Is capitalism the reason I am virgin?

...

Probably. Capitalism promotes the preservation of morals and tradition, with that comes purity.

Girls would be sluttier under socialism.

not really

under capitalism you have more chance of competing with naturally more attractive males, since you could get rich and woo bitches with your money, under socialism it will be purely your abilities and how attractive you are. as
said, there will be compensation, but tbqh socialism will stiffen competition.

thats why we dont take it seriously when you say socialism is the ideology of cucks, it is the Holla Forums obsession with low effort predestined values (muh masterrace, muh wealth) that's the cuckiest ideology.

TLDR socialism will make it even easier for chads to cuck your pathetic racist ass and we'll love it.

I don't know they're pretty slutty now. I'm socially awkward and my lab partner was sexual harassing me. She never misses an opportunity to squeeze my shoulders, or make a dirty joke. I don't know what to do about it.

...

Give her the dick!

I didn't say being slutty was wrong. Nothing wrong with enjoying your body. I was mostly joking. I was more saying that women aren't all ice queens like r9k tires to say they are. Although I could use some advice on the situation. I'm this close to jumping out of my own skin.

No. Only if he wants to

Maybe ask her if she's serious. Tell her to either put her surplus value where her mouth is or to imagine what it would be like for you to do that to her.

Seriously though squeeze your shoulders? Dirty jokes? I'm not sure I'd really call that sexual harassment. Sure if its bothering you its not okay and all that, but it doesn't sound all that sexual to me. Are your shoulderblades erogenous zones?

...

You got it backwards, capitalism makes girls more sluttier because they can justify it with money.

You kidding me? It is very common rn for guys to completely turned off from a girl just because she likes to sleep around, all because of some vauge sense or morals.

kek

and you think that'd trickle down to him?

You forgot to take off your shitposting flag

? uh, I'm a NationaI Socialist?

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

You'd expect a Lelninist to at least read the Manifesto…

What about people who aren't racists and are actually egalitarian? It sounds like you are plotting some sort of intensification of hierarchy here.

You've internalized Holla Forums's insult of cucks and then fired it back, showing that you care about it. Trying to compete over who is not a "cuck" is just a race to the bottom to see who has the most UGH CAVEMAN ideology. Essentially you sound like a Holla Forumsack who just convinced himself into Marx. If socialism makes it easier for Chad to win then it sounds like Chad has a genetic advantage that was previously lessened by the social disadvantage of wealth inequality, so that's just low effort predestined values again. There's an implicit right wingness in what you are saying.

What about fairness and compassion instead?

I think he's confused because advocates of capitalism tend to promote social traditionalism.

Capitalism itself just chuckles at them.

sorry, but do you really believe attractive males dont have advantage over less attractive males under socialism, where inequality of wealth doesnt exist?
its not "muh genetics", its just the very basic fact that attractive people have advantages over others. if i was really a Holla Forumsfag id say some shit like "muh white ppl are genetically superior and thus will cuck all inferior races when we achieve socialism"

you cant expect every person to be completely the same under socialism, some people will always have advantages over others, socialism strives to give them equal opportunities, but in turn creates some minor inequalities in the process.

Yes, which is why we should go one better than socialism.

Of course. You can always make this argument.

They aren't minor to all the people they fuck over completely.

When we achieve socialism, we should just keep going and see if we can make things even better for everyone.

And why do people have advantages in attractiveness? It's absolutely genetics and you are glorifying and digging the knife in to all the poor low tier people.

I have a feeling that when economic class differences go by the wayside, this means that other kinds of "class" will create tensions, but that's fine, because that's just the process of history, I guess.

elaborate on how socialism would make chris evans have to compete with alex jones to get a girl?
how? you cant force women to date less attractive men. its just a fact that people are attracted to more attractive people. capitalism creates an opportunity for those whom are less attractive to get the women, but in turn creates numerous inequalities, which is why i dont support it, but you cant disagree that under socialism, attractive males would have a much better time since they dont have to compete with ugly 50 year old millionaires.

the socialist obsession that everything will be solved once we achieve socialism is dumb.

This is already happening, it's done both by SJWs and for example wizardchanners, basically what you deride as "idpol".

Once people are economically equal other inequalities that create pseudo-classes, such as the "beta-alpha divide", absolutely will be the next target of the endless, eternal butthurt of egalitarians.

You absolutely can. Attractive people should be at the service of their community. It should be their duty.

I don't deny this, I just think that just as socialism (and eventually its highest form pure communism) is better than capitalism, we can do better than that even.

No, because those exist under capitalism and we call it "idpol" because it distracts from the class struggle.

That doesn't mean that once the class struggle is complete that I'll want to stop. It's no more in my interests to stop, than it was in my interests as a worker to support capitalism. Class struggle has to have primacy because without reaching the stage of socialism you can't go any further, so SJWs are holding back the means of their own emancipation.

There's very little butthurt involved. I quite gleefully tear down all barriers in my path.

holy shit.

Where did I say that?

I'm well aware of what socialism is about, I just think socialism isn't good enough. I fight with socialist organizations now against the reactionaries, but as soon as socialism is achieved worldwide, then I would fight for something more compassionate.

Freedom is incompatible with compassion by the way. Freedom is absolute garbage. What matters are needs.

Egalitarianism is antithetical to freedom, he is just being honest which is why he sounds like a strawman Holla Forums would prop up (because the strawman is correct).

I won't let you do that. The strawman is incorrect. Socialists don't care about that, which is exactly why they don't go far enough. Socialists, even anarcho-communists, are basically right wingers to me.

Are you kidding me? Most millennials are single and fucking causally. And look how big the porn/prostitution industry is, do you think most of this would happen if people were financially stable? I'd imagine relationships in socialism being more meaningful and longer lasting seeing that the deciding factor is no longer money.

...

holy shit.
this is a whole new level.

Because I've given up spooks my friend. All that matters is what can belong to me.

what is socialism for, if not to fight for freedom from exploitation of capitalism?
this reminds me of someone…

daily reminder that THIS is your average socialist

Yes, and that's why it is only one step in what must be done. Capitalism must go so that we can start making other things go.

kill yourself

Rude. Go back to Holla Forums or /baphomet/ or something. Really nasty behavior.

Capitalism works so well because of it's reliance on social antagonism and envy.

Both Frederic Jameson and Zizek are correct to pint out that the no1 problem in communism will be envy. When there is no justification for why one guy is more charismatic, gets more pussy etc. explosions of envy are to be expected. Anyone who has actually been in a leftist group knows this, even from my own experiences I have seen groups dissolve and break down because of love squabbles or because someone who was becoming the "top dog" in the group.

But this is just normal social behavior you cannot stop it (unless we become a technological hivemind which is unlikely). Communism cannot promise absolute egalitarianism, thats a liberal concern, which is pre-occupied in hiding natural antagonisms while keeping heirarchies and classes, like the system of John Rawls. The positive freedom of communism would need to account for the material needs without leveling them completely. In Capitalism we subconsciously learn that we cannot get "we need it", we must unlearn this social conditioning if we are to get Communism and go beyond petty social antagonisms.

It sounds like we're both just projecting our own ideas of how relationships should be onto socialism tbh.

Your point?

Communism will not necessarily get you laid.

I dont need communism to get laid , I have your mum.

Not really. You can stop it by making everyone do their bit socially.

Strawman. There's a difference between using idpol to distract from class struggle, and actually trying to achieve communism, and then trying to go further. There is zero reason why we can't, and if you refuse to, you will be the reactionaries of the future, I guarantee it.

I'm already feeling a little angry just typing this.

I don't understand the point you are making. I agree that Communism would provide everyone on the level of material needs and give an equal playing field, but I don't understand how one could achieve absolute equality without making everyone uniformly the same. It seems to me wholly idealistic and counter intuitive for achieving revolution.

As long as the social field exists there will be disagreements and conflicts, however under communism it will not be conflict over property rights or the means of producing capital.

Read Marx's "Critique of the Gotha programme".

We don't need absolute equality, we just need to keep pushing for more equality.

Well, you'd only start after pure communism had already been achieved.

Isn't that the whole point of communism/left thought

You already want to dismantle culture in order to curb cultural differences, then you equalize the upbringing for every person - Advanced technology could probably make everyone physically equal too.
It's possible we will still have differences of disposition such as "charisma" but if we have equalized upbringing then it stands to reason the only other difference would be genes - which we could also manipulate and equalize.

No. The point of communism is to abolish economic class.

And once you've done that you'll become absolutely useless to left-wing thought. Egalitarianism doesn't end until what I described is achieved. Do people really believe progressive attitudes will cease once we have reached X or done Y?

You autists are as bad as the ayncrap memers who think the entire world can be reduced to >LE FREE MARKET

see

Communism contains some egalitarian elements, but it cannot be reduced to absolute egalitarianism.

Also who said anything about curbing culture? Cultural differences are largely unimportant in the face of economic differences.

I don't know you so I can only speculate but statistically it's likely to be because of mental illness/disability, poverty, alienation, patriarchy or a mix of all of the above.

You are no better than Holla Forums with your knee-jerk reaction to feminism based on a stereotype. Fuck those asshole feminists; ideologies are only good for plundering. And it's feminism because what's defined as femininity is treated as inferior and women are socially expected to be feminine and socially stigmatized if they don't conform, just like men who don't conform to masculine gender roles.

Evidence of patriarchy ITT:

"alpha" stereotype. Women are assumed to be homogeneous, have the same interests and to be so shallow that they only care for money and other forms of social status. I know the second example is humour but it still shows how women are treated as property who only have value because they can sexually please men.

Their need for sexual autonomy is greater than the other person's sexual desires

This is a great example of what I'm trying to say; patriarchal cultural norms are promoted by Capitalism. Although I disagree with the "slutty" thing it is very likely that getting sexual needs fulfilled would be easier when women don't fear being raped and harassed.

What constitutes being "attractive" is socially constructed, differing between cultures, again falling into treating women as if they are all clones and their sexual organs as if they exist solely for the purpose of being ejaculated in and monopolised by a man who will raise offspring with her. Also, it may seem strange to you but this society's obsession with forcing monogamy on everybody to such an extent that it is assumed to be the only option with others treated as if they were heretics and child molesters is not healthy.

The responses assume that the poster is male and their mention of being harassed is completely ignored. All men don't always want to have sex at every possible moment and can in fact be raped. This is patriarchy, not an argument against feminism just like women pretty much always getting child custody and men being incarcerated more are evidence of patriarchy.
Literally victim blaming:

People are not attractive, you are attracted to people. The only reason people get them mixed up is because of the media. And attraction doesn't start and end with physical attributes.

Explained by patriarchy and cultural norms.

Are you fat and ugly from eating a bunch of cheap processed food? If that's the case than capitalism is probably the reason you're a virgin. Either that or you're just autistic.

The patriarchy is a very nebulous concept today, things like the glass ceiling (which barely even exist in advanced western countries) are made to be equal with women's ritual murder.

The problem I hinted at was that you cannot eliminate envy as long as some level individuality and free will exists. Even if men's muh privilege over women ceases and we reach a same egalitarian status, some people will still be drawn to strong-willed, charismatic, funny or clever people. And there is nothing wrong with that tbh.

I thought I was on Holla Forums, I don't give a fuck about that because I want to destroy class. "invisible" as in pretendin prejudice doesn't exist.
of course you can't but you can destroy the socially constructed beauty standards. My point is that everybody is not attracted to the exact same things
No it's not, people just don't understand it, no thanks to the bourgeois media recouperating feminism

How is appearance not determined by genes?

If anything it's a great example of how hereditary differences in societal ability are artificially constructed.

I fail to see the problem.

If he said he was gay the anons would have popped his cherry by now

Yes.
It's Alienation that makes communication less effective. Why do you think all modern mating rituals have removed communication while keeping the suppression of primal instinct in check?

CAPITALISM NEED YOU TO BE A VIRGIN, OR ELSE YOU WOULD BREAK YOUR CHAINS!

Can we stop meshing patriarchy as defined by Engels with Patriarkhy as defined by bourgie feminist nomenklatura?

Yeah I guess I'm overreacting. It's not like she ever grabbed my junk or anything. I don't want to make things more awkward between us by being rude to her. I just really don't know how to react the attention. I mean she tells really dirty jokes. For example, we were doing an experiment to measure the rate of acid production of the normal flora in our mouths and she got spit all over the test tube. When she was cleaning up she was making a bunch of jokes about sloppy blowjobs and saying stuff like she's better at swallowing then spitting. How do you respond to something like that?

Please don't use more for your victim narrative stuff. It's not like she's tried to rape me. It doesn't make that crap better when you try to include men. I'm not looking to blame "the patriarchy" for every problem I've ever had in my life.

I'm not projecting, I'm clearly pointing out what's happening today, and that is money is a significant factor in relationships:

journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00387/full

youtube.com/watch?v=XbYNAZxcWh4
youtube.com/watch?v=ORfz0ku0ixM
youtube.com/watch?v=bmQvP7sZq-c

lol

Not non-monogamous relationships, but porn and prostitution, yes; do you know anything about human trafficking or the obvious reason as to why someone would want to get in the porn industry?

When did I imply this.

Keep the joke going.
Tell her it makes you uncomfortable, don't respond and so on.
If she keeps doing it, it is harassment.

...