Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're the bad guys...

Always a possibility, but I doubt it. From the perspective of the bourgeoisie, we are bad. From my perspective, I'm not.

also

Do you know what communism is, first of all?

It keeps coming back to relativism. Is there a reason why you shy away from direct discussion of ethics?

What problem do you have with Masons?

I have an idea, but whatever definition I give I have a feeling that you'll scoff and say that it's something else entirely and how my flawed definition proves that I am in fact wrong.

This is the classic thread where the OP comes armed with so much ignorance that if you don't take your time to educate him on every little thing he doesn't know, he'll assume he won because you couldn't answer him.

Stop wasting your time with this moron, you retards.

Is that idea a classless, stateless, moneyless society?

Oh fuck
How didn't I think of this before????
brb burning all my books and accepting the one holy truth of friedman (PBUH)

More or less, but Marx also said things like ensuring that women are communalized in order to insure that things like the nuclear family don't result in the perpetuation of hereditary wealth during the transitional state to true Communism, which is when vestigial artifacts like money can be finally shed.

Ethics are shit, they are relative and thus I don't find it worth my time to discuss them. The only reason "ethnics classes" are given is because I might get killed if I do things lots of people find despicable and "cant-do-that" and thus they only serve to teach you the limits of the social norm.

Gosh I dunno man

You, in particular, are the reason why people mistake an "appeal to force" for the unfortunate but necessary use of force.

The Masons have done god awful fucking things throughout history, but I doubt that you can personally name one other than being guilty by association.

So name a "communist" country, past or present, that has those 3 features

None, because the timeline for Communism means that all that could ever have been implemented successfully were transitional states. That said, we're back to my original statement.

Explain

Whats wrong with opposing an organisation because its foundation opposes the entirety of your being?

I am a working class atheist communist, I hate everything Freemasons stand for.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're a raging faggot?

So those "arguments that appear valid on paper" were never implemented. How about you name a country where all the means of productions were democratically owned. And state capitalism does not count

Suppose that you start breaking into houses and cutting off dicks in the middle of the night because you feel like it. The tribe that you live in has a meeting where arguments and discussions are had, and it is decided that you ought to cease and desist cutting off dicks in the night because of the arguments laid out against it. You refuse, and while breaking into another house to slice off dicks you are beaten with a club and arrested.

You might, going by your sentiment upthread, argue that the only argument made was force, when in fact the ethical arguments related to "not slicing off dicks" is entirely unrelated to the use of clubs, and violence is only a recourse utilized when a seemingly sound argument fails to sway.

Okay. But you should have a more developed reason for your thoughts.

Wow… you've really missed the point user.

Nothing wrong with fascism then.

Also considering that very few people today believe in communism, even less would fight for it, and even less of those are actual grown men, it seems to me you have set yourself up for defeat. Sounds good to me.

spoiler

Lad, all I did was point out that no communist or even socialist countries have really existed. What explanation do you have that would make us the bad guys?

nice trips dude

I can do the same thing with capitalism

Only valid on paper desu. Your point is that the final stage is unreachable. It worked pretty well for the short existence of the Free Territory before the Bolshits captured it.

It's a system that has never had a government that didn't run using fear. You can't say the same for socialism friendo.

Opposing an organization built upon the antithesis to his core values is rational. He explained why, if you would like to point out how the values he listed aren't embodied in the free masons please do so.

Because unless you're just armchair revolutionaries you actively want to plunge the world into a global civil war, which is bound to be bloody. The alternative that you are trying to sell needs to be convincingly tantalizing to make it worth it, and so far there is no sell.

That is correct. How would this not be a valid reasoning? The only reason to conform to other people is by persuasion in some form, be it group pressure or violence.

No I don't have to. My reasons are sufficiently developed. The Masons stand for practices and practice things that I principally oppose. I don't have to explain my entire life story to some autistic Freemason who acts like a euphoric faggot on a chan.

Okay user.

1. Reformists exist
2. What about socialism aren't you sold on?

You seem to be on the wrong board.

Holla Forums is that way ——→

Don't go Sargonite to me.
And sure, might makes right. The prols are more, therefor we have the right. So?

And I said it correctly. It's relevant to your position. What side you are on defines the opposition as good or bad.

For Beastmen, in warhammer, humans are bad.

This is a paradox. FullCommunism and country don't go together.

I remember Yugo, a market socialist country, being fine though… And I also know a lot of fullCapitalist nations that are more than hungry.

For the fascists no.
For everyone else, everything is wrong.
Ok. So, that means we have to accept our fate and let the cyberpunk dystopia come?

That's how history moves. Back or forth.

I don't think your cohorts would consider you representative of their views, but you're basically representing yourself as a strawman revolutionary.

Okay m80.

And we're back to it

Where?

Reform is fine. I encourage it. It makes the system less shitty most of the time.

Depends upon what you mean by socialism.

Right, nice reasoning.

Catalonia, Rojavas The Free Territory, Chiapas.

Means of production are democratically owned by workers

It doesn't have to be that way if people give up the means of production. Capitalism's origins were also bloody, keep that in mind.

So the point isn't really whether we're bad or good, it's that we have nothing to give you personally.

So you have no argument.

Yugoslavia seemed to be a working state.

I find that when it moves forward it's most often thanks to steady progress and wise forethought with bloodshed best kept to a minimum.

Just like Crusades and Jihads don't have to be bloody if you would only give up everything you know and are comfortable with and change religions on demand, right?

Sell as in successfully argue. Have you never heard the colloquialism?

I was unaware that Catalonia lasted more than a short while, I don't know much about the Rojavas, and aren't the Chiapas war torn at the moment?

If the means of production are democratically owned by the workers, then doesn't that mean that society is a series of monopolies duking it out?

again, how is that bad? the fear is for enemies of the party, after all.
I see, this is the part where you pick and choose what is and isn't socialism.
It failed? Not true socialism! Never been tried!

Only for commies, jews and subhumans, a small and weak part of the population, therefore by your argument it is moral to kill them.

Wether you are going to fight or not, accepting it is the healthy option. If it truly devolves into cyberpunk dystopia as you claim, the people would atleast be healthy, armed and primed for a revolution, in contrast to todays effeminate degenerate complacent ladyboy society.

Have you ever read Marx? At all?

And neither did the Free Territory. Doesn't make them unsuccessful. They were competing with the fascist as well. Chiapas now has a centre right wing gov in power.

where the fuck did you get that idea

God you're a retard.
I don't mean there were never any socialist countries that didn't use fear. I mean to say there are examples of countries that didn't use fear and were socialist and the same can't be said for fascism.

I don't know. Maybe it's not bad to you. Bad is relative. I personally think those who enforce their ideologies using fear and assume they are infallible are evil. Actually this was already said:

Go back to your containment board.

...

Missed this somehow.

I have. I find his assertions highly questionable in many instances.

No longer existing is pretty unsuccessful. Modes of government compete.

I'm extrapolating a criticism of Hegelian Government, but it seems to me a logical conclusion.

Just like we're all forced to live under capitalism. What's your point?

Ever heard of a Freudian slip?
Either way, it's still just what you in particular find important.

...

I'd also like you to name a successful fascist country

nazi germany

That the cost of bloodshed must be both outweighed by the societal rewards of the systemic change you seek to introduce, and according to Just War Theory you must have reason to believe that you can win.

Okay buddy.

You raise a fair counterpoint, but the reason why militaries, spy agencies, taxes to fund them etc exist in their current state is because they were necessary for survival.

I am not a Fascist. Fascism is a terroristic consequence of the Proletariat coming to the fore unrestrained, often in tandem with revolt by the petit-bourgeois.

KEKEKEKEKEKEK

im from chile, and i can tell you that my country is jut another damn shithole ruined by pin8

if i wanted to name a succesful fascist country, it will be spain

Assuming we're talking about market socialism right now, how exactly would that lead to monopolies?

It isn't hard to imagine.

By your logic, Catalonia and the free territory are successful then. The reason they fell is because of military pressure. Nazism ended up with the country in rubble, which is worse than any socialist country even the USSR.

okay sorry didn't realize you weren't the duce I responded to.

Anyway,

I understand what you're saying, but that's not the same as the concept being impossible to implement.

Again, market socialism. Different companies would still exist and compete with each other. Are you thinking of syndicalism or something?

It's possible that we could all stop hurting each other, join hands, and sing kumbaya, but it isn't likely.

How is that substantially better than Capitalism?

There is no capitalist benefitting from the work of the many. All the workers are compensated for what they produce in full .

Exactly. Implementing my policies would only really be bad for your kind, and the rest of my enemies.
Normal people and workers would experience a substantial quality of life increase. Therefore calling it evil is just a shitfling word.
Also, using unfair tactics like fear is not wrong when the enemy uses similar ones against you.
How do you plan to do your revolution without violence and fear tactics?

If Catalonia performed an economic and social miracle and growth on the level of Germany before it was destroyed, then yes I would consider it a succesful state.

That doesn't change behavior though. It just incentivizes laborers in vital sectors to put the squeeze to one another in order to up their own quarterly profits at the expense of everyone else. It's a nonsolution.

Right… based on hypotheticals with shaky grounding in real world test results.

Is it now?

I didn't know that the proletariat could level continents with the push of a button.

Not even vaguely. Not everyone is quite so base.

Germany didn't have to deal with the military till after it was powerful enough to take them on. If England has invaded earlier they would've been stifled.

What's with "must"?

Bloodshed happens all the time without some arbitrary measurement.

Regardless, I would say it outweighed it.

A "just war" is a spook.

Either way, the proletariat can win because there are way more of them than bourgeoisie.

I don't care about your "motives", I'm saying that this is all within your self-interest. Capitalism meets your self-interest just like Socialism meets mine. That's all that we've established.

That's just called a market fam. The workers in the various coops would get fully compensated on their labor instead of a capitalist leeching off them

So nothing changes except that now the workers are the Capitalists.

No because the workers aren't exploiting anybody

…wut?

Do you not know what a capitalist is?

I do. But what you have described is essentially the transformation of the proletariat into the petit bourgeois.

There isn't a capitalist that dictates the wages of the workers. Pay would be decided democratically based on the contribution of the worker. Do you even know what petit bourgeois means?

Man, you not getting this.

Do you not see what that leads to?

That wouldn't happen because everyone else would vote against that dumbass. Also where the fuck are getting monopolies from? Competition exists in market socialism

Poor military decisions do not not make the countrys policy bad.

Eeer… it all being pointless, as in the end the prices stay the same?

Stop thinking socialism in capitalistic terms.

Actually they'd happily vote for it. Most workers would vote higher wages for themselves, ergo socialism.

As in some exploiting others by controlling the means of production and using their position to squeeze wealth out of them, yes.

...

If everyone's wages raise, they stay the same.

Currency 101.

No, not everyone's wages. Some sectors are low profit, high competition, and with lots of workers. Some sectors are high profit, low competition, and with few workers. You're basically going to have gangs squeezing each other for a bigger piece of everything.

If you were talking about lowering the number of workers, then that wouldn't pass since nobody wants to be out of a job. If you were talking about limiting the number of workers then that doesn't even matter.
Money would be set aside for investments and paying the bills, the rest would be split up among the workers. If they raise their wages too much, then they aren't as competitive and fail

The profit motive would no longer exist. There is no accumulation of wealth. The oil workers need other goods and services to survive. They'll have to contribute to the good of society in order to get those things.

Walmart workers don't fire each other for higher quarterly bonuses?

Demand is not always perfectly elastic.

Almost nobody, except the real dragons, accumulates wealth and builds businesses and ownership irl. They save for early retirement or blow it own luxury consumption. Just like they would here.

It's not a cultural thing, but i'm not going to condemn people for doing a logical thing at my expense. I'm just going to kill them for it.

If firing somebody is being discussed, it will be put to vote. If that person should be rightfully fired, the they will. If he is valuable to the company then he won't. Simple as that
If they can still survive while having higher wages, then good on them

STOP THINKING CAPITALISM!

You can try.

You're glossing things over, you've already conceded that they would willfully hire less.

Nah.

I will try, and that's all there is to it.

That's really as far as the subject goes, for me.

Human behavior is dictated by the material and social conditions in society. Our behavior isn't a monolithic, unchanging structure.

...

Do share
And? I thought you were talking about laying off a mass of workers. Its irrelevant if they decide to hire less

The job dictates the amount of workers needed. There is no reward for doing the job by yourself.

Fair enough.

You've got the wrong idea. As long as there is something that the money can be spent upon, whether it is luxury consumption or extra years spent in retirement, they'll do it.

This is what I mean precisely. A hiring freeze has the same effect long-term as layoffs.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue.

Then the workers without a job form their own coop or find another. Besides, companies would hire the workers they need. They won't reject them just because they want a higher income. Doing so would deprive them of the labor they need and cause them to become less competitive

Let's go ahead and clearly define socialism.

Socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production

"lol but what does that even mean xD?"

In any given society, you're going to have three basic groups of people:
Productive Labor - The people who directly produce the goods and services society needs though their work, they must necessarily produce more than they themselves use, creating a surplus
Unproductive Labor - People who's work is not directly involved in the production of socially necessary goods and services (eg - soldiers, lawyers, firemen, police, etc)
The Ruling Class - The people who receive the surplus created by productive labor and decide how it should be used and distributed.

Socialism is a relation of production where that third group has been abolished and its functions distributed to the former two groups, with special deference to productive labor. It isn't the state owning anything, if the relation of production hasn't changed. It isn't the ruling party calling themselves "socialist" if they haven't changed the basic relation of production. Only when that essential relation of production has been altered can a system legitimately call itself socialist.

So, tell me, what exactly is wrong with this?

Fuck, for some reason I spoilered the sections I meant to bold.

Just go with it.

just like my japanese animes

The proletariat aren't exploiting people. The bourgeois are.

...

Only so many oil wells, coal mines etc.

Because you merely create a new social order in which exploitation of one group by another remains possible, and thus while you axe the current ruling group you create a power vacuum that will be filled by another group.

Oil wells and coal mines aren't the only industries in existence lad

I would like to ask of you a favor. Stop being obstinate and consider what I am saying rather than getting caught up in minutiae and pretending that it's a counterargument.

Fossil fuels and relatively scarce resources are still a thing. So is the distribution of power and money based upon those realities.

Did you read the text?

You abolish the ruling class and cede it's functions to the proletariat through a democratically organized economy. That'd doesn't create a "power vacuum", it destroys the authority of the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) and gives it to labor (the proletariat). The function of the ruling class still exists, its just distributed to the working class.

You don't see the problem here?

No.

Especially if the modes by which the ruling class gained its power are abolished (private property)

Then you'd have a group of fairly wealthy fossil fuel workers instead of a few rich capitalists. How is that even an argument against socialism? Are you still on the whole monopoly thing?

So there's no money? Then why work?

Do you not see how this lays the seeds for the next set of conflicts and oppression?

I think where you're misunderstanding is, the proletariat ceases to function as a group once the means of production are seized and private property is abolished. Once that happens, the ruling class no longer exists, and everyone becomes apart of the working class.

Nobody works for money. They work for the benefits that money allows you. Cutting out money just eliminates a clunky middleman. Not that abolishing private property = no money anyway, I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

Except wealth inequality allows the problems of Capitalism to reinvent themselves without the previously existing safeguards, which while admittedly flawed, at least exist.

To quote Marx:

So money exists, but you're not calling it money. Kewl.

So?
If the proletariat actually have a say on what to do with those resources, that eliminates much more of the problem than capitalism ever could.

Labor vouchers represent abstract labor time instead of exchange-value.

In addition, labor vouchers are destroyed upon being turned in, making them impossible to accumulate.

No, do explain. Remember, capitalist does not automatically equal rich

Labor vouchers don't work like money. They wouldn't circulate and aren't transferable between people. Once exchanged they are destroyed.

Capitalism is great at one thing: creating surplus.

Alright man.

Let me explain this. Let's say that your family gets in on a trade/work involving a scarce resource. They keep hiring low or frozen. Mostly only the very good friends of that group of workers or their families go into the profession. Thanks to the lucrative nature of the industry that you work in you can either engage in excess consumption, or retire to your own devices much earlier in life. Your standard of living is much better than that of many other workers, particularly those in poor sectors, as a direct consequence of resource inequality and monopolization/oligopoly.

You don't see how this creates a new class system?

Who runs the distribution of labor vouchers?

Which has nothing to do with the allocation of scarce resources.

The proletariat does.

Currency, per definition, circulates between people and is a medium of exchange (and, thus, represents exchange-value)
What restrictions? This is just a new way of doing things.

Except that it has everything to do with creating post-scarcity, which is something that Socialism does not tackle.

Really? Which ones? The specific guys at the department of hours worked? Your foremen on the job site? Some invisible caste of democratic representative who push papers while the rest of us labor?

Who?

It's not as simple as that. You get hired based on merit, and if those people happen to be close friends then so be it
1. Fossil fuels aren't the only fucking industry lad
2. muh labor vouchers
There's that word again. Competition exists in market socialism
All still proles. There would still be a lot less inequality than now
Jesus, this is literally the most pleb form of socialism and you still don't get it

Why wouldn't it?

You don't see labor vouchers as something people will find workarounds for? You don't think that there will be grey markets appearing outside of your ideal system?

Oh, so in your magic world nepotism and cronyism have to just stop existing.

Whoosh.

Are you talking about a monetized system or not?

Without regulation competition can be eliminated. Competition does not preclude scarcity. Again, you're being deliberately obstinate.

You replace Lords with castes. Hindus would like a word.

No, I get it well enough to see the problems with it because I don't worship the people who devise the ideas.

Marx covers that pretty thoroughly.

Why would anyone try to create workarounds for it?

Why would anyone sell drugs? Or steal? Or gamble? Or invent bitcoins?

Drugs won't be illegal.

There's no point in stealing when what you need is readily available

There's nothing to gamble with

Bitcoin is a joke

Why would they jeopardize their company's survival by hiring somebody inept?
You're right. We'll all be ruled a group of oil workers
Not, I used the term pay since it's easier. Money doesn't exist under socialism
Are you implying regulation wouldn't exist?
Inequality is a natural effect of markets. Except socialism diminishes it by removing the ultra rich capitalist class

In "Grundrisse"?
I remember him saying that Capitalism would bring about automation that could relieve scarcity and progress towards socialism, but not that it was the only way to do it.

I have to go, but it's been interesting examining your blind spots.

truly euphoric.

You still haven't explained why currency is a necessity that will pop up as a course of inevitability.

Perhaps it's you who has a blind spot.

Christ, you're dense

I believe it's the other way around, friend.

Without currency I'll be the first to race to the distribution centre and take all the goods available.
What would stop me from doing so?

The amount of labor you did. You take according to the amount of labor you completed. Hence, labor vouchers.

Eventually, when consumerist culture fades, you might be able to get rid of labor vouchers because the compulsion to hoard will likely go with it, and people will take what they need.

I completely agree and support this idea. But where is the difference between a voucher and a currency? People would start trading vouchers.

Vouchers aren't transferable between people (with modern technology, it wouldn't be hard to imagine setting people up with their own labor time accounts, with people only being able to draw from their own accounts) and they're destroyed upon being turned in.

There's also the important distinction that labor vouchers represent abstract labor time, whereas currency represents exchange-value.

/thread

ITT:
youtube.com/watch?v=fLTRTTXQdmo

kek

The size of your basket. The size of your storage room. And most of all: the effort you would have to put in moving "all the goods available" for litterally no reason.

I like how the only anarchist dude in this thread made two posts, the anti-leftists responded with "Fair enough" and that was the end of the argument

Literally the best anarchist argument I've seen on Holla Forums, except for pic related. So this anarchist gets second place.

Perhaps there's a reason why nobody gives a fuck about Marxism, Communism or any of these other related ideas anymore. Perhaps there's a reason why Bernie crashed and burned and why his campaign was over before it even began. Perhaps there's a reason why Venezuela's Socialism has caused massive unemployment and widespread anarchy throughout the nation. Perhaps there's a reason why North Korea is an oppressive totalitarian hellhole. Perhaps there's a reason why you're all faggots.

nice arguments, you sure showed us with those hot opinions of yours.

Perhaps there's a reason you're this proud to be ignorant. Oh wait, there is: memes of the delusional and pretentious.

Sorry, I thought Marxists took over all academia and culture?

Both are me.

They did.

How Socialism Takes Over 1/ 2: Fabianism & Leninism: youtu.be/97t4YWHLFw8
How Socialism Takes Over 2/ 2: Fabianism & Leninism: youtu.be/yoKmBMiYhVI
60 Minutes 1/ 2: How Fabians took over western communities: youtu.be/8R_VD4d1ajQ
60 Minutes 2/ 2: How Fabians took over western communities: youtu.be/zut0A12oQY4
Yuri Bezmenov: Ideological Subversion: youtu.be/SZnkULuWFDg
Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job: youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4
Former KGB Spy, Professor Oleg Kalugin: youtu.be/JKI1hv7GTfk
Bill Whittle on The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness: youtu.be/vrt6msZmU7Y

He didn't "crash and burn" though. He got really far in a system that is basically designed to be against him. He spread awareness and interest for socialism and that is already a huge victory.

So are they everywhere or nowhere?

You are God.

I'm no longer an atheist, guys

k

By "Marxism" I meant "Classical" or "Paleo-" or "Orthodox" Marxism, Marxism which still viewed Class Struggle as the primary battle field, before Cultural Marxism or Neo-Marxism (Identity Politics, Political Correctness) expanded those horizons to include:
Gender Struggle (Women = Proletariat, Men = Bourgeois, Patriarchy = Capitalist Ideology),
Race Struggle (Non-Whites = Proletariat, Whites = Bourgeois, White muh privilege/ White Supremacy = Capitalist Ideology)
Sex Struggle (Homosexual = Proletariat, Heterosexual = Bourgeois, Straight muh privilege = Capitalist Ideology)

Clearly not everything in those images is the product of Marxism (International banks, The Federal Reserve, Soros, Media ownership concentration) but most of what is discussed in the first and third images are the product of Marxism. When the morphology of the United States begins to increasingly resemble the shape and form of the Soviet Union you cannot deny that something is happening, something subversive and something Marxist.

Is not Feminism a major current running through the history of Marxism?
marxists.org/glossary/events/w/o.htm#womens-movement

The Marxist Internet Archive lists no less than 18 Marxist-Feminists within the Second Wave tradition, and many more scattered through the history of Women's Liberation. The history of this movement is covered in the fingerprints of Marxism, Socialism and the Left.

The part of the first infographic referencing the changing American family and sexual promiscuity are all directly related to the Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s, a movement intimately linked to Second Wave Feminism and one explicitly encouraged by Marxists in the Frankfurt School like Herbert Marcuse (Eros and Civilization), Wilhelm Reich (The Sexual Revolution) and others. Their synthesis of Freudianism and Marxism directly recalls Marx & Engels negation of the monogamous nuclear family unit in their early writings. Marxism isn't exactly the most pro-family movement.

And you were going so well with the "cultural Marxism" argument.

Meanwhile, in reality: foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/11/03/better-red-than-unfed-a-survey-of-post-communism/>>734936

Obviously there are other stable social bonds such as friendships, but the family unit is the only social bond capable of producing children, of growing the populating, of maintaining the nation and of creating fertility. Bonds between parents and children, sisters and brothers, bonds of blood and kin are far deeper and more stable than any other bonds.

STD rates have been increasing over the past few decades, so clearly those preventative mechanisms aren't working.
livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html
cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2015/std-surveillance-report-press-release.html
leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/epid-std.html

Furthermore, sexual promiscuity, the spread of STDs and our over reliance on antibiotics has led to the creation of antibiotic resistant STDs.
theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/when-stds-are-untreatable/253075/
edition.cnn.com/2015/11/19/health/std-rates-rise-dramatically/

The only argument isn't STDs. If you had read those images you would know one of the primary studies it cites concluded that the more pre-marital sexual partners a woman has the more likely it is that her first marriage will end in divorce, that she will develop mental illness, that she will become addicted to drugs and alcohol ect. Clearly promiscuity has negative psychological consequences beyond mere disease and unwanted pregnancies. You Leftists should be just as opposed to social degeneracy and moral decay as I am. If I were a greedy Capitalist I would love our culture of Hedonism, Individualism and selfishness, of nightclubs, drug taking, parties and meaningless sex. It would open countless novel avenues for me to sell the masses more shit they don't need with money they don't have.

It was the second wave that pulled women into the labour class, "liberating" them from traditional gender roles and introducing them to a world of wage slavery and Hedonism. The second wave destabilised the family unit far more than the third or forth ever has or will.

Growing the population? That's what happens in areas of poverty. Also, no-one's stopping anyone from creating new families. Then there's adoption and foster care.

Then raise awareness about mental illness. I also see the "morals" card, but I am an individualist leftist who believe in minimal morals. Your reaction might be to make pre-marital sex illegal, but then you'd only go and drive it underground.

Or people aren't using them because they assume that it won't happen to them.

Some would say that raising a kid is a job in itself. Additionally, fathers are meant to be "tough" figures - if the kids don't see much of the father, surely they' won't be tough and masculine like they "should" be?

Dohoho

Wow, uh, thanks.

Every day. I jack off to the millions of deaths. Stalin 4 lyfe!

You don't understand amoralism.
It's isn't "moral".
It isn't "immoral".
It's just against the interests of jews and communists.
Just as capitalism is against the interests of the worker.
It has nothing to do with "just" or "moral".
It has everything to do with self-interest.

Morality is a spook, user.

What the fuck does that even mean?

Morality is a set of values that dictate how we must act. Morality is subjective in the sense that their is no actual reason why we ought to value one set of morals or values over another. However, Kant's point on morality is that we ought to pick a moral standard that we like best and treat everyone, including ourselves to that particular standard. This means that if one is to say that slavery is a moral act, then slavery is moral as long as the holder of that moral opinion is willing to accept that they themselves may be enslaved, because their is no logical reason why anyone can be exempt from whatever moral standards they claim to believe in. That being said, most people tend to share similar views regarding the immorality of rape, murder, torture etc. because they tend to subjectively feel as though it wrong to carry out these acts or don't want anyone to carry out these acts against them personally, so they choose not to endorse or take part in these behaviors, when in reality, their is no objective reason why these behaviors are immoral, we only know that they can be painful.

Sorry, but NO, U. Isn't an argument.

I like you.

By this logic, STDs are eventually going to spread to every person.

RIP guys, it was nice knowing you.

...

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

But why should I give a fuck?

I should have avoided using the term "moral decay" because I'm not really interested in debating morality, I'm interested in what behaviour creates a healthy, happy and prosperous society (which I suppose could be viewed as a form of morality).

I would certainly agree with this point, but there is a difference between women giving their labour for their families and women giving their labour to the Capitalist machine. Second Wave Feminism only enabled the Capitalist machine to grow by absorbing a whole new sector of untapped labour and creating a whole new market of consumers.

Morphology
1. The form and structure of an organism or one of its parts: the morphology of a cell; the morphology of vertebrates.
2. The form or structure of anything
3. The study of the form or structure of anything.

The African population is also increasing. Does that mean the African population will eventually cover the entire Earth? No. STDs are increasing, that doesn't mean they will eventually infect every person in the West. You don't understand logic. I didn't imply the increase will continue indefinitely.

...

That depends on you definition of "prosperous society", and as we've established, you work for you self-interest, not that of society

It also gave women liberation from gender-based oppression, but yes, it did vreate a whole new group of buisness-minded idiots

I unfortuneatley don't give a fuck about America, but about the Earth as a whole

So what, we should control people because it'll save a couple lives? Fuck you.

No

Well that's the thing, their is no reason objectively why you ought to give a fuck. I already mentioned that in my post, because I acknoweldge that factually speaking their is no objective reason why ought to give a fuck about any value system in the first place. If however you were to make any claim about morality in the first place (which keeping in mind that you don't have to), then it is only logical that you should act in accordance with that standard as well as apply it yourself, whatever that standard may be.

And to begin with, we only base our morals on what we subjectively feel should be right and hope that everyone obeys those moral standards, simply because we want to avoid being harmed.

It's funny that leftypolers think this is a good rebuke of feminism when, in 1871, as the Germans expelled most of the English-speaking members of the First International's US sections it began a steady decline, failing to attract the ethnic working class in America (Chinese immigrants, black sharecroppers, suffragette's before they had an amendment allowing them to vote, et c). The greatest obstacle to the development of Marxist thought has been the tendency of its adherents to not see contradictory aspects of society and politics dialectically. Seriously, this is the same as the Marx Bakunin split and it's not something to be necessarily proud of.

"Healthy and happy" can happen, but whilst some want a society to inherently promote this without letting people kill and seriously harm each other, others wish to delude people to great extents before dictating what makes one happy. I'd argue that the latter is unfeasible because of randomness.

Meanwhile, the capitalist exploitation is just one example of moving from slavery to slavery - just history repeating itself again because someone promised some kind of ideal and narrow view freedom. I think that the core socialist idea of freedom can be constrictive at times, but I think it's the best shot we have right now.

Gat damn, the more I learn about Pat Buchanan, the more I like the guy.

Nah. They've fallen for jewish/masonic magic tricks. basically all of hegel is an esoteric treatise on collective mind control. critical theory took that and basically engaged in "applied memetics" – propaganda, sorcery/magic, whatever you want to call it.

Its garbage. They're literally "under a spell"

yes.

Hehehe, now that's a good laddy.

As long as everyone else knows that they are the bad guys things will be okay.

Too bad people have been losing this important insight.

...

Top kek. Thank you based Holla Forums jpegs. At last, I am truly enlightened.

Jesus Christ mods please ban this Holla Forumslyp.

He's been shitting up the board for two straight weeks now.

this