At the risk of being one of those topics: why're books where men were exterminated 'left wing scifi'

The subtext is that everything would be better. If I wrote a book about how all the Jews died of a mystery illness and the world became utopian, people would probably rightly assume I was a neonazi. You have to take into account the author's intent.

It's on this list for example

goodreads.com/list/show/10642.Left_wing_Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy

And there's many more 'feminist SF' on this list though I haven't read them and I don't know how shrill they might be

theweeklyansible.tumblr.com/post/20777236577/50-sci-fi-fantasy-works-every-socialist-should

...

See? There is your problem!
This list is "left" as defined by spooked people that think "communism = USSR" and "feminismus is left, it's not like it's a tool of the bourgies or anything" and "capitalism is fine, it just needs to be fixed".

The problem is, in US/UK the center has become left, right has become center and far right has become right.

Well I'm not saying it's represetative but when I'm looking for something to read it's annoying when every other book is some feminist trash

Genre fiction is a worse thing to care about than feminism

Yeah it is challenging and subversive. If you want to read a book where men completely conquer and dominant women, only to completely discard them, read the Bible. If you want to read a book that's even more challenging and subversive Female Mane, read The Satyricon

Because gender obsessives have to turn everything into part of their pointless culture war. Women are left wing children, men are right wing psychopaths. Because biology, or something.

So, the feminist vision of utopia usually involves a world where I have been exterminated. I'm supposed to accept feminist claims that their group has my best interests at heart and I should sign myself up, double quick!

I don''t fuckin' think so.

Because idiots think women:men:: proles:porkies and killing the men is like killing the porkies.

I've never seen so much idpol butt over a book. If you want to read good feminist Sci fi check out Left Hand of Darkness. If you want to read the type of shit feminists were reacting to to the point where they had to write their own "problematic" literature, read The Chronicles of Gor.

Every book where all X are dead and everything is magically better is a reactionary work, considering that is simply not how social antagonisms work. Women without men would not be women, as their identity is mediated through the otherness of men. And the resulting identity would not be without antagonism either so long as there was hierarchy and class. And no, whatever inherit traits women have opposed to men, it's not going to fix any systemic problems for the same reason pic related.

Daemon is left wing, even though it uses stock characters and archetypes, and only has a handful of female characters. It depicts the transition of a society into basically anarcho-transhumanism.

In Wild Boys women weren't eliminated but they were building an all male society that was positively shown relative to the society at large. It's also considered left-wing.

Fight Club also fits the bill of a left wing book about a womanless society defeating the emasculating dominant society.

Sci-Fi is important to us because its the only place leftism ends up successful so shut your mouth.

Speaking of wich, ofcourse 60s "leftist" US novels are feminist BS. Never forget the context in which every book was written.

...

...

what if i write a book where all humans are dead and everything is magically better for it?

Holy christ you autists it's just science fiction.

We'd be extinct within a generation. I agree.

I'm going to fucking puke holy shit are you that retarded

How do I get into SciFi /lit/ of a particularly leftist bent? I generally have a disdain for most "genre" fiction, but have read from and liked the works of Frank Herbert and Robert A. Heinlein.

Don't really have much to say about the topic though. Perhaps you should read something more provocative like…Walt Whitman~ than to read silly, little fantasies!

Seriously though, recommend me good SciFi…

Can't go wrong with Philip k Dick. I rec The three stigmata and ubik

then you get a show on the hitler channel or discubbery ancient ayy channel

that isnt edgy, its trendy, its what the bankers and the greenie cunts are selling along with muh co2 and bill nye the boeing guy claiming syria is bcuz climate change

As for OP, Valerie Solanas wrote the best "kill all men" book, actually made some decent points, also at least the crazy bitch was funny and shot andy warhol in his fucking face. Feminists used to be cool, stealing dynamite, torching porn shops, whipping out their tits at the smallest provocation

what went wrong

yeah, that's not true

ignore flag

No it is true. I want the human race gone.

I certainly do as well, but it's not a very popular viewpoint.

Posadas was born in the wrong time, wrong place

Whatchu talking about? The Cold War was the closest we've been by far.

I'm talking about lord, savior, sex icon, J Posadas

except it is you idpol loonie, this shit is being peddled on all levels very subtly, from plebian fodder like discovery channel to fucking new york times book review to bill gates babbling about reducing human population, to aforementioned anthropogenic global warming, i see fucking veggietards here faffing about "human exceptionalism", this shit is represented on all sides of the political and socioeconomic spectrum, they dont fucking come out and say kill everyone but they jig right up to it

nod an argument, amazing how you can come across as such an arrogant cunt in just a few few words

so fucking edgy, maybe you should just both fucking kill yourselves then ey, do us all a solid

No you die

There's a distinct difference between wanting to lower the population and getting rid of it entirely.

I've literally never heard this come up in any public discourse. Your screenshots from some shitty show about a theoretical earth after people dosn't change that.

Alright, you can fuggoff now

Yeah the whole "overpopulation" faggtry that libtards and lolberts peddle around unironically is getting suspiciously high "cultural coverage" despite rarely being discussed seriously.

The nobleman local lord has several serf families working the field and there is plenty of church presence in and near his lands.

At some point it becomes evident the mode of production is becoming unsustainable,the serfs are not efficient enough to feed themselves and pay nobles and the church from their conditions of misery.

Even more serfs and more lands fail to solve the problem as the serfs are still starving themselves and cant get enough produce out of the land to sustain the lands population, let alone feed the muh privileged states.

Maybe they need better conditions, or more technology, maybe access to hunting or less draconian taxes on using the lords "property" such as the mills bridges and tools.

Maybe if the nobles and the church didn't live so lavishly the serfs might get a buffer of food to fend off starvation and produce at an increasing rate.

Maybe the nobles shouldn't stockpile gargantuan amounts of grain until it rots, on the chance all of their serfs starve to death.
Maye the church shouldn't hoard unworked land.

The local lord, after consulting the court and some bankers/traders that loan him regularly concludes that there are TOO MANY PLEBEIANS.

You faggots don't even know what the word means. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

why bitch, i like people, I think we need more people, even da browns and curryniggers

if some yuppie cunt is bitching about population growth they should practice what they preach and off themselves, fucking limpdick intellectuals babbling about how we cant sustain the chiggers owning refridgerators, suck a goddamned tailpipe you piece of shit the sheer audacity

sry this topic irks me im projecting here but yer the fuckin type i wager

except it kinda is, you dont just tell the mud people to stop fucking and population is curbed, this shit is exponential son, you need pretty much need to sterilise and go full eugenics if you want to hit numbers like gates is talking

we need to get to space nigga, we got all our chips on one rock

to do that we need as many people as possible living at the highest standard of living we can uphold, douglas adams was basically right when he said the earth and humies are a supercomputer, we dont know who the next vernadsky is he could be some little zulu bambaata niglet, we need to elevate dat sheit.

this is the real reason socialism is the only way forward in the long run, its a matter of survival not morality

then you arent paying attention to what the powers that be and their mouthpieces are saying openly and between the lines, almost all the machinations we face are in some ways geared towards curbing population growth or at the very least keeping people in a wretched state, demoralized and unable to contribute.

should I list some off?

Austerity, "free market" globalism, proxy wars, muh co2 greenhouse polar bear bullshit, anglo backed wahhabi islam and other religious sectarianism , the entire financial system, the list goes on and on, this is the one thing Jonestown Seedman jones is consistently right about they are constantly pushing a very subtle anti-growth agenda, even you seem to be taking it as a given that there are too many people on the globe, or curbing "some" people is a-ok

ultimately these people realize that the more of us there are, living fulfilling lives, the less chance they will have to stay in power, we wont even need a revolution we would shrug them off like a bad dream

even pol/tards know about this shit, muh agenda 21, they rightfully bitch about it and then they go on to say we should glass the ME, go figure

pretty much fucking this, going back a few hundred years is actually a better way to explain it, too many peons become uncontrollable, you want the right amount of slaves, not too few and definitely not too many. You also want them either hungry or fighting about something, the safe sound and satisfied man tends to start thinking about greater things, eventually

Go the fuck back to Holla Forums

i know exactly what it means faggot, that fucking article is garbage and treats us like we are vermin akin to deer

nigger get out of your fucking pad get out of the fucking city and look at the night sky, then talk to me about fucking sustainablity you anal retentive hippie, our destiny lies in the stars, if you cant see this than you have been skullfucked badly

I would argue we are the exact opposite in fact, the disease vectors dont set in when there are too many of us, they set in when we stagnate

waa waaa I cant argue with you get out of my komfy place

im not going anywhere you pansexual treehugger, im suprised you didnt say "reported and filtered" like a true torture chamber poltard

Overpopulation is used in animals because they cannot substantially alter their environment, thus the amount of resources and the environment around them becomes a fixed factor, with population being the value to adjust for the viability of the system.

It's application to humans is shady at best and murderous at worst.

Humans can, with the help of technology significantly alter their environment and greatly distribute and preserver/stockpile resources over a long distance.
The environment is no longer a fixed factor, by pointing at population as the problem you are conspicuously ignoring the other reasons why the particular system might be in-viable.
This is a flagrant attempt to conceal that, in the majority of cases, the deciding factor for the viability(or the death) of a population is the profit of capitalists who decide how the resources get allocated.

Using overpopulation on a global context marks you as the lowest of the low,openly advocating literal starvation/misery for the profit of the very VERY *VERY* few.
Once a person has made such a statement they have no redemption.

population is not the only variable, you retard
amount of resources is a variable too

if resources increasing at the rate that is equal to the rate of the growth of population, then you have no problem

A-U-T-I-S-M

Every time.

What if I want those extra resources to improve my standard of living instead of letting Bessie soak them up by shitting out more kids?

strawman. Hispoint is that the call for population control is rooted in the need of the status quo of preserving the current mode of production, instead of changing it to the needs of population.

not necessary
just sterilization
maybe throw some chemicals in their food that cause infertility

but I have a better proposition
as you probably know, better living conditions cause decline in birth rates

so how about we improve living conditions of subhumans so that they cease to breed like cockroaches?

modus operandi of all lifeforms is to expand
if you're gonna close yourself in your little static bubble, you will stagnate and in the end environment will crush you.

all history of mankind is about more and more people forming more and more links with each other.

it's like a brain network
it grows stronger with each link between neurons

James P. Hogan has mild lolbert and new-age tendencies depending on the book's era, but a lot of his stuff is excellent leftism. In particular, Voyage from Yesteryear is the finest libsoc fiction ever written, and one of my favorite novels of any kind, to boot.

On a closely related note, Eric Frank Russel. Wasp is essential reading for any aspiring revolutionary agitator or terrorist.

Keith Laumer's Retief stories, and Harry Harrison's Bill the Galactic Hero, are both great parodies of capitalist militarism.

Isaac Asimov's Foundation series and A. E. van Vogt's Weapon Shops of Isher are, of course classics on the contradictory internal tensions of modern politics.

PKD, for all its reputation, comes across as preachy trash to me.

This meme will never get old

TOP KEK
TIPPEST JEJ
LELOCAUST

People who seriously think there is no overpopulation are just fucking deluded.