaworu has decided to shit up every thread with it since he decided that being a faggot avatarfag attentionwhore wasn't enough and now has to champion identity politics in Holla Forums as well

This meme again…

...

You first, bitch.

What's anarcha-feminism? How does this make any sense?

Also, not kaworu or whatever.

Feminism with funposting.

This is good analysis.
Have a cat! ❤

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism

It doesn't.

Okay I agree. All what you say is true.

So why not divide all the domestic work between the man and the woman? If the man is unwilling, he is being an idiot. I
want to participate in this household work when I get the opportunity. Just roughly drafting scheduling, etc. It is very fulfilling thing to do and it is a good antidepressant. Bringing up children, teaching them about the world, playing with them, watching them grow, taking care of them. Again a very fulfilling work.

Maybe somewhere in the world people are so alienated from doing anything that they need any work to be compensated. Failing to see that the reward are the fruits of said labor.

Maybe the situation is different in the USA. But in eastern europe, what is work in household is a part of life and a labor that people are not alienated from.

Sure a lot of the times the men are idiots who do nothing to help with the household chores.

Abortion was always an option, but sometimes it was frowned up on due to christian heritage in culture.

So to conclude, fix your shit americans because what you complain about is truly an issue and we here in eastern bloc do not have these kind of problems. The only problem there is, is the way women have sort of double shifts of work, one at work and one at home. But then I say any man unwilling to do his part at home is an idiot who does not know what he is doing by that.

This is what a lot of feminist econ and policy has attempted to do, make housework fully equitable through a number of different strategies, namely in Scandinavia, and namely through guaranteed long term maternity / paternity leave and guaranteed free child care up until a certain age. Even in these supposedly radically equitable contexts, the numbers hold out that women still do 75 - 85 percent of domestic work on average, but men seem to think they're pulling half the weight. The (unfortunate) reality is that you can try to externally constitute the class relationship of gender all you want, but the public/private distinction between state/house precludes any real possibility of legally determining how work inside the home is distributed, and this inequality of responsibility won't change until the private nuclear family model is busted.

Why shouldn't labor - ALL labor, not just that which takes place outside the home - be compensated? This is a super porkie argument - "your labor is satisfying on its own, muh Protestant work ethic, work in and of itself is the reward how dare you demand compensation". It's fucking labor! But because we don't depict domestic work and reproductive labor as actual value-producing labor, we don't and can't think about it as something that deserves compensation and should dictate the conditions under which it takes place.

Thanks user. Sad to see that this post has lost steam because I think this is an interesting and prescient conversation.

>btw ur triggered if u reply ;^***

This is why I await the fully automated luxury communism. Because then those who say that all labor should be compensated do not have to even lift a finger.

And those who find labor rewarding on their own can work like they want.

I like work, because it takes away that dreadful feeling of my own existence. I stop being myself and become a tool, a laborer, anything but me. Cue a huge paragraph about suicidal thoughts.

Maybe it is wrong to make people guilty for not wanting to work when they obviously like being themselves and work impedes that. In this way of course all work should be compensated for these kind of people.

Fucking undialectical retard.

Well..it's not men or women who are idiots for this. Ideology is not merely an illusion; ideologies possess a material reality in the form of the actions people take to uphold cultural institutions. It's that what they believe to be an objective women-man distinction (normative gender roles) is mired in ontological assumptions, the secret life of both material and immaterial phenomena, and their irreducibility in the natural order of things that is imperfect, contingent, incomplete and open. Materialism has nothing to do with the assertion of the inert density of matter; it is, on the contrary, a position which accepts the ultimate void of reality—the consequence of its central thesis on the primordial multiplicity is that there is no ‘substantial reality’, that the only ‘substance’ of the multiplicity is void. But, as I have hopefully shown, the world is not formed of solid substance, since there is an admixture of void in things…

Except, most people still are proles. Lumpens are in the vast minority. It is just that most jobs now pay shit, and you have to work 3 jobs just to make a living. Technology is not the main reason for unemployment and the transition from industrial to service jobs, but instead it is the mass importation of cheap labor and outsourcing of workplaces. Modern day unions are complacent in all these aspects due to being controlled by idpol liberals like you. They're literally cucked by the Democrats.

The "Lumpen" condition has happened already in history. I referred to the Lazarroni, but the most infamous case would be what happened to the Roman plebeian. The plebeian was originally a small farmer/artisan who owned his own property, to a small degree. Roman society was once mostly consisted of this class of people who were engaged in free labor. America had a similar parallel with the yeoman farmer, Europe with the artisan burgher/sans culotte. But as the plebeians lost land and the Patricians gained more land and imported cheap slave labor, the democratic aspects of the Roman Republic degenerated. The plebeians attempted to reform the Roman Republic through movements, but they were too reformist to really dislodge the status quo. The same can be said of the American working class in the 19th century. They still had memories of being free farmers and artisans, and thus labor movements were popularized as a way to establish a similar society in an industrialized world. However, aside from minute reforms, nothing was done to really stop the fundamental problem of the average citizen losing his property, and thus when the unions became weak, the capitalists struck back and took away all the power that the workers had from them. The patricians did the same with the Republic with the dictatorship of Sulla. Now, the plebeians, without any real movement, turned to Caesarism in a last ditch attempt to stop their lumpenization. (See Trump) Of course, all this did was destroy the Roman Republic and usher in an age of despotism. The lumpenized plebeian has become a landless lumpen, satisfied by the breads and circuses provided by the aristocrats and emperors.

As for historical labor movements, it was the unionized workers who made the biggest strides in labor rights and fighting the capitalists. In fact, the lumpens were the perfect pool of scabs for capitalists to send in as strikebreakers.

Why is this? Why are the lumpens focused on the dole and so anti-worker? Why are they the foot-soldiers of cosmopolitan capitalism's war against the national working-class? It is because the lumpen and the capitalist have no opposing interests. Warren Buffet loses nothing by having Tyrone's single mother get the dole. The lumpens and the capitalists can increase their wealth at the same time. Workers and capitalists, meanwhile, are in constant competition. If the workers earn more, the capitalist inherently pays more. The lumpen, meanwhile, just needs money from the capitalist state to be satisfied. In fact, they rely on the patronage of the capitalist state to exist. This is not to mention that lumpens are still in the vast minority compared to working-class folk.

Basically, the best part of Marxism was it's focus on the working class. And, this is coming from a syndicalist who sees massive issues in Marxism.

Considering the similarities between the demographics of the Bourbonists and the SJW "leftists", which consist of lumpens, cosmopolitan elements, professional-managerial sorts, and the most wealthy and powerful of the elite, perhaps it is more accurate to say that SJWs are the real far-right. The most fervent partisans of Capital. The most fervent worshipers of the status quo. The modern Muscadins.

tl;dr
There is no agreement between us as our goals are fundamentally opposed to one another. Only through guillotines can this dispute be settled.

Also, you and your friend here
will have the luxury of having a free Republican Marriage, hosted in the nearest river to you.

Yeah. My argument is still the same. Neoliberal idpol as it is peddled to pretty much exclusion in sham pseudo "left" spaces is cancerous and fundamentally reactionary if not in tone at least in the ease with which it is picked up by reactionary forces. Analyzing gender and class as mutually constitutive forces and seeing the material origins and strains that result in their (dialectical) relationship isn't that, and depicting them as being completely indecipherable from each other is wrong and lazy.

No it isn't. "Patriarchy" was just a kind of economic organization used to reinforce the base system. It is in no way a force in itself or even relevant today. A person in modern western society does not need to be part of a patriarchal family or even a nuclear family to gain employment and maintain property. We don't live in a patriarchy and we haven't in nearly a hundred years. None of the arguments you or the other guy could present will ever convince that "the patriarchy" is anything more then a retarded conspiracy theory. Like is said the only thing your describing is class exploitation.

...

leftypol tier argument

Good Christ. What is it about feminism that turns absolutely everything it touches to utter shit? Feminists are like the furries of philosophy. Trolls should surrender their keyboards, because they will never be able to stir up shitstorms as lulzy and retarded as feminists can.

Eh, at least furries they don't invade literally everything in order to infect their political dogma into it. Fun fact, furfags are very politically diverse.

Just wait until Furrism becomes a Ideology about the Furry Master Race, and then gets sects on the varius animals…

…

Good idea for a dystopic sci-fi…

I'll never get arguments about factory workers, would you prefer these women were unemployed?

Shh, you'll make it sound appealing to furfags. They'll want porn of it for sure.

Why has there not yet been a dystopian tabletop game about the players adventuring in a world made of pure internet cancer?

There would be different realms and factions including the furries, the tumblrinas, the tripfags, the horsefuckers, the stormfags, the weebs, and the diabolical NSA.

I don't have a dog in the feminism/no feminism fight, just bumping for more anime smut.

...

Okay.

Do you not even understand what Marx means by base structure superstructure interaction? Go read Capital again specifically look for when Marx talks about commodity fetishism.

tl;dr Read Lacan.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Can we end this shitty thread now?

You can call me whatever you want, sperg.
I could also call myself a humanist, or a egoist. It means nothing in-itself. Kant suggests that the very act of speaking presupposes honesty; therefore, speaking always entails negatation. Politicians exploit this potential by speaking in less concrete, more general terms; people who use language necessarily shape the ideologies (a dialectical definition defines contrast) around them—capitalism presumes that some will have more economic power (capital) and in all likelihood more influence on policy, whereas unadulterated democracy affirms the right of each individual regardless of things like socioeconomic status (Aristoteles' Politik).

Reminds me of Jay Naylor, the hard right paleolibertarian furry porn artist that mainly draws cuckolding

To be honest, I literally invented the meme in its modern form.

How about concentrating on constructing your own argument instead of namedropping like a faggot?

I have, sperg. Read the thread, or read a book.

I guess I should have phrased my point better. How about this:

As Heidegger would say, kill yourself faggot.

Heidegger is edgy trash compared to his teacher Husserl.

Neoliberals are going to be neoliberals under any banner. Is it so shocking that their version feminism is shit?

I'm not convinced by anyone in this seemingly never-ending discussion. On the one hand it seems like everyone has their own version of feminism and anti-racism that they use to shoehorn their economic and moralist views into any debate, at least in my experience.
On the other hand I don't know if it's fair to ask women and black people to just accept that class struggle will address their concerns on the face of it.
It makes sense for the left to be focused on class struggle, but I don't see why that means there is no place for discussions about gender and race as a subordinate concern. It doesn't help that anything even remotely about feminism or race here is an obvious bait thread. But like others in this thread have been saying, the knee jerk reaction at anything resembling idpol is getting out of proportion.

If you think feminism is a distraction, don't make feminist hate threads, and don't take obvious idpol bait.

I agree with everything herein except:
Class struggle is the tool of the bourgeoisie reproducing the means of production via state apparatus. If we achieve communism there is no class struggle. Class consciousness, rather, is what informs us of our material and ideological circumstances.

Have a cat; I like you.

So do you you not agree with what I was trying to say, or are you just saying my terminology was off.
To put it perhaps more clearly, I think if you're saying a society without economic classes necessarily implies a society without racism and sexism, that is certainly not a trivial claim, and people who have been subjected to these things quite reasonably want some explanation better than mere theoretical hand-waving.
Without such an account given (apart form the very dismissive "read x, y and z"), is it any wonder people concerned about the treatment of their gender and race can get caught in an identity politics black hole.
I don't mean leftypol needs to waste time on tumblr outreach, but if someone genuinely has a concern about race, gender or whatever within broad leftist community, we could do better than to say "lol idpol, read zizek" or assume they're an idiot troll.

It really is a shame about the fact that his political philosophy is utter drivel because Heidegger's metaphysics are actually pretty awesome. Better than Husserl's, I'd say.

Yes. Everything else I agree with. Of course, I understand the sentiment and all that "class-war" stuff, but I was just being anal I guess.
No, it's not really that surprising. Humans have systematic patterns of deviation from rationality in judgment (formal/explicit forms of logic) whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an "illogical" fashion. Cognitive biases make individuals create their own subjective social reality from their perception of the input, despite it being fundamentally limited.
I appeal to Žižek a lot because he talks about PC-culture and ideology a lot, which the rejection of idpol would seem to be concerned with. However, it's become rather ignorant what people on leftypol claim is authentic when fundamentally we should be concerned about the ways hegemony is implemented like capitalism.

Reported