[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1626581624828.jpg ( 92.11 KB , 500x375 , love_candle_pink_heart.jpg )

 No.385010[Last 50 Posts]

Why do communists have such cynical views on love and romance?

It seems like every communist and anarchist I know not only hates the idea of marriage and monogamy but also the concept of "love" itself. They hold that having emotional attachments to one special person to be reminiscent of private property relations.

Anyone have thoughts on this?
>>

 No.385013

>>385010
because the revolutionary is a doomed man and romance is a distraction, plus infiltrators often use romance and sex to infiltrate orgs
>>

 No.385016

>>385013
Who is a true "revolutionary" in the western world at this point though?
>>

 No.385026

>>385010
Because any type of relationship between men and women post agricultural revolution has been solely about the acquisition of materia wealth over genuine relationships built off a natural likening for one another. Humans arent naturally monogamous and never have been, the nuclear family is less than a century old and the extended family model that came before it was literally about saving money by having your kids take care of you while living in the same fucking home for generations
>>

 No.385029

People who devote their lives to politics are rarely happy or well-adjusted, no matter what. The revolutionary politics of Marxism and the materialist outlook on relationships and the family as an economic institution also contribute to this.
>>

 No.385033

>>385013
Based fellow revcel
>>

 No.385034

File: 1626582351254-1.jpg ( 79.39 KB , 1280x720 , maxresdefault (7).jpg )

We've got to go back. To the era when communists were all about the passion and tumultuous love triangles ending in giant arguments erupting and then breaking up before getting back together in time for 1917 to shock the world.
>>

 No.385035

>>385026
>Humans arent naturally monogamous and never have been
Most anthropologists would say differently.
>>

 No.385043

>>385034
One of my favorite movies and surprisingly based for a movie about the Revolution made in 1980.
>>

 No.385047

>It seems like every communist and anarchist I know not only hates the idea of marriage and monogamy but also the concept of "love" itself. They hold that having emotional attachments to one special person to be reminiscent of private property relations.
That wasn't the view of 90% of communists throughout history.
Stalin had a pretty good stance on things like this (minus being a man of his time in regards to things like 'OH…OH MY GOD…ARE YOU A GAE??? PURGE!!!!!! PURGED!!!!!!!') Where culturally people should just be allowed to do fucking 'whatever'.

>He gave medals to female soldiers with the same dignity as men.

<But he also afforded the right for women to stay at home with their children if they wanted. (Even going so far as creating honours for mothers who had many children, Which hitler would shamelessly steal as a PR move later)
>Arranged marriages where people were lterally forced to get married were outlawed.
<But people could still get married if they wished to
People depending on what they personally wanted to do could just do either. The culture was organic. It did / it will fall into place as IT wishes to.
>>

 No.385048

>>385047
When did the USSR start giving medals to women for pumping out babies?
>>

 No.385051

>>385010
They're psychopaths. Psychopaths have no need for love, marriage, kids, etc. Many of them don't even understand why humans like music.
>>

 No.385055

I like romance, I'm a romantic in that way. Doesn't stop me from thinking about theory and ideology and shit.
>>

 No.385057

A few reasons:

Most communists in the US, Canada, France, etc. are very divorced from regular working people. They aren't looking to build mass movements with families with kids, but small, dedicated cults of fanatics. This is especially true with Maoists and anarchists.

Genetic fallacy. They think that because "love" as we know it is a modern social construct that it inherently furthers capitalist ideology.

Many communists tend to be misanthropic in general. Instead of serving the people they hate the people.
>>

 No.385058

Stalin said when his first wife died, the first and only love of his life whom he had met when he was nothing more than a fledgling revolutionary robbing banks, when his first wife passed away, so too did all warm feelings he had for this world. If that isn't romantic idk what is. The reason the communists you know aren't romantic isn't because they're communists. It's because they're homos.
>>

 No.385061

>>385048
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Maternal_Glory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Heroine

>The Order of Maternal Glory was a soviet civilian award honouring women that had a large family. with the first class being issued when the recipient had raised at least 7 children

>Three classes of the medal existed each for having 7 children so in order achieve the 'Order of Maternal Glory 3'rd class' A women was encouraged to have up to 21 children.

>The 'Mother Heroine' honour was a much more general award established to simply 'honour women with large families' the exact number of children should rear as a perquisite for the medal was never properly defined
>>

 No.385064

>>385034
wow those two people in the second pic are really ugly. what bearing do they have on your post? you can't make a triangle out of two
>>

 No.385066

>>385061
Which makes complete sense considering the Nazis killed an entire generation of soviet people.
>>

 No.385068

>>385026
t. never fallen in love
>>

 No.385069

i got fed up with it. Passionate love is an emotion that owns you. Love of individuals, like friends and family, is great. But it just feels like hedonist sidetracking tbh. And also it can hold you back, more than anything I want accomplices. If my lover is also down for revolutin', cool I guess but I wouldnt want to navigate that social politics.

Idk, tons of radical leftists, communists, and anarchists have great love lives. It's probably just individuals, and people being too autistically up their own asses busy with whatever that they don't want pleasure. I know I used to be that way, and then I did get into relationships, but now i just dont care anymore. Like it no longer registers as a need? You can have all the loving care and support and fun outside of sex+romance. It seems like getting into typical long-term romantic relationships is just kind of a snare that gets you tangled up.

Also its basically just settle-down normie breeder ideology. How will you fight capitalism if you're fighting just to survive and raise kids huh? Joking, but also really…. so often when people have kids, they lose ALL their zest, because all they care about is conferring their desires and energy onto this little creature that is supposed to supplant their place in the world.
maybe from this even one could imagine a philosophical position that communists and child-raisers cannot overlap, since in raising a child you nullify your own sense of agency and duty in the world, and tell your kid to take the fight further while you give up and wage then retire. Maybe even more radical though would be reminding old shits that they don't need to be defined by their parental status… they are still human beings
>>

 No.385071

>>385064
pisspig isnt ugly wtf
>>

 No.385073

>>385010
>It seems like every communist and anarchist I know not only hates the idea of marriage and monogamy but also the concept of "love" itself. They hold that having emotional attachments to one special person to be reminiscent of private property relations.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

Yes, anyone who thinks this way is beyond cringe and has no business breeding. Let them die alone and miserable.
>>

 No.385076

>>385026
First, you're wrong. Second,
>nature
>>

 No.385077

>>385071
He’s moderately ugly but i guess he has that ugly Jew look that some people are into. In any event the woman is much worse.
>>

 No.385081

I wish I could fall in love but I'm genuinely too autistic for that.
>>

 No.385082

>>385079
t. “Vol”cel
>>

 No.385083

>>385077
Don't worry, you couldn't handle her
>>

 No.385084

>>385073
>Anyone have thoughts
I think that every bond with every person is unique, but we often rely on the emotional feeling of love to stand in for real love. People obsessed with feeling in love are slaves. Eventually you'll feel towards your romantic partner the same love as your closest friends.
So the focus on a special emotional attachment to me is really dumb. Who cares what you feel? Yes it helps bonding, but it's a very self-centered thing. What happens if you're just kind of a toxic asshole, but you love someone very much, and everything you do hurts them? To me there's a mile of difference from feeling love, and from loving, or giving love.

From there, monogamy is strangling and it means one person demanding a privileged place in your life, for like, eternity.
>>

 No.385087

>>385077
epstein has the ugly jew look
this guy has the cute jew look, without falling into gayjew look
he's handsome
>>

 No.385089

>>385083
What is her name, I’ll make that judgement about your e-mommy for myself
>>

 No.385091

If you're a Marxist, you understand everything is in a constant state of flux. Attachments to other people inherently create reactionary tendencies because you will be denying the inherent changes in the world.
>>

 No.385092

>>385084
Ok that's nice. Tell us when you grow up and are ready to take responsibility for your conduct towards others and maybe even devlop the balls to make sacrifices for your kids.

I honestly wish I could just move away from all the hedonists.
>>

 No.385093

>>385091
Marx wrote love poetry to the woman he married
>>

 No.385094

>>385091
So people on a boat or grasping for land in a violent sea will deny it's true nature?
>>

 No.385095

>>385092
what? this doesnt relate to what I said at all
>>

 No.385096

>>385091
>>385095
>Things change all the time so I guess we should abandon our responsibilities to others and fuck whoever we want.

Fucking kys degenerates
>>

 No.385097

>>385091
If you were a Marxist you'd understand that humans are a social species and our attachments to each other are why we exist in the first place
>>

 No.385101

>>385097
Not one special person though.
>>

 No.385103

>>385096
i didnt say that at all
if anything i'm pretty boring and anti-sex. Also what responsibilities to others are you talking about?

Do I have some responsibility to find a monogamous life partner and raise kids? I don't get it. My whole point is that people get into relationships for bad reasons, that being the feeling of romantic love, and they don't know how to adequately give love. I think it's way more chill to have close friends that you can rely on, and that you can mutually help each other when you need (basically… family) rather than focusing on one person just cause they got your dick hard.
>>

 No.385104

>>385026
Humans are serially monogamous, that is one of the defining features of humanity in fact. otherwise we would not have developed fatherhood, etc.

< post-agricultural revolution


hunter-gatherer societies aren't a time capsule into the past as pop-scientists would have you believe. Their societies and cultures have evolved greatly in the past 10k years.
>>

 No.385110

File: 1626584680429.png ( 76.6 KB , 500x500 , 1618873821278.png )

>>385010
I don't. Having emotional attachment to PEOPLE is far from being reminiscient of private property relations. They're not an inanimate object, you don't inherently make profit from them, they're a fellow human being with their own species essence and their own unique personality who interacts with the world just as you do and with you can shape it. People aren't property and never will be.

The problem is, is that we have a very sanitised and nuclear-family idea of love constantly shilled by hollywood and sitcoms. I don't treat love as a perfect ideal, it's flawed, It's messy. True love isn't being the perfect human being, it's wether you two are perfect for eachother.

And besides, what's wrong with monogamy or polyamory? Are you telling me there's only one way to love, to show romantic feelings?

Regardless of what you may think of him, I always turn to Che on this topic

>“At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality […] We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.”


Most of the people shitting on love and this relationship shit are doomers and the unloved who have gained joy from schaudenfreud, surrendering to cynicism and pessimism. You owe it to your friends to make a better world, to be a better person, to make a better society, to make better love
>>

 No.385112

>>385104
culture also is natural to humans, so we tend to be serially monogamous, but we also practice lots of different forms of sexual attachments

I guess I don't want to play the lib "you can't know anything because it's all relative" but i think it's just important to also recognize that whatever various forms sexual relationships have taken, theyre all particular and socially influenced and up for each individual to decide to go along with
>>

 No.385113

File: 1626584773510.jpg ( 75.32 KB , 850x400 , quote-at-the-risk-of-seemi….jpg )

i love to love, though, anon. love is the reason why we fight, love for the people, love for friends and family, love for the possibility of a future.

as for the notion that people may use sex and/or love as a psy-op, well, i'm sure that worked on all those women the CIA sent to fidel. history speaks for itself.
>>

 No.385114

>>385026
You don't think love is real, because no one loves you.
>>

 No.385115

>>385026
Extended family model is still monogamous retard:
>>

 No.385118

>>385110
>you don't inherently make profit from them
Baby making could be considered a form of profit.
>>

 No.385120

File: 1626585334072.webm ( 17.32 MB , 640x360 , ZizekMonogamy.webm )

>It seems like every communist and anarchist I know not only hates the idea of marriage and monogamy but also the concept of "love" itself.
I think when most communists are discussing this, they aren't bashing "marriage" in the sense of two people agreeing to be with each other and committing, they are rather taking issue with the institution of marriage, which is something entirely different and more legal and economic thing. Nobody has an issue with two people making personal vows to one another, the issue is when the property based contract starts getting rolled out.
>They hold that having emotional attachments to one special person to be reminiscent of private property relations.
Who says this? Its literally the opposite.
>>

 No.385121

>>385110
hey anon if you're still watching the thread, how do you deal with assholes? I'll rephrase this to better get at the question, but I guess i'm probably one of those unloved cynics

I used to at various times feel a love of every person, and it was kind of amazing, but those times always stop and I stop trying to have that attitude, and generally the most obvious and jarring thing taking me out of it is suddenly being confronted with the fact that some people are just your enemies, and not because they're enemies of humanity or some stupid shit, but they're the stupid humanity you love, and they might hate you, be vile to you, etc. If you persist in love here, it basically brings you to an abusee mindset.

And I guess also I notice you say that you owe it to your friends to make a better world. That's very nice and I agree that at least we should be better people for our friends. But if someone told me they were doing all they did for me, I would be kind of terrified and weirded out honestly. This kind of targeted "everything is for you darling" love is really an unpleasant burden at best, and can become very patronizing at worst ("i love you so much that I have to know where you are all the time so i know you're safe").

How do you deal with the ugly nature of people without changing your mindset? I want to believe that love is some ideal, and it is a way of seeing someone that nullifies their negative qualities, but at some point that just turns into being a doormat. If anything for me communism is rising up and refusing to love all, and loving some rather than all. But also it can't be a patronizing, stifling love. That's a purely selfish love that's really just in love with itself and it's own idea. I think maybe the best love prescribes nothing, and is mostly hands off, in favor of watching and helping the other come to their own power, and just being there with someone but not necessarily doing any action in their name. Anyways I'd rather do things in my name since at least I won't be bringing someone else into my own beef that way.

What is your experience?
>>

 No.385160

>>385010

The way the mode of production has tended to deform relationships has guven us tjose red blues… Vid related.
>>

 No.385164

Because they have no bitches.
The typical politics-histry obssessed autist has to construct a "logical" reason to why they can't click with people since they don't understand it, leading to cope takes >>385026 like this, a lot of the time they have to resort to poly and open relationships because they are incapable of being a full human with another full human.
>>

 No.385167

File: 1626587796979.jpg ( 104.26 KB , 1024x1024 , babyFaucetWater.jpg )

>>385164
>zizek flag pol retard
ok
>>

 No.385169

File: 1626587955441.jpg ( 21.46 KB , 500x572 , 1626511009273.jpg )

>>385121
>I want to believe that love is some ideal, and it is a way of seeing someone that nullifies their negative qualities, but at some point that just turns into being a doormat.

Well that's the thing, love isn't an ideal. And that's what I meant in the fact that we're sold this bullshit idea of these hollywood ideas of monogomous relationships. They are messy, and they are flawed. But As I said before, there is are different kinds of love, and you have to understand that love isn't a one way street. I've had crushes for people who haven't reciprocated. And it feels like shit, you feel like an idiot, that you've been bamboozled. At that low point, you either start to hate yourself or hate others and shove it on others. But none of these help. Ironically enough, communism actually turned me into a better lover. You have a right to laugh, everyone who reads what I'm about to say has to, I even laugh at it myself, yet ironically being able to self-crit, to learn about mutual aid and apply that to relationships AS WELL AS YOURSELF is fufilling. It ensures that who you love is not your doormat or vice versa. It is a relationship built on genuine respect, mutual aid, and a constant mass line on your relationship. If you or your lover can't take criticism, can't speak honestly to eachother and fail to communicate, then the relationship is doomed to fail. Be honest with eachother on what you want and what you need. Treat eachother as the vanguards of this relationship, with respect, dignity, but never be afraid to criticise (so long as its constructive). To hell with this Americanised ideal of love.

>If anything for me communism is rising up and refusing to love all, and loving some rather than all. But also it can't be a patronizing, stifling love. That's a purely selfish love that's really just in love with itself and it's own idea. I think maybe the best love prescribes nothing, and is mostly hands off, in favor of watching and helping the other come to their own power, and just being there with someone but not necessarily doing any action in their name.


The thing which you have to understand is that people aren't entirely good or evil, progressive or conservative, based or cringe. We have all said and done stupid shit that we wish that we could take back, and some may constantly use that against you. But if you develop, if you better yourself, and you make the effort, their so called "criticisms" of you will bounce off of you barely making a dent. That is what socialism is, a constant desire to abolish things, but build something new and develop it as it goes. In this revolution, you are going to have to deal with conservative minded folks who may be in your ranks, you're going to have to deal with your manic pixie goth chick who blasts anarchist music. But the truth is, is that killing people in this context for being stupid, when they're young, when they're impressionable, when they have known nothing else is not productive. Your ultimate goal is to change the minds of people, to unify them in struggle and in return be willing to change your mind and recognise your own flaws and work to better them. You're going to have disagreements fall outs and arguments. But the important thing is how you handle them. Shitting on people for the sake of shitting on people to get "upvoots" and "likes" will not help you, it leaves you bitter, a cynic, and fosters nothing but anger and bitterness. People never stop growing, people never stop developing, for better or for worse. How is love any different?

Never be afraid to love, and never give into despair. There is only direction to go, for both yourself and for love.

FORWARD
>>

 No.385176

>>385026
>Humans arent naturally monogamous and never have been
<Thus, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of marriage patterns, extramarital affairs, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, the pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships. This may be expressed through polygyny and/or polyandry but is most commonly observed in the form of serial monogamy.
>>

 No.385178

>>385164
>a lot of the time they have to resort to poly and open relationships because they are incapable of being a full human with another full human.
Guys don't get into "poly/open relationships" bc they're "incapable of being a full human with another full human" (whatever the fuck that means). They get into poly/open relationships bc their gf cucked them with a more "exciting" (Dark Triad bad boy type) guy and they have too much oneitis for their gf (putting them on a pedestal) to accept that it's over and they should cut their losses and move on instead of sticking with the girl who's proven that she will cuck him, cheat on him and break his heart over and over again as long as her Dark Triad "bad boy" side-piece(s) continues to get her wet, since she perceives her actual bf as boring.
>>

 No.385182

>>385164
I never thought I'd say this on leftypol, but check your ableism
>>

 No.385185

File: 1626588455923.png ( 1.46 MB , 1660x934 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>385026
So did you hear about how they did a study, and it was like, what was it, 50? 55%? of marriages involve at least one partner cheating on the other one at some point? Jamie pull that up.
>>

 No.385192

>>385167
>>385182
>These are the people who disagree with me
>>385178
You get what I'm saying, they're always failures of relationships not a sign of the strength of human love
>>

 No.385198

>>385010
Because your experience with communists is defined by a bunch of self-deprecating children.
>>

 No.385208

>>385192
>they're always failures of relationships not a sign of the strength of human love
And what does that say about the "strength of human love" that what I described is a pattern that happens over and over again, everywhere on Earth, throughout pretty much every era of recorded human history? On and on the cycle of cheating and cuckoldry goes, of secret trysts and affairs, of the "forbidden fruit" that tastes so good but implies being unfaithful to the partner that was (presumably) promised faithfulness (monogamy).
>>

 No.385212

>>385208
It speaks more to nature of desire at its most fundamental imo. It wouldn't be love if it was easy, trivial, if any weak cuck could go into it and make no effort in ensuring the partner's happiness and fulfilment.
>>

 No.385228

Personally I'm too /r9k/ for gf, too obsessed with not being cucked and the thought that she may have sucked some guy's dick or something like that repulses and disgusts me
>>

 No.385229

>>385212
>if any weak cuck could go into it and make no effort in ensuring the partner's happiness and fulfilment.
So the Dark Triad personality guy that comes in and just pumps and dumps her is ensuring the woman's happiness and fulfillment, while her cuck bf or husband who works himself to the bone being the provider for the household, securing food/clothes/shelter for her and their children is the one who "makes no effort"? Lol
>>

 No.385230

>>385010
>>385026
Protip: I've never seen a poly relationship that actually "worked" in the sense that it lasted very long without serious issues. Many of my friends are poly and their "three way" relationships have always ended with two people getting very close with the third person being left hanging. I don't see relationships like that being very healthy. And especially when accidents happen and someone procreates, then it's a real disaster. No one wants to bring up a child in that unstable of a relationship.
>>

 No.385234

Daily reminder the left has been doing this from the start.
>>

 No.385238

>>385169
thank you for answering
though i wouldnt say its an "americanized ideal of love", i was paraphrasing zizek
>>

 No.385248

>>385229
Retard it's a failure of a relationship entirely. The cuck doesn't fulfill his role and it breaks down. The point is these failures will always exist otherwise love would be meaningless
>>

 No.385251

>>385230
i've seen this too
also now that you say this though it makes me think, why does this happen with romantic love but not friendly love? We can have many friends, and getting closer to one isnt really a problem, it might happen or might not, but isnt this snowball effect. I don't think its about the sex, cause people will vary with wanting a stable monogamous sexual partner and wanting the sexy outside partner.
I think it might just be the demands and expectations that romantic love places on us. Like if people want to have their trad normie relationship because it works for them then cool, but it seems like there's a pull both in the direction of people wanting more open and polyamorous relationships, but also the inevitable failure of these relationships. We can just write it off as "the thing's impossibility at the moment of its existence" and revel in the idea that in resigning yourself to unfreedom, you are also free to experience a new field of love and relationships. But in these dialectical relationships there's always space for development. It seems like the development here is towards a non-romantic polyamory. (not necessarily fucking all ur friends, that will lead to "problems")
>>385248
you fail to be an interesting poster, sadly because of my great love, nothing you ever do could drive me away from reading your shitty shitty posts
>>

 No.385252

>>385248
To continue the Chad doesn't enter a love relationship with the woman either since theirs is conditional on the cuck shouldering the economic burden, non-whole people all around
>>385251
Love you too
>>

 No.385259

she asked me do you love me i tell her only partly
>>

 No.385262

>>385010
What? Not american so idk but here communists are romantic.
>>

 No.385264

>>385251
My only answer is that romance implies much more commitment to one another. You're in essence giving your entire self over to that other person. That's why most poly relationships end badly, because most people can't give themselves over to more than one person at a time.

And especially when children enter the picture (whether intentionally or not) it's going to be very hard to keep that kind of multi-person relationship stable.

I'd add that the people I know who are poly do so out of ideological reasons mostly. They're trying to smash monogamy or dissolve any kind of distinction between lovers and friends or whatnot. The thing is, they can never seem to overcome their emotional attachments to one specific person at a time, so whatever ideological commitment they had gets overtaken by their romantic commitment.
>>

 No.385267

File: 1626592639285.gif ( 3.84 MB , 498x280 , wouldn't get it.gif )

>>385228
The last chance I had for a "pure" virgin gf was that girl I had a crush on when we were both 15. She actually liked me back (I know bc she told me, she said "I fell in love with you since the first time we met" - her words) but I never did anything about it bc it was too long distance and I figured it would never work out anyway, so might as well save myself the inevitable pain and heartbreak. Therefore I just ghosted her, like she still messaged me sometimes, and I'd message her back, but as time passed the messages would get shorter and the time elapsed between them more infrequent, to the point that now I haven't spoken to or messaged her in years. That ship has sailed, long long ago. Now I guess I'll just settle for any girl that I find hot, preferably a girl with big titcow-tier boobas, like F or G cup or even bigger boobas. Don't care what her "body count" is. Hell, I don't even care if she's an ex-sex worker or something who's been with dozens or hundreds of guys. As long as she's into me and I can get my nut with her, that's the best I can ever hope for anyway. All the rest, all the other aspects, all this "pure romantic love"/"soulmate" whatever…I'm completely black-pilled about it, I've given up on it, gave up on it a long time ago actually.
>>

 No.385272

>>385264
>>385230
Ancom uygha spitting bare facts
I would say there's a clear influence of neoliberalism, having multiple partners for multiple purposes, literal consumer love, however this is at fundamental contradiction with the fact that love IS sacrficie. Loving my wife means not even entertaining desires of sexual infidelity, it isn't just two free beings doing what they want while living together, and it can't be lest we lose what we currently understand as 'love'.
>>

 No.385289

>>385010
>marriage and monogamy
That's fine, if you mean it for child care and as a social relation you enjoy.
But you have to understand the origins of this is a
brutal uncaring feudal age logic of producing airs as a biological management unit for landed capital. For combining real estate of 2 families and so on. The social relation can be reproduced with a socialist mode of production too, but you also have to understand the relation will feel different if the main goal isn't perpetuating capital, because women will have equal social power.
>the concept of "love"
it's not a concept it's an emotion.
The question here is what part of your brain is steering your action. Usually the rational part is better at getting results because it's more advanced circuitry. If you love someone you should transform that into a well defined set of rational priorities you can use in a cold calculating way.
>>385069
>breeder ideology.
breeder vs non-breeder is a reactionary framework
>How will you fight capitalism if you're fighting just to survive and raise kids huh?
Destroy capitalism so you can build a better future for your children.
>>

 No.385294

>>385272
It reminds me of something Erich Fromm said in one of his books (I forget which one), how people who engage in these kinds of "free love" lifestyles become (paradoxically or not) much more concerned with accumulating more lovers, rather than being able to love just one.

I've never understood how poly is somehow more anti-capitalist than monogamy, to be perfectly honest. Marriage as an institution is dying in the West because late capitalism no longer needs it. But what does it say about our culture at large when people are so willing to disregard love as a thing, and treat romantic partners like commodities?
>>

 No.385295

>not having 3 kids to increase the amount of commies in the world
Incels will get the rope for holding back revolution
>>

 No.385298

File: 1626593718679.mp4 ( 569.85 KB , 1280x720 , Caleb-as-many-children.mp4 )

>>

 No.385302

>>385295
capitalist exploitation increases the amount of commies in the world by default. Marx said that the bourgeoisie as a class is its own gravedigger, with reference to the socialization of industrial production creating the objective social basis for the "workingmen's associations" (unions, parties etc.) of revolutionary action. Read Marx
>>

 No.385308

>>385294
It does certainly feel poly shit was just a fad. Maybe I've just grown up and left weirdos behind at university, but the vast majority of people, especially workers, just wanna grill, simple as. I'm also not a burger and it seems from this thread that the supposed relationship "degeneracy" is something primarily popular over there. In fact the only (actual) poly person I met at uni was a burger lol, wtf?

In theory however I have little hope, it seems on trend with the commoditisation of everything, shorter attention spans, inability to discipline oneself and so on. Will be interesting to see how this accelerates as tiktok zoomers go into jobs
>>

 No.385319

>>385308
Polyamory is extremely common everywhere, including wherever you live. It's just not called "polyamory", it's called "cheating" or "secret affairs behind your partner's back". This cheating/cuckoldry is so common everywhere (and in every era of recorded history) in fact, that "my gf/wife cheated on me and/or left me for another guy and now I'm heartbroken" is THE most common theme of THE most common genre of music everywhere on the planet: the love song.
>>

 No.385322

>>385308
I'm guessing you're European?

My guess is that American leftists tend to be obsessed with culture wars, mostly because the labor movement has completely died out and the only places where radical lefties have any platform is on the cultural front. American leftists really do believe their entire country is the Bible Belt. That, combined with the extreme amount of individualism in American culture, like Americans almost have a mythical view of the self. That's why so many Americans fall into lifestyle politics traps, like they think their diets or whatever will fix much bigger political or social issues.
>>

 No.385323

This is one of those situations where the answer is most likely
>Because communists are not fucking likable people
>>

 No.385329

>>385317
Feel free to use whatever definition you like, but that's clearly not what I'm talking about and not the definition used in this discussion. Poly is consenting multi-'love' relationships, cheating with someone isn't equal to loving them
>>385322
UK. Very sad, I can't imagine the stress of living a life where you religiously try to purge your life of everything heteronormative and so on
>>385302
Yeah but I can educate them with values and books that lumpen kids unfortunately have no access to
>>

 No.385336

>>385329
>Yeah but I can educate them with values and books that lumpen kids unfortunately have no access to
How exactly are industrial workers (and their children) lumpen? Industrial workers are the proleiest of proles.
>>

 No.385338

>>385234
I find it strange that he mentions the Marxists but nothing about the anarchists, who were far, far more anti-marriage and anti-family than the Marxists ever were.
>>

 No.385340

>>385298
Maupin once again proving he's a social conservative in communist clothing.
>>

 No.385342

>>385010
So many shit takes in this thread.
The idea of love has been commodified and reified too much. It's no longer enough to love, you have to love in certain pre-defined ways.
Many leftists reject this and find ways to explore new ways of loving. They might not call it love, but that's the essence of what they are doing.

Honestly who wouldn't be cynical about the idea of love in our society. it's terrible. Love is never this neat and beautiful thing that is magical and fixes everything. And there are different forms of love. The spark you feel when you fall in love fizzles out but that doesn't mean you don't love the other person. They still bring you great joy, but in other ways that aren't this chaotic destructive impulsive love. That said, it's different for everyone.

Libs are always prescriptive about love. Theres always pressure of loving correctly, the right people, right times, and through right action. Fuck that.
>>

 No.385345

>>385010
>They hold that having emotional attachments to one special person to be reminiscent of private property relations
More like they view monogamy as bourgeois. Atleast that was the case in the immidiate years after red october
>>

 No.385346

>>385336
uygha what the fuck is your point? I will educate my kids appropriately, most kids don't have access to this
>>

 No.385347

>>385329
>Poly is consenting multi-'love' relationships, cheating with someone isn't equal to loving them
Cheating/cuckoldry is de facto polyamory. Polyamory is "de jure" (in quotes bc there's no actual legal contract) or "legalized" cheating/cuckoldry.
>>

 No.385349

>>385013
You cant be a nihilist and a communist.
>>

 No.385351

>>385164
Retard lmao 🤣🤣🤣
>>

 No.385355

>>385164
Retard lmfao. How are you capable of such shit takes and call yourself a communist. Fully brain poisoned. The brain of an anglo priest.
>>

 No.385356

File: 1626595372368.jpeg ( 23.37 KB , 480x350 , C7E45112-DB7A-460C-807D-C….jpeg )

>>385091
Unironically more retarded than the Jedi banning romance in Star Wars
>>

 No.385357

>>385295
>Killing people who want to have relationships but get rejected instead of people that could have relationships but choose not to
Sexhavers get the rope desu
>>

 No.385358

>>385342
>Many leftists reject this and find ways to explore new ways of loving.
Protip: I've witnessed those "new ways of loving" firsthand, and they always end with two people going right back to conventional monogamy.
>>

 No.385359

>>385346
Social problems don't have individual solutions. In the same way that "buying ethical products" on the consumer end won't make the economy green/eco-friendly, having 3 or more kids and educating them into becoming communists won't overthrow capitalism and create a communist revolution. Workers of the world (whether they have children, do not and don't want them, or do not and want them someday but don't have any yet) become communists because of their terrible living conditions, low wages and inflation under capitalism combined with an active communist party and communist-affiliated unions or workers committees (composed of, again, workers who have children, do not and don't want them, and those who do not and want them someday but don't have any yet) doing the work of organizing among them and encouraging them to independently take their power as a class via strikes, boycotts, work stoppages, armed defense against the repressive arms of the capitalists and fascists etc.
>>

 No.385373

>>385010
because it's one of the most inane products of late capitalism. one of the most easy emotions to cynically abuse. constantly redefined towards a romantic ideal that has never existed to the exclusion of platonic or other forms of love.
>>

 No.385374

>>385347
Retard
>>385355
>>385351
>Seething this hard
>no argument
Have sex dude
>>385357
Incels reject themselves by being incels, many are above average attraction, this is basic shit fam
>>385358
New ways of coping!
>>

 No.385375

>>385359
My kids WILL beat up your kids
My kids WILL cuck your kids
My kids WILL lead the vanguard
>>

 No.385377

>>385010
You've been talking to larpers, autists, loveless, etc. Might want to rethink who you're hanging out with.
>>

 No.385380

>>385026
What absolutely zero sex does to a mf
>>

 No.385381

>>385295
because that worked so well for Buttigieg's father?
remember, kids tend to rebel against their parents.
>>

 No.385384

>>385381
Why do I even bother with such moronic points… You're a brainlet if you think I'm posting with a Zizek flag and haven't already thoroughly considered the psychological effects of raising a kid. I'm not gonna sit my kids down with Capital and say "no dinner until you finish!"
>>

 No.385385

>>385374
>Have sex dude
You're the one that sounds like a priest lmfao.
You're literally condemning other people for not subscribing to your shitty Love concept and manner. You're a secular priest, brain poisoned anglo.
>>

 No.385389

File: 1626597628194.png ( 1.41 MB , 1200x675 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>385384
then tell us, how would you avoid a catastrophe like this dude? I guess Joseph Buttigieg was just dumb?
>>

 No.385396

Wow, much cringe from this thread.
"Love" as romantics imagine it, is the biggest meme there is. Fear of death leads people to crave this love thing, and no complex feeling that has its roots in animal fear deserves such glorification. That all throughout human history we can see this romance theme tells me just how much humans as a species are still ruled by the fear of death.

Related to this is also accumulation of "friends" and in general of social connections, ridiculous nature of which is especially clearly seen in our time of social networks. Here I too see a fear of death behind the scenes with people frantically trying to build their own little security social nets.
>>

 No.385401

Because most of people who are """" political"""" are either loser-virgins or schizoids
You can see them here.
>>

 No.385406

>>385264
>And especially when children enter the picture
interesting that you ignore the financial and state based problems with this situation
>>

 No.385407

>>385267
call her
>>

 No.385410

>>385385
I'm a normal dude. I'm not a degenerate weirdo trying to abolish love. And I have no trouble having sex, nothing I said is anywhere near priest level, it's common knowledge for non-internet obsessed weirdos.
>>385389
Well… Yeah obviously he's stupid
>>

 No.385411

>>385401
Dude, you just said that all politicians are virgins losers or whatever, which is retarded
>>

 No.385416

>>385411
That's clearly not what he means, 'political' people just have pronouns in the bio or post tradcath wojacks, politicians are something else entirely
>>

 No.385422

>>385010
I only dislike marriage as a legal thing. Have no issues with monogamy as a concept. The reason I'm cynical about romance is because I'm neurotic, have had poor experiences building relationships, and don't feel comfortable nor mature enough to be able to satisfy another person romantically. Gets a bit lonely but it is what it is. Right now I prefer to focus on other things and maybe stuff will change, idk. Doesn't really matter much in the end.
>>

 No.385427

>>385410
>I have no trouble having sex
Whatever you say buddy
>>

 No.385428

>>385416
Shut up Zizek, I wasnt talking to you.
>>

 No.385432

>>385358
This does seem to be typical. Obviously there are always going to be outliers, but it's pretty clear that most people gravitate strongly towards monogamy or serial monogamy.
>>

 No.385443

>>385411
most politicians have nothing to do with politics. the average British MP, for example, is really a social worker of last resort. even within the government itself, most cabinet ministers are more like administrators than like true "politicians"
>>

 No.385451

>>385396
get help
>>

 No.385456

>>385428
I've saved this other anon the time of having to call you a retard who can't understand a basic sentence, just doing my duty.
>>385427
Have a sex for every garbage post you make today
>>

 No.385460

File: 1626601092778.jpg ( 180.81 KB , 650x919 , DPRK1111.jpg )

>>385010 (OP)
>cynical views

The word you're looking for is pessimistic, not cynical.

>It seems like every communist and anarchist I know not only hates the idea of marriage and monogamy but also the concept of "love" itself. They hold that having emotional attachments to one special person to be reminiscent of private property relations.


Because you only know western, anglo "leftists" and the western anglo "socialist" movement principally attracts weirdos, shut-ins, degenerates, and bottom of the barrel losers. The IDPOL plague has been manufactured in such a way that decent, charismatic, confident & well-rounded men of any ethnicity are shut out & destroyed while weirdo deranged fetishistic crossdressers & weak narcissistic bourgeois "POC" grifters rise to the top of org's and turn them into personal cults of weenieism.

The simple answer is most of these people can't actually get pussy, those who can usually are stuck with the bottom of the barrel BPD deranged whores (the kinds any decent human being wouldn't trust around children) & the majority are hyper-individualistic rootless cosmopolitans with room temperature IQ's and no connection to any kind of community, no drive beyond vulgar, misunderstood self-interest, hence why they scream and yell and spaz out when you divert the conversation from them & their genitals or imply that video game production won't be prioritized under socialism, that magical star trek replicators which provide infinite consumption aren't going to be a thing or that porn should be banned.

In most of the world, hell even in much of Europe, Communists aren't neon haired heroin addicts and deranged hypersexual freaks who base their entire sense of identity around a very confused understanding of socialism. They are just ordinary people, mothers and fathers, workers, decent people who have regular lives. Talk to some Indian, African or Eastern Euro communists & it's a world of difference.
>>

 No.385466

>>385460
>movement principally attracts weirdos, shut-ins, degenerates, and bottom of the barrel losers. The IDPOL plague has been manufactured in such a way that decent, charismatic, confident & well-rounded men of any ethnicity are shut out & destroyed while weirdo deranged fetishistic crossdressers & weak narcissistic bourgeois "POC" grifters rise to the top of org's and turn them into personal cults of weenieism
>The simple answer is most of these people can't actually get pussy, those who can usually are stuck with the bottom of the barrel BPD deranged whores (the kinds any decent human being wouldn't trust around children) & the majority are hyper-individualistic rootless cosmopolitans with room temperature IQ's and no connection to any kind of community, no drive beyond vulgar, misunderstood self-interest, hence why they scream and yell and spaz out when you divert the conversation from them & their genitals or imply that video game production won't be prioritized under socialism, that magical star trek replicators which provide infinite consumption aren't going to be a thing or that porn should be banned.
<MuH DeGeNaRaCy
<İnc*l propaganda
<RoOtLeSs Cosmopolitan
<MuH BaN PoRn
Fuck off Uyghur. Everyone will be free to diye their hair, play video-game, do sex with eachother and watch&do porn
Kill yourself if you are conservative
African males will watch Star Wars too
Arab girls will be horny hoes too
Pakistani teens will dye their hair too
Indian dudes will do metal-music too
>>

 No.385468

>>385466
Take some paracetamol & chill out.

No normal human being wants to be a weird loser & no decent, functional human being is going to be won over to loserism and your weird, Yankee-protestant/puritanical victimhood cult.
>>

 No.385469

>>385460
There is a critique to be made, but this isn't it. There's no actual analysis here, this is just a long list of buzzwords jammed in at certain places to give the illusion of making a point. Strip the it down to the materialist analysis that might be there, and purge the rest, because it doesn't assist in making this seem as profound as you think it does.
>In most of the world, hell even in much of Europe, Communists aren't neon haired heroin addicts and deranged hypersexual freaks who base their entire sense of identity around a very confused understanding of socialism. They are just ordinary people, mothers and fathers, workers, decent people who have regular lives. Talk to some Indian, African or Eastern Euro communists & it's a world of difference
Not saying that "ordinary" people are like the previous people mentioned before, but you may have a rather romanticized view of what constitutes "ordinary" and "regular". Again, not to say they are the caricature of burger leftists mentioned, but they also aren't faultless or "straight-laced" in their lives. You are going to encounter your drunks, your adulterers, and your deranged.
>>

 No.385470

>>385460
Another banger post. Sage is going to need to up his game if he wants to hold on to the best tripfag title
>>

 No.385471

>>385470
>Sage
>Best tripfag
You're either new, or you really don't have that high of a standard. At this point, someone bring Naziposter back, because I never once saw him give an insufficient analysis.
>>

 No.385474

>>385471
>You disagree therefore are new
Tbf we don't have many tripfags to choose from because we got flags and avatar fags
>>

 No.385475

>>385460
you’ll be a fascist within a couple years
>>

 No.385482

>>385396
>Thing bad because thing evolved in humans naturally
Brb boutta go get lobotomized to get rid of my cringe brain evolution gave me
>>

 No.385483

>>385475
I beg, please go back to Reddit, or at least attempt to listen to ideas outside your breadtube bubble
>>

 No.385484

>>385475
>Fascism is when you aren't you aren't a Yankee style liberal progressivist
>Left/right divide is based on whether you embrace pety-bourgeois Yankee liberal social politics

I guess the vast majority of communists globally & every single historical socialist state was fascist. huh.

The world is not a game of civilization & social development does not follow a linear tech tree towards infinitely "more progressive". Left-wing/right-wing in the orthodox sense refer exclusively to economic and NOT social policies. What's more, the majority of the world does not share liberal, individualist enlightenment values.
>>

 No.385485

>>385480
Okay but why do you hate people from the Anglosphere for having shitty social lives?
Honestly the reason you could become a fascist in a few years is much more the fact that you feel disgust at people who are isolated to the point of having no friends, having no significant others, etc. you basically feel hatred and disgust for the weak and the lonely
The first step on the road to the Reich is feeling disgust for the weak
For a site always willing to defend LGBTQUIABCDEFG you seemingly have no problems at all viciously attacking socially isolated people, depressed people, bullied kids, etc. you are unironic fucking bullies and assholes sorry to say
>>

 No.385487

social conservatism below the age of 40 is always, everywhere, a disease of socialization.
>but i'm asocial, i'm cool and based and spent all day on imageboards!
you're not asocial, you just don't know what social means.
>>

 No.385488

>>385487
Fallacious argument
You can easily be socially conservative if you don’t grow up in upper middle class woke culture of America’s coastal cities, or places like Paris and London
>>

 No.385491

>>385487
I think the problem you're describing is this is a specific hyper conservative group of weirdos. We have the same weirdos but the other way round here who are hyper progressive despite never having sex and spending all their time online. What me and other posters are promoting is just normal behaviour, consistent with every (successful) revolutionary group, but weirdos who want to abolish literally every social structure yesterday call it "conservative", and consequently fascist.
>>

 No.385492

>>385491
What if you want normal shit but your life sucks so you can’t have those things but you don’t cope with the leftist/radfem version of MGTOW?
>Inb4 you make yourself dateless by being dateless
>>

 No.385493

>>385488
you can easily be a Mormon if you're born in Utah, that's still a malady of socialization. whether imposed by your parents or by conversion.

>>385491
normal behavior often becomes pathological when you develop an obsession with it. it is normal to love your mother, it is weird to tell everyone that you love your mother at each opportunity, to be very very interested in those who do not love their mothers, and so on.

(this without getting into any weird historical arguments about successful revolutionaries. was the true spirit of the USSR embodied more in Lenin's decriminalisation of homosexuality or in Stalin's recriminalisation? we could play that parlor game, but the primary result would merely be to send a social signal this way or that in a binary and not very interesting cultural argument.)
>>

 No.385494

File: 1626603901581.png ( 514.09 KB , 572x421 , 007.png )

>>385460
Worst fucking namefag, taking fucking soviet propaganda posters seriously.
Communism is when you dress the same, look the same, think the same, march the same. Go masturbate to a military parade or something you pathetic excuse for a human being.
>>

 No.385496

>>385485
>Okay but why do you hate people from the Anglosphere for having shitty social lives?

I neither hate nor am disgusted by people with shitty social lives. It's obvious that nobody would choose to live like that & if anything I feel for and sympathize with the millions of young people who have been thrown into the social gutter. Their lives are a living hell and it's an atrocity that the system produces these conditions in the first place.

The problem is when these people are herded together and weaponized as useful idiots for the worst elements of the imperial bourgeoisie, when they actively wreck the socialist movement at home (inadvertently or consciously) fuck over any competent man & create weenie circle jerks who alienate and push away working people, and when they are used as shock troopers for imperial intervention.

Any attempt to argue with these people most of the time leads to being mass reported, doxed, harassed. Trying to talk to these people & engage honestly doesn't work because they are fucking psychotic & deluded. Whether they are consciously serving as counter-revolutionary agents or not is irrelevant because these people collectively have done more damage to the western left than the Freikorps. The silk glove approach just doesn't work and at a certain point, you just have to bring out the belt & beat the fuckers. One way or another they need to cease being burdens and fucking over the movement; they can either accept help & work to transform themselves into warriors of the people & more functional human beings or they can end their lives & remove themselves from exisatence, either outcome is acceptable.
>>

 No.385497

>>385492
desire is the root of all suffering.
it is also the chief manufacture of the present society. nothing should be interrogated as ruthlessly as your own wants.
>>

 No.385499

>>385493
> you can easily be a Mormon if you're born in Utah, that's still a malady of socialization. whether imposed by your parents or by conversion.
What the fuck do you consider to be social conservative, being a literal tradcath?
I’m just talking about zoomers being either homophobic or somewhat racist, which is much more a product of growing up in an environment where being tough and macho is respected and expected of a man, which is basically any environment that isn’t some upper middle class circle
>>

 No.385500

>>385494
>Communism is when you dress the same, look the same, think the same, march the same. Go masturbate to a military parade or something you pathetic excuse for a human being.

This is exactly how Anglo leftists behave, dress, etc. They look like an army of deranged & mentally ill clones, identical psychotic personalities & interests. Anytime you see somebody with pronouns in their social media bio it's like you're dealing with an unhinged hive mind.

Your attachment to the system is evident in that you define individuality purely by consumption habits.
>>

 No.385501

>>385496
Fair enough, I guess it sounds like you’re talking about Twitter and Reddit woke liberal faggots, honestly thought you were talking about the millions of zoomers with absolute shit social lives
Yea I fucking despise wokelets too, I personally don’t think they’re the reason the Anglo left is weak, but I certainly don’t think they’re helping matters.
DSA would probably be put to better use if they discussed how to organize workers for a long-term class struggle in this decade and the next, instead of how to best include trans and queer comrades in meetings or whatever
>>

 No.385502

>>385500
Man, you’re pretty based for an Aussie
I cringed hard whenever a socialist group would ask me my pronouns considering I have a fucking beard
>>

 No.385507

>>385499
And I am telling you that such socialization is pathological, not some honest ideal of authentic humanity. Those born in Utah grow up in an environment disproportionately likely to make them Mormon, those you refer to grow up in a different environment with similarly odd effects, but in both cases it's an environment no rational person would construct intentionally. (Indeed, should one not be disproportionately suspicious of such an environment? The degree of surveillance, of control, of manipulation and so on of working people is massive. The condition of lower income people today is surely the most artificial situation to have existed in human history.)

It should also be said that the bulk of zoomers are neither particularly conservative nor racist, that's a meme backed by little to no empirical proof.
>>

 No.385508

>>385500
It is you who are sperging about "weirdos" and idpolers, because it compromises your communist macho from soviet propaganda posters that you identify with or something. People are different, fucking deal with it. Socialism is not a giant military barrack. North Korea is a degenerated workers state.
>>

 No.385510

>>385507
Bruh I’m talking about anyone that wasn’t raised in the middle class or above
I lived in the hood a few times in my life, live near the hood basically all the time
You think the people in my neighborhood or the surrounding neighborhoods are fucking woke? I don’t live in Utah, I live in a big metropolitan area. What about most of the guys I’ve met throughout my life, you think most of them were woke? You keep talking about “how kids are socialized” but haven’t considered that wokelets were socialized in a fucking autistic manner and come off as weird and stilted
People don’t say they’re inauthentic because “oh, only being racist or homophobic is authentic”, they say they are inauthentic because they seem stilted as fuck, like they’re always watching what they say, and like their words are rehearsed.

And did I say zoomers are particularly racist and homophobic? No, I said somewhat, by that I mean, by the logic of the average wokelet, the average teen or young adult, at least the males, would be a homophobic or a racist. By their standards even leftypol is homophobic and racist since we say the word faggot and aren’t about racial identity politics.
>>

 No.385511

File: 1626604858752.jpg ( 234.52 KB , 1200x900 , 3443.jpg )

>>385500
you give twitter importance far outstripping its real world relevance.
the slow death of the anglo left has a face, and that face is thus. an army of deranged and mentally ill clones, yes, but they wear suits and they fuck up in parliament. nobody cares about some people with dyed hair. it's nothing, it's superficial. the real deficits of the left are deficits of purpose, of direction and of organizational talent, and you aren't going to fix that just by throwing everyone who buys Schwarzkopf LIVE Ultra Bright or Pastel Pink Hair Dye into the sea.
>>

 No.385512

>>385493
The beauty of normal behaviour is that you don't have to think about it. You don't have to construct a schizo dimension to justify why you don't have a gf, nor do you have to try to justify how getting cucked is based, you just go "lol weirdos" and move on with your life.

Lenin decrimilised everything, Stalin just re-enacted the current position on homosexuality when more lawful times came, I wouldn't use this to promote Lenin or shit on Stalin personally. Like I've said many many times this has nothing to do with the position on gays and so on, nothing I've said is against homosexual relations, it's just about love and how love can exist, and it's not via weirdo furry poly relationships where the dude murders the other dudes after a couple years. Just in general, Lenin was never a "progressive" by any stretch of the modern understanding.
>>385492
Get a job, find a grill, have some kids. Normal life complete, millions more mongy people than you have done it comrade.
>>385508
Communism is macho, politics is power.
>>

 No.385513

>>385508
Idk I’d say he has a point when the average communist in the Anglosphere seems fucking autistic
>>

 No.385515

>>385508
>People are different, fucking deal with it.

Human beings are products of the social environment which in turn is a product of economic base. In any functional society most human beings are going to share a common value system, interests, culture, etc. It's funny that you see a crowd of North Koreans as "identical" or "clone-like" and yet fail to see a crowd of Americans or westerners as the same. This is both a kind of cultural chauvinism & because you define individuality purely in terms of consumption habits and consumer identities.

If you take a group of 10'000 Americans, they are no less similar or identical than the 10'000 North Koreans.

It's also interesting that you'd call me a fascist when "bug men" and "oriental hordes" are such a common theme in Fascist propaganda aimed at dehumanizing Slavs & Asians. You have more in common with most western fascists in your fear of the "oriental hordes" than I do.
>>

 No.385516

>>385511
This is correct however
Leftypol and stupidpol have the mistaken idea that woke faggotry is what destroyed the left in the Anglosphere, it isn’t, it was various domestic intelligence agencies that did that and their corporate owners, the woke shit is just a thin gloss to pretend like the left still exists
>>

 No.385518

>>385515
The based Aussie just keeps the hits coming
Sage BTFO for most tolerable namefag on Leftypol
>>

 No.385519

File: 1626605083658.jpg ( 48.01 KB , 640x301 , quote-the-specific-politic….jpg )

>>385510
>You think the people in my neighborhood or the surrounding neighborhoods are fucking woke?
No, but I do think that they live in an entirely artificial environment and that their views are likely to be a product of that environment.
>You keep talking about “how kids are socialized” but haven’t considered that wokelets were socialized in a fucking autistic manner and come off as weird and stilted
This is why these discussions are fundamentally pointless: Instinctively we treat them as a binary matter. You are either "woke" or "bigoted", to attack one is to defend the other and to defend one is to attack the other. Carl Schmitt was never more right than at the end of history.

btw only faggots say faggot, 4chan culture is the faggiest thing imaginable, it makes the bohemian grove look like having sex with ladies.
>>

 No.385520

>>385512
>The beauty of normal behaviour is that you don't have to think about it
an issue is that this is also the beauty of ideological behaviour. (in the sense of actual conformance with ideology, rather than contrived attempts to live in line with one purchased online in the marketplace of ideology.)
>>

 No.385522

>>385512
>Get a job, find a grill, have some kids.
Wow such revolutionary, much radical.
By thirty you will be voting republican fag.
>>

 No.385523

>>385519
I don’t think you are either woke or bigoted, but that’s what woke fags think
>>385522
Tbh I would prefer living a normal life to dying in a revolution, dying horribly only looks attractive if you have nothing to live for
>>

 No.385532

>>385522
damn dude, are you for real with this autistic death cult brotherhood shit?
>>

 No.385537

File: 1626606117303.jpeg ( 453.83 KB , 960x649 , ussr fashion.jpeg )

>>385515
>Human beings are products of the social environment which in turn is a product of economic base. In any functional society most human beings are going to share a common value system, interests, culture, etc.
So subcultures don't exits then? Is it "bourgeois decadence"? Soviet people were the product of their economic base, how come then there were subcultures many of which were at odds with official party approved "culture"?
>>

 No.385541

>>385537
it should be said that subcultures barely exist in modern capitalism. or that insofar as they do exist, they have become universal. the result is a sort of bespoke blending of mainstream culture and niche interests which cannot be made coherent.

subculture and mainstream culture are an artifact of the linear society of books, of film and of television. what we now encounter is the non-linear society of the hypertext transfer protocol (in)secure.
>>

 No.385542

>>385541
or to reframe as more relevant: subcultures in the soviet union were ultimately downstream of the material base in that society, just as their slurrification has been the product of the material circumstances of this society.
>>

 No.385543

>>385520
And this serves a useful purpose. Abstractions of social functions are very useful to being able to 'just live'.
>>385537
MOST he said MOST. not everyone! Subcultures exist in dprk but because they're not about dying your hair westoids won't pay them any attention.
>>385522
He asked for a normie life, I wasn't even promoting it. But I stand by it, I will get married and have kids.
>Noooooooooooooo you gotta be a pure ascetic revolutionary monk and do it for free
This is why all great communists are 'conservative', they are fighting for their lives, not against.
>>

 No.385548

>>385010
>It seems like every communist and anarchist I know not only hates the idea of marriage and monogamy

Well then you seem wrong.

Why the fuck do I need the government to tell me to be faithful? I am a monogamous because I want to be.

Cringe ass loser attitude that you need to bring the government like some little bitch to have a proof of your love in some dusty ass bureaucratic shelf.


Also the corporate concept of "soulmates" is quite literally idealist crap. You are not a good or well read communist if you believe in such faux anti-materialist things that there is only one person in the world for you.

Now shut up and post this kinda crap on /b/ from now on
I don't feel like this is leftypol material
>>

 No.385549

File: 1626606763903.jpg ( 29.62 KB , 1024x576 , new-pride-flag-01.jpg )

>>385519
For me this discussion about woke fags is sorta preemptive. We need to analyse this trend as it seeps into more and more areas of normal life: i.e. not just morons on twitter. If you have been to university in the past 10 years you can see the 'type' very clearly. We are only tending towards greater and greater 'wokeness' as it's recently been fully embraced by capitalism, after testing the waters with gay pride they fully adopt everything now, I mean this flag is just an absolute farce!
>>

 No.385552

>>385026
They hated him because he told them the truth
Fuckers litearlly never read here

Not even Engles
>>

 No.385553

>>385543
>MOST he said MOST. not everyone!
Cheap cop-out. People are not the same, deal with it.
>>

 No.385556

>>385549
>Zizek flag
>Obesessed with mindless culture war shit

Mods, ability to filter flags when

Zizek flag, Lenin hat.
Many such flags!
>>

 No.385557

>>385541
>it should be said that subcultures barely exist in modern capitalism.
In what they don't exist? incel subculture don't exist? leftypol subculture don't exist? twitch subculture don't exit? there are mirriads of subcultures, even if they don't fit your narrow useless definition.
>>

 No.385558

>>385537
>So subcultures don't exits then? Is it "bourgeois decadence"? Soviet people were the product of their economic base, how come then there were subcultures many of which were at odds with official party-approved "culture"?

Legitimate subcultures are not "bourgeois decadence" and typically arise along alienation & when conditions do not allow for a section (usually consisting of youth) of the population to integrate into the dominant culture/value systems.

In the USSR for instance, their emergence on a large scale coincides with the rapid social, ideological & economic degeneration of the 80's, intensifying towards the collapse of the USSR. Prior to the broad degeneration of the socialist bloc, "subcultures" as we think of them didn't really exist outside of small circles of dissidents.

The rise of sub-cultures in the west also mimics the gradual post-war social deterioration and increases massively during the neoliberal wave. While the initial reaction of the US & western states broadly to the subculture phenomena was hostility & repression, ie the hyperactive & hysteria around hippies, punks, goths, linking them to Satanism & communism, etc, the bourgeoisie have realized that the effective, and perhaps more importantly, more profitable way of de-fanging subcultural trends is to co-opt them. At this stage virtually every sub-culture in the west has been coopted and transformed into a safe, very profitable consumer trend. Rebelliousness has been transformed & manipulated into a tool for repression of legitimate dissidents and to promote the interests of whatever faction of the bourgeoisie. Even ostensibly "anti-capitalist" trends & movements exist essentially as steam release valves, providing youth period, but ultimately a harmless outlet for their anger & dissatisfaction, ie the Alt-Right or the woke "left".

Away from that tangent though, any society which is producing "subcultures" on a massive level is a dysfunctional and degenerated. We know in hindsight that the mass emergence of dissident subcultures is a huge warning sign for any socialist society.
>>

 No.385559

>>385549
All flags are kind of ridiculous. At least this one reflects the living experience of some people who are struggling for just being who they are rather than imaginary lines drawn by the ruling class to divide us and the world between them
>>

 No.385565

>>385549
the most cognizant analyses i see of these trends ironically come from social groups which would ironically be branded "woke" themselves. only they have a sufficient ideological resolution* to distinguish between the cultural phenomenon of the trans furry depression zine artist and the angry chevron rainbow pepsico bottling plant.

*i.e. a communist often knows the difference between a trotskyist and a stalinist, but globs together everything from benn to blair as "socdem". the inverse also holds - blairites and brownites accused one another of trotskyism, something only possible if neither knew the slightest thing about it. this is ideological resolution, which tends to be high in your immediate vicinity and then drop off like a stone.
>>

 No.385566

>>385553
Posting on this site is a fucking Sisyphusian task I swear. The point is that 'normal' is this majority consensus of behaviour. It isn't denying other behaviour exists, this is like not even the major point of his post, you're just so retarded you picked out a sentence you thought you understood to try take down his whole message.
>>385556
Unconditional solidarity with Leninhat against the soyboy menace
>>385559
Mate it's just a collection of all the 'oppressed' groups, new flag means new products, new adverts, more consooming. Why did they need to add the trans flag? It was already an LGBT flag. Why add black people? Are they not included? Hmmm i wonder who would promote such aesthetic nonsense… and finally, it doesn't even look nice!
>>

 No.385567

>>385565
Of course, and many homosexuals and trans people agree with me. They just want to live their lives, not be pandered to, or have poly relationships, or be exploited. Nothing I've said is against any of these groups on a fundamental level, there are millions of queer people who are just as tired of this manufactured grind towards 'destroying' all culture.
>>

 No.385570

>>385567
anything I don't like = destroying all culture
>>

 No.385571

>>385558
Who decides what is "legitimate" or not? You and your vanguard party friends?

>In the USSR for instance, their emergence on a large scale coincides with the rapid social, ideological & economic degeneration of the 80's

again with your "degeneracy" whining lol
how come that western cultural expansion had such dominance the moment censorship was weakened under societal pressure especially among younger generations? apparently its because moral degeneracy or something lol, straight out of roman times with stoics incessant whining about "degeneracy".

>Away from that tangent though, any society which is producing "subcultures" on a massive level is a dysfunctional and degenerated.

Thats your brain on jusheism lads. never ever.
>>

 No.385574

>>385466
basado
>>

 No.385576

>>385566
>Mate it's just a collection of all the 'oppressed' groups, new flag means new products, new adverts, more consooming
You know those people ARE oppressed, the primacy of class struggle doesn't mean racism or sexim doesn't exist. Also with pushing your reasoning to the end people should just stop creating anything because capitalism will inevitably integrate it. This is the old and complicated problem of capitalist cultural hegemony. "Adressing" the "woke problem" feels to me like Adorno shitting on jazz or something.
>>

 No.385580

>>385570
You can't deny it. Western leftists have bizzare personal idealistic quests against the way of life of the workers. Read the thread, there's proof even on a tankie Chan
>Nooo you can't have kids, breeder!
It's literally mental illness.
>>

 No.385584

>>385576
Adorno, unlike the social conservative "normalcy advocate", was capable of thought. I am not gonna read about Adorno's problem with Jazz specifically but very likely it wasn't super retarded. For example he wouldn't believe the abolition of Jazz would actually rectify anything.
>>

 No.385586

File: 1626607989648.png ( 199.32 KB , 670x580 , 1ad.png )

>>385567
very few people want to be pandered to. pandering is always, first and foremost, a way to avoid giving people what they actually want.

connections are often drawn in the wrong direction in these matters, where you wind up going "wow, all these brands are pandering to this group, this group should stop whining, look how popular and supported it is!" as though the group as a whole asked for this. usually the inverse is true: what's often happening is that companies are using the group to promote a given image of themselves. put a rainbow flag on your brand's twitter page to show that it's vaguely progressive, forward looking, liberal, etc. but it's just a signal. it's always just a signal.
>>

 No.385589

File: 1626608041312.jpg ( 212.63 KB , 1280x1815 , ddr frauentag.jpg )

>>385010
because communists are usually right about things, so it follows that they are right about this too

>>385013
larp
>>

 No.385595

>>385576
>Group is oppressed
>Suck off the obvious commodity-flag instead of the pride flag that actually has a basis in the movement of LGBT 'liberation'
It's like phones, "new year, time to buy the new flag to show that you're an ally!". To answer you and >>385571 cultural changes should develop from the people and what they desire, this is not the case for idpol manufactured movements and a loud minority of sex obsessed weirdos.
>>

 No.385600

>>385580
I mean to be fair, the LGBT struggle and feminist struggle are total nonsense considering LGBT comes down to lifestyle choices and feminist struggle was already won now that women have better lives than their male counterparts (outside of the bourgeoisie but I don’t want to struggle for the rights of bourgeois women)
However I would say the racial struggle is a valid one since it’s the only struggle that wasn’t either actually won nor is based on really the lifestyle of a small amount of the population
Racial struggle is the struggle against discrimination and oppression solely due to your appearance and the social constructs built around your appearance
>WYM THEY ARE DIFFERENT
Others might ask
Well this is the best way I can illustrate the difference

The LGBT struggle fights for normies to accept their lifestyle

The feminist struggle fights for women to have the same wealth and power as bourgeois men

The racial struggle fights for a black or brown man not to get arrested walking down the street on a Saturday because an entirely different black or brown man is wanted by the police

And if we put it in the context of the RELEVANCE of these movements it would be more like

LGBT fighting for their lifestyle to not be socially sanctioned

Women fighting to get office jobs

Blacks fighting to not be lynched because they were on the same street as a white woman at 8 PM
>>

 No.385601

>>385586
These weirdos LOVE being pandered to. They see every mention as a 'step in the right direction', it's the foundation of all anti revolutionaru sentiments. Boden, Voosh, so on and so on.
>>

 No.385602

>>385571
>Who decides what is "legitimate" or not? You and your vanguard party friends?

You either have maldeveloped reading skills or are perhaps hysterical to the point of not thinking. Clearly, by "legitimate", I'm not referring to "party approved subcultures" as if you read my post I'm referring to dissident & usually anti-communist subcultures in my USSR example.

By "legitimate" subculture I mean actual organic subcultures rather than groups of people who share interests/hobbies, which you seem to be conflating with subcultures.

>again with your "degeneracy" whining lol


I'm referring literally to the degeneration of the Soviet economy following the economic stagnation of the Brezhnev era, ie mass unemployment & dysfunctionality which got worse with perestroika era economic liberalism. Further proof that your reaction is pure hysterics as your brain seems to be shutting down when encountering words which for you trigger a strong emotional response, even when your interpretation is totally detached from what is actually being said.

Your responses are textbook MK-Ultra programmed hyperemotional thoughtstop in action.

>how come that western cultural expansion had such dominance the moment censorship was weakened under societal pressure especially among younger generations? apparently its because moral degeneracy or something lol, straight out of roman times with stoics incessant whining about "degeneracy".


Censorship/mass repression has not "weakened" and if anything is far stronger & more pervasive than at any other point in history. You don't realize this because you aren't an actual dissident, your values/political views coalign with the bourgeoisie state hence you do not suffer the kind of repression that actual dissidents do.

There is an old, relevant quote about those who don't move in their chains being unaware that they're bound by them, and this applies perfectly to Imperial, woke leftists.
>>

 No.385603

>>385601
you aren't reading enough trans furry depression zines
>>

 No.385607

>>385603
There are a few non-weird weirdos. Like myself, I mean look at what I'm doing now, the key is a union of the non-weird weirdos and non-weird non-weirdos. These are the masses!
>>

 No.385608

File: 1626608833759.png ( 98.29 KB , 801x401 , PRGB.png )

>>385600
The term lifestyle in this context has a bit of baggage to it.

If you mean it by the gays that openly sleep about then yeah I agree, its just the term is used to say being gay is nothing more then a life style. But I like to think ya were going for the former.

The UK is a preety good example of how lgbt rights can intergrate into society, in terms of gay people are still expected to intergrate within society and have a healthy lifestyle. Compared to eg the US's model which just expects the lump of sexual misconduct.
>>

 No.385609

>>385016
You may not know it OP, but you exposed yourself right here.
>>

 No.385611

>>385600
This is wrong and frankly an ignorant and reactionary view of the world. If you look at the state of the world right now those people your talk about are heavily disadvantaged. It's not because people who fought tooth and nails in your country and gained some policies changes that homosexuals aren't executed by some states or women forced into marriage etc in a big part of the globe. It's not about social acceptance but material living conditions.
>>

 No.385613

Speak for yourself incel
>>

 No.385616

>>385608
My point wasn't about LGBT but rather the difference the struggle for racial equality has from the other identity-infused struggles

The struggle for racial equality is the only one with a real class component to it since the material foundation for race is colonialism and imperialism, and the "racial classifications" were originally color-coding for economic classes
That's why only one of these has life and death examples for simply walking down the street and existing
>>

 No.385618

>>385600
I cannot agree with you really, it depends the form these things take. Having a long term partner changes your perspective of how women live, while men have many problems, I can't help but say men can just deal with most of it, and therefore don't have 'worse' lives than women. The ethot is a vast vast minority. Not to mention the unpaid labor women still work via housework and so on, read cockshott.
>>

 No.385620

>>385616
Makes you think that black people are trying to be tied to the LGBT movement…
>>

 No.385621

>>385611
Homosexuals were never executed simply for being homosexual in the US AFAIK

However people WERE executed for simply being black and fraternizing with a white person in anyway

Or for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time
Or because a mob was just going on a lynching rampage and wanted to "kill n**gers"
>>

 No.385623

>>385621
>Gays have never been killed
Mate, I…
>>

 No.385624

>>385616
>That's why only one of these has life and death examples for simply walking down the street and existing
are we just gonna ignore that time a cop nicknamed "the rapist" kidnapped, raped and murdered a woman just for walking down the street and existing.
(it wasn't that long ago)
>>

 No.385626

File: 1626609246107.mp4 ( 380.6 KB , 458x258 , uk.mp4 )

>>385616
Ah that's fair!

I just think the term might make others misconstrue your point, so I was just making sure.
>>

 No.385630

>>385621
enter the oppression olympics
>>

 No.385633

>>385621
the Reagan administration's AIDS response was tantamount to murder.
(compare and contrast the response of the normally-equally-reactionary Thatcher administration, which despite a few backbenchers coming out and saying they hoped it'd do poovery in for good, was handled substantially better.)
>>

 No.385634

>>385602
>Censorship/mass repression has not "weakened" and if anything is far stronger & more pervasive than at any other point in history.
>what was glasnost

>your values/political views coalign with the bourgeoisie state hence you do not suffer the kind of repression that actual dissidents do.

I'm for socialism and radical societal transformation and you telling me my values are the same with warren buffet or something..
I just don't wanna your kinda barrack socialism of the 20th century.

>and this applies perfectly to Imperial, woke leftists.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about woke lefties or whatever, I even dislike their cancel culture, nevertheless I just don't like that you decide that their subculture isn't "legitimate" and peddle your OPINION as TRUTH.

>I'm referring literally to the degeneration of the Soviet economy following the economic stagnation of the Brezhnev era

It was not just economic stagnation, it was also a cultural stagnation, political stagnation, in general societal stagnation.

>By "legitimate" subculture I mean actual organic subcultures rather than groups of people who share interests/hobbies, which you seem to be conflating with subcultures.

How is professional subculture is not a subculture? You literally splitting hairs now..
>>

 No.385637

>>385624
'just walking' or not, the prevalence of sexual crimes alone give me infinite sympathy for feminist causes. If you want a Marxist answer read cockshott and kollontai or something
>>

 No.385638

>>385616
I think patriarchy and capitalist are tightly linked and feminism can very well be struggle with a revolutionary component.
Here's some leftcom reading
http://www.palim-psao.fr/2018/02/patriarchy-and-commodity-society-gender-without-the-body-by-roswitha-scholz-2009.html
>>

 No.385646

>>385460
>it is another tankie blaming everyone but the working class episode
The history of the Anglo Left is basically the history of the working class slowly abandoning class and struggle and its allies until captial finally came for them.

These social deviants are not attracted to the Left by any means but only because these social deviants are the only ones left that are still somewhat principled in the Left. The traditional and stereotypical working class are just so fucking classcucked now.
>>

 No.385648

>>385646
>It's a westoid leftist smugly condescends the working masses episode
>>

 No.385653

>>385319
Engels wrote something on Porkies fucking each other wives obsessively or something like that.
>>

 No.385654

>>385646
Finally someone gets it, if the less normal have a higher incidence of conciousness, they are better material for communists. If normals are disgusted by communism because of icky people they have to be clearly trash from the start. This is the only way to interpret the orwellian hypothesis (the rant about fruit juice drinkers) correctly.
>>385648
t. Orwell, the least smug pedo islander
>>

 No.385660

>>385654
>join political party
>Everyone is a degenerate petit booj weirdo who doesn't understand the condition of the workers
>"Nooo you don't deserve communism!!!"
>>

 No.385663

>>385586
I don't think these people don't like to be pandered to. After the most recent pride month ended Chicago painted over a rainbow crosswalk and a bunch of wokies got all up and arms that there fucking crosswalk wasn't rainbow anymore lmao. There are definitely queers that don't like being pandered to during pride, they may even be a silent majority, but there are plenty of people who want the attention.
>>

 No.385664

>>385648
I am not even a Westerner. At the working class in my region have to had the shit beaten and murdered out of them to get to the level of classcucked you Anglos achieve.

I swear one fucking overrated self loathing sectarian have to render the whole Left self loathing and sectarian. Worst Blair from that cursed island.
>>

 No.385665

>>385660
I am skeptical how many normals you have met, most don't understand very much. But that's a whole different beast. Minorities have a higher instance of class consciousness this should in a rational framework make you value them more, numbers don't lie after all. Instead you are doubling down on your fascination with white picket fence small family lifestyle.
>>

 No.385666

>>385664 (me)
>At the working class
At least the working class
>>

 No.385668

>>385646
>The history of the Anglo Left is basically the history of the working class slowly abandoning class and struggle and its allies until captial finally came for them.

I don't disagree. But why did they abandon class struggle? What was the basis of this social peace? While Sakaists claim it is due to some kind of moral deficiency, like a kind of secular original sin innate to the populations of the imperialist core - all of this clearly a modernization & secularized form of Anglo-Protestantism, the reality is that the social peace which dominated the west for the last 70 years is purely material & linked to the post-WW2 social democratic order.

The problem is, this order was always temporary and always unsustainable. It's collapse began even before the fall of the USSR, and it has accelerated radically in the last 10 years. The reality is that living conditions, when reduced to consumption in the Anglo west are radically higher than most of the world, these conditions are rapidly falling apart & and in an environment of essentially social collapse. The continuing decay & collapse of the western labor aristocracy into impoverishment are inevitable & following an exponential trend. In real time we're saying the children of even the upper rungs of the pety-bourgeoisie reduced to poverty, inflation ("official" inflation rate of 5% is drastically off due to their intentionally obfuscatory method of calculating via "a basket of goods", in reality inflation for the lowest 20% in some western states is up 20-30%), social decay, massive rise in mentality illness/drug addiction & a reduction of life expectancy which is far worse in the lower rungs of the population.

Are conditions currently ripe for revolutionary organizing on the level of mass parties & mass organizations? In most of the west, clearly no, however, the situation is clearly rapidly deteriorating & degenerating. Efforts *MUST* be made now that we are ready to act as conditions rapidly change.

I'm the first person to advocate for the idea of moderating expectations. Anybody advocating for a sci fi super post scarcity luxury communism is a fool & is doing the movement a disservice. Similar instant gratification is foolish, the fight for communism is a very long game. What we're going to be able to do, realistically in the era of chaotic climate change is far more limited than what may have been possible had history taken a different path. Expectations must be moderated. However, with that said, defeatism & do-nothingism cannot be allowed & must be squashed.
>>

 No.385669

>>385663
>a bunch of wokies got all up in arms that there fucking crosswalk wasn't rainbow anymore
So this is a handful of people concerning themselves with a stupid issue. What does that tell you about reality?
>>

 No.385672

>>385663
>and a bunch of wokies got all up and arms that there fucking crosswalk wasn't rainbow anymore lmao.
either you're reading the wrong trans furry depression zine accounts, or you've managed to wildly misinterpret the mean reaction.
if these people liked to be pandered to they would be celebrating the rainbow paint going down, not emphasizing that the local authority's commitment is so skin-deep that they'll strip the gay paint off the thing the second the month is out.
(that is unwieldy, allow me to rephrase: the local authority could've said nothing. it could've put down a rainbow sidewalk permanently as a typical liberal gesture. to put one down and then to remove it in short order is not even "well meaning but pointless", it is actively insulting. it makes too transparent that no actual care or concern went into it, they were just bandwagon jumping. the "solution" is not to leave the rainbow in place, but to obliterate all structures of power that would lead to such inane decision making processes in the first place.)
>>

 No.385673

What the fuck is this thread? Is this another one of those “why are communists so (insert unfavorable way to be here)” threads?

I haven’t dated much, but my current relationship is pretty committed and I’m a communist because I know that it will materially better the lives of my loved ones, or at least prevent them from getting worse.
>>

 No.385674

>>385664
The reason of the cuckedness is complicated. Juche fag already nailed it, however I will say regardless the solution isn't to join the idpol sex obsessed sex pests and label them as "principled" socialists. We still defend the working classes and their interests, not those of petit bourgeois students.
>>

 No.385676

>>385674
t. totally not a sex pest Orwell fan
>>

 No.385677

>>385319
Promiscuity is not "polyamory". Promiscuity is typically evolutionary-driven sexual opportunism, or in other cases motivated by mental instability/emotional neglect, ie promiscuous women tend to have lacked a stable father figure growing up. "Polyamory" on the other hand is a weird western consumer subculture celebrating bourgeois hedonism & antisocial behavior.
>>

 No.385678

>>385674
>not those of petit bourgeois students
you're better than to fall into such cheap stereotyping. more than half of young people in the UK now go to university.
>>

 No.385680

>>385678
Petit bourgeois students =/= every student is petit bourgeois
Many are based. Many left leaning breadtube types are also very easy to create commies/socialists out of (I've done it to many), however there is a loud minority that only care for petit booj politics.
>>

 No.385682

>>385674
>We still defend the working classes and their interests, not those of petit bourgeois students.
This is the exact same thing the PCF said in 68 while throwing their support behind a dude who later took a vacation at Franco's house. This is a revisionist slippery slope, you'll probably end up being a true reactionary in the future.
>>

 No.385684

>>385682
Okay dude. You can make a party to fight for poly-animal marriage and public nudity, I'll make one to fight for wage and we can see which is more "heckin revisionist and reactionary" :DD
>>

 No.385686

>>385682
>the people going on about how you have to be a very specific way or complete very specific rituals to be a ture worker are not actually of the left
shocking, really
>>

 No.385689

>>385686
>This is the intellectual might of the people calling workers stupid class cucks
>>

 No.385691

>>385689
Go pray to your anglo god Moloch
>>

 No.385698

>>385686
>>385682
The irony is you're literally saying I'm a heckin fascist because I don't fit in to YOUR specific rituals of bourgeoisie liberal politics. The 'fascists' (according to you) rule the Marxist world, you're idealist dreams are nothing.
>>

 No.385701

>>385698
I am saying you are anglo and thus useless to the working people of the world because of your characteristics.
>>

 No.385703

>>385682
You don't know a whole lot about May '68 do you?

The movement was betrayed by said pety bourgeois, identitarian students who stopped protesting & settled in the moment the government gave them a handful of concessions. The French govt deliberately avoided running them all over with tanks not out of sympathy for workers but because they didn't want to turn their guns on the students, who they understood as the future ruling class of France.

Petty bourgeois, identitarian fucking students fuck over our movement every time & willing betray the working class for bourgeois gibs. These people wave the red flag & proclaim radicalism as a kind of threat or bargaining chip and not seriously out of solidarity with workers. When "Demsocs" talk about minimum wage work it's typically out of disgust that people with masters degrees in some bullshit liberal arts field are forced to work that they see as "above their station", the kinds of jobs suited for povos who didn't grow up in gated communities.

Even racial idpol centers primarily on advocating for the interests of bourgeois and pety bourgeois "POC". IE you rarely ever see these people attacking upper-class whites & almost all of their energy is focused on attacking impoverished, poor, and working-class whites. Look at how blatantly these fuckers mock white homeless people & rural poor.
>>

 No.385704

>gibs
visceral cringe every time someone says this word.
>>

 No.385712

>>385704
>noooooooo he used the no-no g-wordino!!!!
>>

 No.385713

File: 1626613070459.png ( 664.58 KB , 1051x701 , speakyfish.png )


>>noooooooo he used the no-no g-wordino!!!!
>>

 No.385714

Gibs is a great word. So short yet describes a complex concept. Using Chan words irl is obviously cringe as fuck but that's not relevant
>>

 No.385717

>>385714
>So short yet describes a complex concept
and that concept is "nogs demand free shit in ebonics"
definitely a based and redpilled part of chan culture which we should keep around.
>>

 No.385719

>>385717
>Nooo don't communicate effectively the words came from a bad place
>>

 No.385720

>>385717
>cuckdem
opinion discarded
>>

 No.385722

>>385669
That a handful of people are concerning themselves with a stupid issue, the point of my post.
>>385672
I don't think that people getting upset about the rainbow crosswalk are the average queer person just saying that there are people who do get upset when you don't perform the right virtue signals. These types of people tend to be terminally online and I've never met a person in real life who gives a fuck. I'm gonna have to agree to disagree on the part where you say it's insulting to remove the paint. To me that's like saying that when you take your Christmas decorations down you're insulting Jesus.
>>

 No.385724

File: 1626613510372.png ( 122.25 KB , 980x689 , this rose.png )

>>385719
it doesn't communicate effectively and "it came from a bad place" is the least of its problems when it's a straight up racist immitation of AAVE playing into a negative stereotype.
or perhaps we should unwordfilter uyghur, after all, when WE say it, it really means revisionist or something. that's much clearer.

>>385720
pic
>>

 No.385727

>>385722
>To me that's like saying that when you take your Christmas decorations down you're insulting Jesus.
Does the equation of pride month to a holiday as hollow and commercialized as Christmas not perfectly make the point?

Ask yourself: If we had a month dedicated to the hollow and consumerist celebration of Scotsmen, wherein we insisted that we really did value and appreciate them and so on and so forth, only to then start tearing down our saltires and burning our kilts on midnight of that month's end, would Scotsmen not be entitled to take this as one gigantic, contrived slight? A clear sign that far from caring about them, we care only about the event?
>>

 No.385731

>>385724
>perhaps we should unwordfilter uyghur
we should. it's a very american mentality to ascribe this holy reverence to its use like, overly religious people refuse to spell "G-d"
of course someone could spam it if it's unfiltered, but they can do the same with "faggot" now, and that's apparently ok.
Basically, yeah this site is very americo and anglo puritanish and it won't ever change because that's the majority of the demographic that what's dicussed here appeals to.
>>

 No.385733

File: 1626614007067-0.png ( 92.13 KB , 561x357 , EmGKxFAW0AEYNcd.png )

File: 1626614007067-1.jpg ( 162.02 KB , 650x459 , 822f22561d61fb5f0227b34c56….jpg )

>>385668
>>385674
Oh you passive aggressive pussies, since you people roughly know why the anglo working class abandoned class struggle (although I would add the anglo working class very easily bought into the delusion that they can become bourgeoisie or petit-bourgeoisie and started identifying themselves as such), then all of this whining about idpol and social deviants is fucking pointless. You people are inverting the chain of casualty. Idpol and social deviancy of the Left is not the cause of the lack of class struggle, but the symptom of it.

Look, in my native language, there is a saying, the right medicine for the right disease. Berate, shame and isolate idpol and the social deviants all you want, you are never going to curry favour with the social conservative working class because that is not the main reason why they abandon class struggle in the first place. Indeed the only real marker and gauge for class struggle is when the social conservative working class is willing to tolerate social devinacy and radlibs because of unity under class struggle.
>>

 No.385735

>>385733 (me)
Commitment to class struggle is only measured by how diverse the socialist movement/party/whatever in every marker except class. Idgaf about how people LARP as your ideal of a blue collar worker and wearing traditional attire and leading traditional lifestyle, I only care who exactly are you willing to tolerate and accept in the name of class struggle. Anything less is petty lifestylism.
>>

 No.385742

File: 1626614374814.jpg ( 70.36 KB , 390x288 , marx_CA.jpg )

>>385703
>The movement was betrayed by identitarians
That's why you need to ground all movements with class consciousness
>>

 No.385746

>>385727
So we should just always wear kilts to appreciate scots? What's the point of having a dedicated month for pride if when you take the decorations down you get insulted. Even if you do think that it's insulting is it really such a big deal as to call the city of Chicago homophobic over a literal coat of paint?
>>

 No.385748

>>385735
No, you can't ask me to deal like a grown up with <thing I don't like> that's wokery and oppression.
>>

 No.385768

>>385746
>So we should just always wear kilts to appreciate scots?
No, society as a whole shouldn't have a month to celebrate Scots. The example is purposefully stupid.
>What's the point of having a dedicated month for pride if when you take the decorations down you get insulted.
Perhaps you shouldn't put them up in the first place when you're an abstract local government entity physically incapable of feeling anything. Perhaps such celebrations should be a matter for the people actually affected, not an opportunity for institutions to brand themselves.
And perhaps, as a simple and direct matter of public policy, don't actively spend money to strip the paint from the road. Like, independent of anything about poovery you're just pissing money down the drain on unnecessary work. (This was also true of painting the road in the first place, but that was already done, even an actively anti-gay accountant would be professionally obliged to advocate leaving it.)

Homophobic or not, the city of chicago government are mongs and they deserve to lose face. If that means they become associated with casual homophobia, good.
>>

 No.385777

File: 1626615336103.jpg ( 50.35 KB , 630x480 , 3c4.jpg )

clearly the message of this meme is "they should have the rainbow all the time"
>>

 No.385791

>>385714
>Gibs is a great word. So short yet describes a complex concept. Using Chan words irl is obviously cringe as fuck but that's not relevant

Agree, I use the term because it uses and describes a real phenomenon. Anybody using chan terminology outside of Asia-pacific basket weaving communities is cringe.

>>385724

>perhaps we should unwordfilter uyghur


Yes, ascribing unique moral evilness to use of this word is a weird americentric thing. It's not that people who use this term IRL aren't edgy faggots or that people who whine that they can't use it are sooks, it's that it's fucking dumb & retarded and totally impartial on the behalf of the admin of the site that we're enforcing Yankee cultural/moral norms, ie I don't see the terms gypsy/chink, lapp, abo, paki, abnoy, etc being banned despite them being no less offensive.

If they were to be consistent & not Yankee chauvinists the sheer number of words being banned would be astronomical & make effective communication impossible. It's not a defense of being an edgelord, it's an argument in favor of the admin team being politically consistent and not turning Americans into a protected group, pandering to pety-bourgeois Yankee fee fees as a priority. If they're not prepared to ban all potentially offensive terms & slurs they should ban none and let the community themselves police this shit on a social level ie by ostracizing and bullying legitimate racists.
>>

 No.385799

>>385791
> it's an argument in favor of the admin team being politically consistent and not turning Americans into a protected group, pandering to pety-bourgeois
Not everything has to be done on an ideological. We made that wordfilter coz it was being spammed consistently by /pol/yps. If any of those slurs (or labels like PMC but that interfered with certain links) were being spammed as regularly, they would be wordfitered too

t. mod
>>

 No.385800

>>385733
>Idpol and social deviancy of the Left is not the cause of the lack of class struggle, but the symptom of it.

I agree, however people are only going to fuss about bullshit consumer identitarian issues so long as they maintain a relative level of consumer comfort.

The reason this shit doesn't take off at all in most of the world is that people are too busy trying to survive to give two shits about sex or race idpol. They're concerned about food, medicine, shelter, not being raped, all either directly or indirectly economic issues.

As conditions deteriorate in the west people are going to have less and less time to fuss about bourgeois deviant nonsense and will become more fixated on immediate material demands. All this bourgeois idpol will die hard once being stuck in a fantasy world of consumption and bullshit social media drama/nonissues can no longer be sustained and the base for this trend are thrown into 21st century hoovervilles.
>>

 No.385802

>>385791
>number of words being banned would be astronomical
Not really, only if you were to ban slurs of all languages. In english you'd be finished in half an hour easily. And thinking banning racial slurs would make communication impossible is very curious, suspect even.
>>

 No.385807

>>385802
There are lot of seemingly ordinary terms which are actually considered racial slurs in other countries & languages. People who advocate for banning "problematic" language rarely stop at racial slurs. And if you're going to be consistent in banning reactionary language, why would you?

The end conclusion of such a move is you start banning "ableist" and "sexist" language before moving onto "gendered language". Eventually you reach a point where you're using terms like chest feeding, uterus-people, mailperson & Latinx/Filipinx and nobody outside of your weird insular community can understand what the fuck you're saying.

>Inb4 slippery slope fallacy


I've seen this exactly fucking scenario happen before, more than once. Any mention of said words even in a purely academic/technical sense causes people to have mental breakdowns & you can no longer communicate like human beings.

The ideal solution for IRL is not to directly ban speech but public beatings for people who intentionally use this language to be provocative. Online it's a little harder but I really don't see the issue with /pol/ fags coming here and spamming the term given they're going to get banned anyway.
>>

 No.385808

>>385807
>not to directly ban speech

Not directly ban use of these words, rather. Fuck freeze peach.
>>

 No.385809

>>

 No.385814

>>385807
Don't care, I think as the normal people fans would point out the large majority of people do not give a shit about such issues. It is easily feasible, that is just a fact, it doesn't matter if it is implemented.

>public beatings for people

this on the other hand is ultra unfeasible but thanks for playing.
>>

 No.386135

File: 1626631465175.png ( 343.81 KB , 800x777 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>385407
Lol it's not the same. We're both in our 20's now and she has a bf. We're not 15/16 yr olds who just met and have just fallen for each other in the first real love of our respective lives. We're not those teenagers anymore where just one single, prolonged, tight hug sends sparks flying, where she's so obsessed with me that when we're walking somewhere she likes to hug me from behind real tight so I can feel her boobs on my back, where she twirls her hair and can't contain her blushed red cheeks and full teethy smile when we're sitting next to each other and I look into her eyes. Those magical moments were a once in a lifetime thing that, as much as I would like for them to be, will probably never be replicated again in my life. It's just not the same..
>>

 No.386168

>>385340
How? Wanting comrades to be fruitful and multiply isn't social conservatism. It will be a necessity after the revolution when we want the greatest number of people possible to participate in the socialist project.
>>

 No.386182

Ok, I'll have children but Marxists will raise them.
>>

 No.386201

juche larpers are actually the single most insufferable “”””socialist”””” tendency there is, even leftcoms are better
>>

 No.386216

>>386168
People make less babies when they have no financial imperative to do so (and contraceptives). For your socialist project to be like that you would have to maintain most of the population in a precarious economic situation, and then it wouldn't be very socialist but then again this word doesn't seem to mean anything at this point.
>>

 No.386221

File: 1626634616744.png ( 241.24 KB , 2583x2188 , TFR_vs_PPP_2015.png )

>>386168
don't make me tap the chart
>>

 No.386271

>>385345
How is monogamy bourgeois?
>>

 No.386348

>>385010
These "comrades" of yours hate themselves. You can't love others unless you love yourself first.
>>

 No.386352

>You can't love others unless you love yourself first.
And how do you love yourself if nobody loves you? Catch-22.

Hey that rhymed, lol.
>>

 No.386354

>>386221
Tyrone move
>>

 No.386372

>>385259
only good post here
>>

 No.386440

>>385010
Marxists don't care about emotions. The only thing that matters is building the productive forces.
>>

 No.386448

>>

 No.386491

>>385712
i just can't understand why someone would object to a term entirely 100% derived from fascists shitting on a racially segregated underclasses
>>

 No.386507

>>386440
>Marxism is all about making more capital, the more capital you do, the marxister you are
>>

 No.386513

>>386440
this Dengchad gets it
>>

 No.386568

>>386440
You and Maupin should get a room.
>>

 No.386655

>>386568
>implying Maupin isn't asexual
>implying Maupin isn't a 33-year old married virgin
>>

 No.386682

If true it's same reason Fascists are like that. It's because their personal relationship problems that made them jaded over romantic relationships is part of what radicalized them as a type of cope. For fash it's because they see women as not subservient enough to them for the sense of power they crave in themselves. The fash idea of marriage is just property which is why they fetishize marriage but not romance beyond aesthetics of classical art . For communists and anarchists it's because many relationships centre on one person exploiting another for their resources making it harder to find love which leads to questioning if love exists. Of course I'm not saying this is true for everyone as I don't think it's as common among leftists as OP suggests at least compared to rightoids.
>>

 No.386695

>>386440
Procreating IS part of building the productive forces though.
>>

 No.386750

>>

 No.386786

>>385010
>Why do communists have such cynical views on love and romance?
What if I told you "love and romance" are actually medieval inventions by troubadours about bored aristocratic/Noble gentry women who wanted to fuck their knights but couldn't?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love

Modern love is literally just the capitalist version of feudal love.

On a different note, I am completely fine with polygamy and one of my fantasies is to fuck and marry a hundred women and have a townsworth of kids. My dick sees no cynicism in that.
>>

 No.386787

>>386786
>Retard + admitted nonce who sees women as incubators
>Supports poly
Pottery
>>

 No.386792

>>386787
I don't see a problem. The majority of the girls I met would have their life purposes fulfilled by having my kids. Some women are too much for one man to handle. Polyandry and polygyny are both good ideas, because some cunts need more than one cock and some cocks need more than one cunt. It's just that I can't have kids under this economic system which would starve them.
>>

 No.386794

File: 1626656342243.pdf ( 723.55 KB , 232x300 , origin_family.pdf )

>>385010
>Why do communists have such cynical views on love and romance?
cause we read at least chapter 2 of this book
>>

 No.386796

File: 1626656387700.png ( 511.69 KB , 900x675 , 1619990135833.png )

>>385026
straight facts

>replies

straight cope
>>

 No.386809

>>386794
Genetic fallacy.
>>

 No.386885

ITT: people who have never been in love once in their entire lives.
>>

 No.386897

File: 1626659619225.png ( 211.71 KB , 1202x960 , Screen Shot 2021-06-21 at ….png )

Daily reminder "free love" is reactionary.

Marriage and the healthy family is revolutionary.
>>

 No.386907

>>386897
>um as a christian, um i
look mane just because moppin said it doesn't make it socialist. your take can be interpreted charitably, but i think you have just failed to shake off conservatism left over from before you decided to start calling yourself a socialist. read engels https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
>>

 No.386909

>>386897
are you really gonna get your gospel from a pastor who got so angry at youtube that he wrote a book
>>

 No.386911

>>386897
Proof Caleb Maupin is more of a Christian preacher than a communist.
>>

 No.386979

>>386794
>cause we read at least chapter 2 of this book
And you may need to read Chapter 2 Part 4 of Origin of the Family, because Engels doesn't make the argument you are implying he does. His point on sex-love is anything but "cynical".
>>

 No.386982

lol this thread just became ausdooche dropping bangers and the very people he is describing REEEEEEEing at him because they know he is right but can't find a convenient cudgel to beat him over the head with because it's not reddit, oops.
>>

 No.387006

>>386982
>lol this thread just became ausdooche dropping bangers and the very people he is describing REEEEEEEing at him because they know he is right but can't find a convenient cudgel to beat him over the head with because it's not reddit, oops.
But his initial post didn't contain any kind of materialist analysis at all, it was just buzzwords jammed into what was an emotional diatribe. I don't very much like the caricature of the people being described either, but it's not an analysis being given, it's a preexisting belief being taken and then being justified through Marxist jargon, rather then a materialist analysis being done first to then conceptualize said principles or beliefs.
<Inb4 "You're the person he's describing!!!"
Couldn't be further from such. I am very much a person who prefers monogamous relationships, and I also am involved in assisting my community.
>>

 No.387028

>>385342
t. never fallen in love
>>

 No.387037

>>385010
Most people here a losers
>>

 No.387255

because they're unhappy pieces of trash that are either ugly on the outside or ugly on the inside.

Fuck ancom relativists and troon lesbian antifa types, they're horribly ugly people with ugly hearts made of dirt.
>>

 No.387271

>>385342
What are those "new ways of loving" you speak of?
>>

 No.387368

Just be revcel.

More and more the radfems seem to be absolutely correct about moids.

There is a lot more than horny bullshit to one's life.
>>

 No.387872

>>

 No.388458

>>387271
Poly/open relationship stuff. Homosexual relationships. People like to quote this "humans are serialize monogamist" line but are seriously retarded and unmarxists for repeating it uncritically. Other forms are shit like gift giving. It's been thoroughly commodified and people try to break out of that, with shit like personalized affectionate shit, writing poems. And people are also exploring new ways of platonic love too. Men are slowly discovering how to love each other, what homoeroticism is valid and which isn't. Etc. And that's not even getting to the sex stuff. Gays are finding new ways of fucking, straight men are getting pegged. It has been ass season for the last 4-5 years. Femboys are straight kosher now. There's a lot going on. Retards like Zizek flag have their head up their ass and they insist it's not a fisting sexual fetish. Very puritanical for a persona with a fucking Zizek flag.
>>

 No.388464

>>388458
All of these things you're mentioning are highly prevalent under late capitalism and have also been commodified to shit too.
>>

 No.388480

>muh zizek
Zizek puts great emphasis on love. It's not something you consoom; it's a sacrifice, a union of individuals. If I love my partner, as in actually love her, why would I want another person in on the relationship? Love is loving someone's entire being, not picking and choosing roles. Every poly relationship I've witnessed is clearly dysfunctional, typically a woman gets to have her ego stroked from 2 sides, or it's a Brad who isn't satisfied getting laid with one girl so has to drag her into a poly relationship to satiate his desires. It's all cope.
>>

 No.388576

>>385034
Just rewatched this film, fuck soy Emma Goldman.
>>

 No.388621

>>388458
Marriage is already dying in most western countries while polyamory and platonic relationships are more common than ever. The idea that marriage and monogamy are still useful to the ruling class (insofar as they are the most consumerist) doesn't hold water anymore.

>>388480
This.
>>

 No.388629

>>385077
>liz
>ugly
You'll be first against the wall
>>

 No.388641

ITT: ugly men with crippling mental issues discuss how being cuckolded is actually a good thing as a bargaining coping mechanism
>>

 No.388682

>>388641
Sounds like projection to me, dude.
>>

 No.388686

>>388682
Only incels hate the concept of love.
>>

 No.388692

Gonna be honest, the concept of serious romantic love just hasn't ever really stuck for me. I'm glad that the people who enjoy it are happy but I honestly just don't feel a personal appeal to it.
>>

 No.388702

>>388621
I agree with you but!
The ruling class still uses arranged marriage with monogamy as a core with a whole load of bizarre rituals to perpetuate their cultural specificity.
I see with you that the proles are experimenting more and more aspects of life to get together, rejecting bourgeois categories, and this is obviously revolutionary and good imo. Maybe in time the divide between us and them will become apparent enough to push people toward class struggle?>>388621
>>

 No.388711

>>385026
> post agricultural revolution
Yeah bro, I'm sure your cavegirlfriend being gang raped by a bunch of 16 year olds who managed to overpower you and probably won't survive longer than 10 more years would be dope
>>

 No.388712

File: 1626743767418.jpg ( Spoiler Image, 44.24 KB , 634x576 , 7a643070e712d4710e0c62a181….jpg )

>>388692
You sound like a very based anon
>>

 No.388721

>>385164
This post is correct.
>>

 No.388739

>>388686
Love is a beautiful concept, the unfortunate thing is that the romantic sense of the word does not exist
>>

 No.388743

>>385164 (and the rest of that convo)
Curious how the "failing at relationships" always boils down to men "not getting enough pussy" once examined.

Women exist as virtuous beings of pure light and men just fail to be selected. How so? well they didn't get selected so they are failing at something.
Funnily enough the majority of the men who "get selected" are not so for relationship purposes.
>>

 No.388744

>>388702
>The ruling class still uses arranged marriage with monogamy as a core with a whole load of bizarre rituals to perpetuate their cultural specificity.
I'm not seeing it. Maybe this is true in some parts of "Middle America" but go into any gentrified neighborhood in Brooklyn and/or San Francisco and you'll see far more poly couples without any kids than married couples with children.
>>

 No.388749

>>388743
Yea idky leftypolers feel compelled to put women on this insane pedestal, this isn’t reddit
>>

 No.388750

>>388702
Also, the idea that polyamory is somehow proletarian doesn't hold any weight. Proles are far more likely to dedicate themselves to monogamy whereas porkies are much more likely to have multiple partners at once, cheat on their spouses, etc.

Without sounding too much like a social conservative, most proletarians want stability in society. It's the middle class intelligensia that gets bored with living and thus seeks to experiment with new forms of human relationships, having multiple lovers at a time, giving gifts and fucking their friends, etc.

>Maybe in time the divide between us and them will become apparent enough to push people toward class struggle?

Again, you and I are reaching the opposite conclusions. Proles don't want non-monogamy, they want stability.
>>

 No.388753

>>388744
I live in Brooklyn and I’ve gotta say you got no clue wtf you’re talking about dude
>>

 No.388754

>>388753
I lived in Williamsburg for a short time back in 2010-2012 and I saw far more white poly hipsters than white married couples with children. Maybe things have changed since then.
>>

 No.388757

>>388754
Maybe because millennials were young back then, I walk past or through white neighborhoods all the time and usually see a heterosexual couple with children way more than bloody trans polycules
>>

 No.388762

>>388749
>this isn’t reddit
haha ha ha hee he hoo hoo
very funny comrade :)
>>

 No.388765

>>388757
Where in BKLN are you, might I ask? I no longer live there so it's not like I can stalk you.
>>

 No.388776

>>388765
Not too far from Marine Park
>>

 No.388789

>>388744
Think upper bourgeoisie. What do you know about them? Probably very little since they like secrecy, but don't fool yourself, those assholes organize meetings between children of good capital ascendancy in order to perpetuate their dynasty and their society is really complicated. They are simply people who want to pass their capital trough a narrow line rather than distributing it among their families.
>>

 No.388801

>>388789
They're still far more likely to engage in having multiple lovers than proles are. Rich dudes usually have a mistress or two alongside their wife.
>>

 No.388820

File: 1626746507867.gif ( 1.85 MB , 215x220 , 1607240078617.gif )

>>388801
>>388801
Well yeah but I'm interested in trough who the capital flows and by what weird rituals. Those people tend to be "degenerates" amusing themselves in whatever sadomasosex thing or having hidden relationships with other people so once again I agree with you. But those things are peripherals, they tell their lifestyle, not their class position.
>>

 No.388848

>>385230
Reactionary bs
>>

 No.388965

>>38503
Liz is pretty and Brace looks like a SA goon that had sex once, like ying and yang they complement each other.
>>

 No.388980

>>388848
There's nothing revolutionary about polyamory. The working class overwhelmingly rejects it, it's impossible to bring up children in that kind of environment without things becoming unstable very quickly, and it's surprisingly far more comsumerist than monogamy, since it always descends into an act of accumulating more lovers similar to how a boss accumulates more capital.

Goldman-Sachs doesn't care about your hipster lifestyle.
>>

 No.388988

>>388980
There's nothing revolutionary about being against polyamory or defending traditional values either.
For god's sake, for a board where variations of "cultural war" get spammed constantly, you guys sure love being engaged in it anyway.
>>

 No.389003

File: 1626750340157.gif ( 2.32 MB , 498x329 , LAVA! HOT!.gif )

THEORIST.
CULTURAL WAR.
IRRELEVANT.
>>

 No.389005

>>388988
It's more the fact that people on the synthetic left keep framing monogamy as reactionary/"reproduces the logic of capital" and poly as revolutionary/"breaks with the logic of capital".
>>

 No.389010

>>389005
If you weren't intellectually dishonest and/or bothered to read the thread you'd realize there's a difference between personal preference ("I'd like to be in a monogamous relationship") and flat out being a reactionary ("people should only be engaged in monogamous relationships"). The reason is irrelevant, because, you guessed it, it's meaningless cultural war shit.
>>

 No.389025

>>389010
The only marxist position to take on this is to push for abolition of marriage as a state intitution. Of course people can still have a personal marriage ceremony if they wish.

Anything else is either culture war bullshit or idealism. You fuckers using socialism to push "traditional marriage and monogamy" are reactionary retards and you pieces of shit cynically using and MISREPRESENTING engels to push this weird "we should all just be poly" thing are equally retarded.
>>

 No.389075

>>389025
Jesus, did you even READ my post?
>>

 No.389088

>>

 No.389095

>>

 No.389535

>>388801
You're such an idiot. A "true expert of prole culture" such as yourself would know that in many places having a wife and a girlfriend on the DL is pretty common place for the proles but not the boojs. This shit goes against moral decency of booj culture. Such a fucking retard, honestly.
>>

 No.389547

>>388744
>The ruling class
>Immediately thinks of well paid engineers in SF as the ruling class
You're a fucking idiot and should be revoked the right to post.
>>

 No.389559

I grant this based ancom poster immunity from any future anarkiddy comments
>>

 No.389581

>>389547
Silicon Valley is the new ruling class, bud. Oat milk fascism is the new ruling class ideology.
>>

 No.389583

>>389559
Thanks bro.
>>

 No.390720

>>389025
Why did eastern bloc countries have polygamy as illegal and marriage was a legal institution with economic benefits?
>>

 No.390732

>>388744

Maybe back in 2010, but nowadays it's married people with kids
>>

 No.390735

I think platonic love exists as that can actually be unconditional. """"""""romantic"""""""" love is incredibly conditional.
>>

 No.390780

File: 1626811745036.mp4 ( 48.78 MB , 1280x720 , revolution.mp4 )

the overall conception of sexuality in totality under liberalism is deficient for human sexual expressions (namely in how it is coupled exclusively to romance because of the protestant ethos that propelled capitalism forwards) coupled with the deep alienation of capitalism forcing a lot of relationships to be very consumerist-orientated, short lived, and built entirely around self-gain (dating sites) leading to social contradictions and multitudes of failures in the ability for people to relate to each other and form lasting and meaningful romantic or sexual attachments. Mind this is an issue capitalists have caused, intentionally or no, so that people are left sexually longing so that they can be sold commodified sex and other paraphernalia related therein.

of course there is a contingent of retards who ubiquitously screech of how we must RETVRN TO TRADITION and ban pornography and whatnot, but these people are slaves to history. these kinds of social expressions are a form of dialectical relationship between people and their wider societal structures, there is no way to turn back the clock on these things no matter how much you resort to draconian police-states and you certainty won't get a neo-Stasi to follow you feet-first into a hell of your own creation just for the sake of an ultimately fairly niche socio-political cause. hell, if anything they'd purge you for deviating too far from the revolutionary goal and giving the counter-revolutionaries such a viable criticism. as such you have to build a dialectical antithesis from the modern way of things, something that can not only directly replace the current status-quo in people's personal lives but something that refutes the entire basis of the current sociological order and allows a transition into a new form.

This, I feel, is why there has always been a tendency of the left towards more free-associative romance and the like. the nature of sex itself shall be more open and free-associative in socialism as opposed to the draconian conception of sex in capitalism, where it is both used in advertising as a way to bring on the sex drive but also shunned by the wider society's insane protestant ethos to funnel people into this materialist consumption of sexual media. I'm not saying that monogamy is out the window and polygamy is state-enforced or anything, but I think that it will be more common to have more casual sexual and romantic relationships, and maybe even a few concurrent ones rather than the unspoken rule of one relationship at a time now. I think a prerequisite for finding love is to first "find yourself" in a romantic and sexual sense, and having more relationships like this is a way to expedite that process. from there people can find their love(s) and actually enjoy themselves since they have accumulated experience with romance and sex rather than the pretty fucking loveless affair marriage is for conservatives and the like.
>>

 No.390925

Daily reminder "free love" is anti-communist to the core in that it breaks up communities and causes large amounts of distrust between peoples.

A hypersexualized society is what the ruling class wants. There's a reason why left-wing populism espoused by old school communists completely died off in the early 1960s when the birth control pill became mainstreamed.

Real communists support healthy monogamous marriage and procreation.
>>

 No.390926

>>390735
All love is conditional, I doubt you'd still stand by your best bud if he raped and murdered someone
>>

 No.390948

>>390735
Platonic relationships are far more disposable.
>>

 No.394740

>>394732
Uh
Wrong thread?
>>

 No.394774

>>394732
The man is an out and out narcissist. These people are more dangerous than psychos. It absolutely baffles me that people are so unable to recognize these degenerate, toxic creatures.
>>

 No.394800

>>394774
Bro who are you other than some uygha on an imageboard?
>>

 No.394829

>>

 No.394846

>>394800
>Bro who are you other than some uygha on an imageboard?

i mean that's what I am ultimately but I've seen enough orgs ruined & enough damage done by these creatures that it's pretty to me now that Narcissists are more dangerous than outright state agents/infiltrators. People like BRG, Gazi Kodzo etc can only destroy and actively harm our movement by existing.

Ideally under socialism all diagnosed narcissists will be euthanised but it's hard to deal with these evil, destructive fucking creatures given that most people have no familiarity with what narcissism actually is or how concretely dangerous they are.
>>

 No.394851

>>394846
>A bunch of useless nothing Anglo orgs that were shit enough to be ruined by a single individual
I want to ask you a real important question worth considering….
Did these orgs actually do anything of value even before these individuals “ruined them”
And note, I didn’t ask if they “planned” to do something of value, but if they actually did anything of value
>>

 No.394869

>>394851
The orgs themselves aren't particularly relevant.

Narcissistic personality disorder is by far the most dangerous of the personality disorders to a point that it's almost comical people get so worked up over sociopaths & psychopaths.

Narcissists are by nature incapable of empathy, incapable of loyalty, incapable of understanding themselves to be wrong, they are incapable of love, real friendship or of benevolence. They are driven purely by an all-destructive quest for narcissistic supply to the point of self destruction & they will destroy anybody and anything which gets in the way of their quest for said narcissistic supply.

These people are inherently incompatible with Communist or any other values. They do not have actual concrete political views and claim ideologies/politics purely based on what will get them narcissistic supply.

These creatures are so evil that it has been a philosophical question within psychology as to whether or not they can actually be considered human beings.

History is full of said narcissists fucking shit up on a global level, from Hitler to Duterte to Gorbachev, there has never been a narcissist political leader who didn't absolutely fuck everything up on a catastrophical level. In fact virtually every reactionary or fascist leader was a narcissist.

These people are so open about this shit that BRG has the forsight to label criticism of narcissism and narcissists as "ableist".
>>

 No.394874

>>394869
>The failure of the Left is due to NPD
Cringe and idealism pilled
Stopped reading once I saw the argument
>>

 No.394876

>>394872
Never claimed "the failure of the left is due to NPD".

You'll have to explain to me why a human being who is incapable of holding values/concrete political views, self criticism, self reflection, introspective thinking and who is incapable of valuing human life beyond their own should be upheld for communist leadership..

If the man was an outright baby rapist he'd be less harmful.
>>

 No.394883

>>394876
Does BRG actually lead anything?
And even so, by how you’ve outlined him he is already ineffectual from the outset thus irrelevant thus whatever org he leads is neither an asset nor a threat, it is simply nothing

I personally find BRG to be interesting and don’t find that he toots his own horn much at all on his channel, and I think it’s hilarious how he makes suburbanite westernoids seethe so much
And I mean, in terms of RevLeft’s guests BRG is nowhere near the worst, they’ve had on actual liberals, several episodes with idiotic junkies, people that believe in UFO nonsense, fucking buddhists, etc.
>>

 No.394890

>>394874
Retard do you live in the west? Not strict NPD but narcissism is a plague
>>

 No.394895

>>394890
And again, incredibly cringe to believe this is why leftism is weak in the West
Third Worldists unironically have a much better argument than this idealist shit and I imagine you wouldn’t take too kindly to their perspective on it
>>

 No.394921

>>394895
Literally no one is saying this and the only reason you have to stretch the statement that far is because you lost already. Read the culture of narcissism or something bruh
>>

 No.394926

>>394921
Lost what?
To lose something I needed to have been making an argument.
Do you think we were having a debate?
>>

 No.394927

>>394895
BRG is not a "Third Worldist" & is openly hostile to the ideology. He is a Sakaist.

Where are you from comrade? In the west period BRG's Sakaist politics are the default for "socialist" orgs. BRG *IS* the stereotypical post-occupy western left.
>>

 No.394929

>>394927
What's the difference between Third Worldism and Sakaiism?
>>

 No.394933

>>394927
Never encountered a Sakaist org
Pretty much all Anglosphere orgs are worthless regardless of whatever meaningless line they take
The fact that workers do not go to the socialists likely has more to do with events many decades ago than anything occurring right now
And also likely has to do with the fact that Western society is still nowhere near a situation of severe life-and-death crisis like the era of the World Wars or the nightmarish conditions either in the colonized world of the 20th Century or neocolonized world of the 21st
Never got the vibe that BRG is a Sakaist either, Sakaism isn’t when you just don’t like white people

I’m from the US
>>

 No.394941

>I'm from the US
Fastest double L I've seen in my life
>>

 No.394970

>>394929
Third Worldism was ultimately a method/strategy/analysis which incorrectly understood the geopolitical arrangement post USSR. It saw post war era social-democracy which brought social peace in the west as indefinite rather than temporary & fragile. They divided the world into two categories, regions which they saw as primarily dominated by a labour aristocracy (bought off workers) vs those primarily inhabited by traditional proletarians & peasants. In the west they believed proles were a minority, whereas in the global south & 2nd world a majority as oppossed to the labour arisotcracy.

The various Third Worldist movements believed that the fastest way to bring about revolution in the imperial core was to aid in builidng revolution in the global south, building a domino pattern of revolution & encircling the global north/cutting them off from neocolonial superexploitation on which the policies which enable social peace in these states are dependent.

The Third Worldists were ultimately proven wrong, but they were genuine Marxists with a 2nd positionst class based analysis of the world, even if faulty.

Sakaism is a crude, vulgar fusion of American protestant moralism/puritanical values and third positionist ideology which appropriates revolutionary imagery and fundamentally misunderstands the history of imperialism/colonialism to the point of whitewashing it. They reduce all problems to "evil white men" who they see as possessing some kind of innate evil similar to the protestant concept of original sin. It's adherents are magical, mystical thinkers who obsess over racialist & sexual/gender-based idpol, typically organizing in cults led by narcissists like BRG, the more functional of which transform into businesses with a model based on exploiting white guilt.
>>

 No.394984

>>394967
What is even incorrect about the Third Worldist view from how you positioned it other than social democracy not being eternal? Sure it has receded, but it isn’t like the living conditions of westerners collapsed anyway, they replaced the crumbling socdem systems with a system of credit and debt and cheap commodities out of places like China, which, while worse to live under than socdem, was still nowhere near as bad as life in the periphery and not really catastrophic for most people outside of a few trapped industrial enclaves like Appalachia and of course much of the former black working class which were resigned to the horrors of the ghetto and the Drug War
And no I don’t know whatever the fuck happened in Aussie-land but basically no Western country got neoliberalism harder and more un-lubricated than the US so I imagine it was not as bad
> Sakaism is a crude, vulgar fusion of American protestant moralism/puritanical values and third positionist ideology which appropriates revolutionary imagery and fundamentally misunderstands the history of imperialism/colonialism to the point of whitewashing it. They reduce all problems to "evil white men" who they see as possessing some kind of innate evil similar to the protestant concept of original sin. It's adherents are magical, mystical thinkers who obsess over racialist & sexual/gender-based idpol, typically organizing in cults led by narcissists like BRG, the more functional of which transform into businesses with a model based on exploiting white guilt.
Again, aside from disliking white Americans, what actually makes BRG a Sakaist?
>>

 No.395006

>>394984
>>394984
>What is even incorrect about the Third Worldist view from how you positioned it other than social democracy not being eternal? Sure it has receded, but it isn’t like the living conditions of westerners collapsed anyway, they replaced the crumbling socdem systems with a system of credit and debt and cheap commodities out of places like China, which, while worse to live under than socdem, was still nowhere near as bad as life in the periphery and not really catastrophic for most people outside of a few trapped industrial enclaves like Appalachia and of course much of the former black working class which were resigned to the horrors of the ghetto and the Drug War And no I don’t know whatever the fuck happened in Aussie-land but basically no Western country got neoliberalism harder and more un-lubricated than the US so I imagine it was not as bad

BRG would disgree with you. Back in the day BRG loved to shit on third worldists, His "scene" got the point where they were calling up family members of our comrades threatening them, reporting us to workplaces for "extremism", doxing us to white nationalists/nazis all the while producing fake screecaps & a trove of videos snitch jacketing us & accusing us of being COINTELPRO human traffickers.

It was the 2015-2017 sustained campaign of wrecking led in part by BRG's group (which used to go by the NCP-OC back when he was just a cadre) in cooperation with now known wreckers lik Tom Watts (Who secretly contacted comrades in the TW and offered them bribes in the mid 4 figure range to publicly denounce us) & others which played a huge role in basically destroying the third worldist movement at a time when we were seeing massive traction in South & East Asia and Africa broadly.

If BRG, Watts, Rivera-Jones & co weren't openly cooperating with the state against us consciously then these people were acting as useful idiots to whoever was.
>>

 No.395010

>>395006
Why would he oppose Third Worldism of all things? Isn’t he a Maoist?
>>

 No.395024

>>395010
>Isn’t he a Maoist?

Narcissists are incapable of possessing ideology. They don't any ideology beyond a constant paraistic need for attention.

He opposed us because us gaining traction in the global south led to funds being raised for said groups in the global south. This takes attention away from him, which narcissists hate. On his end the wrecking was strictly because every moment of attention or action based on aiding third world movements is a moment of action not based on worshipping him.

Carlos Riveria Jones of the NCP-LC had similar motivations as he himself was a narcissist. Old Carlos ended up destroying himself politically when it came public knowledge that he was a serial domestic abuser who fucking brutalized his signifcant other. He avoided being outright tar'd and fathere'd by coming out as trans which nulled the impact of the controversy but is a nobody now.

Watts on the other hand was likely some kind of state agent all along. Kevin Rashid's denunciations of him certainly seel to imply this. State agents love narcissists like CRJ & old Winston because they don't even need to be told to wreck, they do it by themselves.
>>

 No.395097

>>394984

There are a few variations of third worldist view, but the basic marxist version is essentially correct:

There is a transfer of value between capitald due to unequal exchange and superexploitation (which are sort of codependent in a way). When this is expressed geographically, states can leverage some of that surplus for socdem redistribtuion.

Moreover certain kinds of skilled labour can appropriate a rent due to its relative scarcity in the form of higher wages. If they are geographically concentrated then you have these regional inequalities become pronounced.

Ergo, the basic view that (socialist) revolution is more likely to occur in these relatively less developped regions simply follows from these material conditions.

More likely doesn't mean it is inevitable, very likely, probably or any such nonesense, just as A < B doesn't tell you the magnitudes of A and B. Nor does it imply that one should run around stirring up trouble with first world groups either (especially if they leave well enough alone).

The resistance to a third worldist position however is deeply emotional: People are attached to where they are from in many ways; They normally want the peolle they know and love to benefit from socialism sooner rather than later. They interact with and worry about local problems constantly, as that is what they experience directly.

For this reason it is best to introduce the topic in a pretty cool and detached way, usually in the context of discussion about imperialism (seems to be the best moment from personal exp.)
>>

 No.395145

>>395097
What this anon said.

Differenciation is needed though TWist analysis or TWist view and TWism as a movement/"ideology" which ventured in weird directions.

The TWist view/analysis is better represented today by Indian Leninists like Utsa Patnaik & Prabat Patnaik than western "MTW's" like the late Brennen Ryan, MIM-5/STP or Shubel Morgan.
>>

 No.395183

>>395145

Michael Roberts pit out a video on the topic a little while. I think he is writing a book on it together Guglielmo Carchedi.
>>

 No.395592

>>394846
BRG actually discusses this in his interview on revleft. He said hes moving away from youtube because he doesn't like how it promotes individualism and celebrity.
>>

 No.395597

>>394927
sounds like ur triggered by landback and refuse to read
>>

 No.395629

Communist chick here.

Should I tell my man (also a communist) that I love him? Should I tell him I want children with him?
>>

 No.395630

>>385182
>>385178
>>385167
>>385351
>>385355
they hated him because he told the truth
>>

 No.395632

>>395629
Tell him that you love him, don’t spring the babies thing unless you’re financially stable enough for it. And it’s both something you want.
>>

 No.395636

>>394869
narcissists are humans just like me and you. You can condemn narcissism without literally dehumanising people
>>

 No.395638

>>395629
If he's already "your man" I think he knows you love him
>>

 No.395718

>>395632
Is there a quote from Marx I could send him that would make his heart warm and fuzzy?

>>395638
We have a weird relationship. I'm sure he has feelings for me but I've never confirmed it.
>>

 No.395746

Is World systems theory third worldist?
>>

 No.395775

>>395746

Hard to say. It certainly can be, but its not clear to me that it is a direct logical deduction from its premises/axikns.
>>

 No.395920

>>390925
> in that it breaks up communities and causes large amounts of distrust between peoples
These are consequences of having children under capitalism, not "free love".
>>

 No.395921

>>395718
>>395629
Oof, don't tell him you want babies right off the bat. Also not a good idea. Get to know each other together first.
Idk, I hate the idea of commitment. I would rather see how things develop.
>>

 No.395937

>>395629
No. Your body belongs to the revolution. You are nothing but meat to serve in the glorious revolution, there is no time for settling down.
>>

 No.395944

>>390925
>There's a reason why left-wing populism espoused by old school communists completely died off in the early 1960s when the birth control pill became mainstreamed.
Can we stop with the shit takes where everyone gives a random year in which a singular event happens, and then this event is what killed off the "old school communists". Half the time is has zero basis and only exists for anons to take a singular event they already didn't like, and ascribing it a larger role in terms of the state of the left to then try and draw opposition to it. And shit like this is without historical materialist basis to begin with, because it applies some kind of spooky vague quality to revolutionary development in which its not actual capitalist suppression or peoples relations to production that throttle or spur it, but one thing that "totally ruined the left guyz" that's oversimplified to the point of worthlessness.
>Real communists support healthy monogamous marriage and procreation.
Real communists aren't against monogamy or procreation inherently, but I don't think you understand at all the communist position on the institution of marriage.
>>

 No.395964

>>

 No.395965

>>395921
>I hate the idea of commitment
Why?
>>

 No.395976

>>385342
>The idea of love has been commodified and reified too much.

>food has been commodified and reified too much

>time to stop eating food
>>

 No.396089

>>395976
food can't be reified because it's not a social relation
retard
>>

 No.396575

Honestly, how many communist revolutionaries were poly/free lovers?

Seems like this kind of shit is unique to western armchair leftists.
>>

 No.396599

>>396575
Half-way bingo. Maybe this thread can get more interesting now.
I say half-way, because while it is true that within the context of the October and Chinese revolution the free love / polyamory-ish people often were to the leftcom of the communist movement at large, it is also worth pointing out that these successful, massive revolutions and wins for the Marxist-Leninists, who were often more moderate in interpersonal relationships (monogamous, but often at least opposed to Abrahamic marriage customs), it is worth poiting out that the context of the time was far divorced from what it is today. During both revolutions the religious norms of the semi-feudal societies were far more arcane that what most parts of the world, outside of the peripheries, are used to.
This adds complexity to the problem we're discussing here.
What the leftcommunists were politically proposing during the October revolution is today, 100 years of global material development later, more relevant. Most of the west is irreligious. Most of the semi-periphery is largely secularized in their modern pseudo-religiosity.
>>

 No.396638

File: 1627065044597.png ( 436.65 KB , 441x617 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>396575
Not exactly revolutionaries but Sartre and Beauvoir come to mind. Also Fidel was a huge womanizer
>>

 No.396652

>>385064
>>385077
fuck off inceloid
>>

 No.396790

>>395629
>>395718
>sabocat is a woman
somehow a lot of things make sense to me now
>>

 No.396818

>>385502
I just give them a list of Finnish pronouns and call them anglocentric if they refuse to use them correctly.
Although this isn't really usable when speaking face to face.
>>

 No.396866

>>389535
Unfathomably retarded, its always been the other way around in all economic modes, with monarchs having a shit ton of concubines, bourgeois fucking their mistresses or employees or "indentured servants" and proles typically being monogamous because it wouldn't be economically beneficial to have to raise a shit ton of children from different mothers, even impossible in many cases, historically the upper class men have been the class where polygyny is acceptable
>>

 No.396870

>>386792
Never change 'stache man.
>>

 No.396877

>>396790
>Only one person can use a flag
>>

 No.396880

>>394933
could you give a critique of a few major tendencies, you seem to know what you're talking about
(ML, MLM, etc.)
>>

 No.396912

Reminder that although many communists historically have opposed Puritanical positions, they also heavily resisted and opposed prostitution and pornography.
>>

 No.396936

also why is this not in siberia, actually, that'd be super low quality so yeah it's okay here, it could be argued
>>

 No.396958

>>

 No.396965

>>396912
Socialists countries have and are very puritanical and conservative in social stuff related to sex and love. I think there's a lot to critique there and analyse why that happened.
Obviously better than many western countries, but still worse than perfect.
>>

 No.396970

>>396866
I don't give a fuck what you think was "always the case with monarchs". I'm telling you what is now.
>>

 No.396978

>>

 No.396990

>>396965
Correct. The working class wants stability above all else. They don't want hipster bullshit culture.
>>

 No.396997

>>396978
What am I coping about you idiot.
>>396990
That's not true at all. Projecting shit unto the Proletariat mass is pure ideology.
>>

 No.397023

>>396866
>Unfathomably retarded, its always been the other way around in all economic modes, with monarchs having a shit ton of concubines, bourgeois fucking their mistresses or employees or "indentured servants" and proles typically being monogamous because it wouldn't be economically beneficial to have to raise a shit ton of children from different mothers, even impossible in many cases, historically the upper class men have been the class where polygyny is acceptable
I'm not going to defend what I'm about to state, but this isn't exactly true. We're the vast majority monogamous? Yes, but during the Victorian era, the man leaving to utilizing a prostitute to keep his "bestial" tendencies outside of the house was a relatively common practice. Marriage was generally a purely economic affair, with contracts of inheritance, the awarding of dowries, and the combining of finances. "Love" was something generally reserved to stories of young elopers and unmarried vagabonds. Hence Marx and Engels critique of the institution of marriage, which strictly dissuaded relationships of "sex-love".
>>

 No.397081

>>397023
>In the Victorian Era
>Victorian Era
>19th Century England, not even all of it
bruh, that's a miniscule time era and a tiny portion of the population that at best had influence in one or two other cities on continental Europe, it isn't representative of most of history before or after
>>

 No.397082

File: 1627079995004.jpg ( 7.45 KB , 300x168 , copium.jpg )

>>396997
>What am I coping about you idiot
>>

 No.397213

>>396997
I am proletarian and grew up in the Rust Belt, moron. Working class whites don't want hipster culture. They want strong marriages and healthy children.
>>

 No.397317

>>397081
>bruh, that's a miniscule time era and a tiny portion of the population that at best had influence in one or two other cities on continental Europe, it isn't representative of most of history before or after
That was just one example. If you read about the history of the institution of marriage scenarios like this were the norm. Two people get married for largely economic reasons either by their own decision or their parents, they live their life relatively distant from another and treat the relationship as just a proper formality, the husband is permitted to have relations outside so long as he doesn't bring is "proclivities" within the household. An affair is where "romance" was, the household was where responsibilities were.
>>

 No.397328

>>397213
>I am proletarian and grew up in the Rust Belt, moron. Working class whites don't want hipster culture. They want strong marriages and healthy children.
NTA, but the working class includes all of the working class, and I can tell you that most people want loving relationships, this is not the same as being puritans, and many aren't "conservative". Especially relative to the past.
>>

 No.397639

File: 1627094635249.png ( 11.82 MB , 4309x3373 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>397317
>they live their life relatively distant from another and treat the relationship as just a proper formality, the husband is permitted to have relations outside so long as he doesn't bring is "proclivities" within the household. An affair is where "romance" was, the household was where responsibilities were.
Can confirm. This was (possibly still is, to a certain extent) definitely a thing among the peasant/small-time prole/craftsmen/trade workers etc. in traditional Catholic Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Latin American countries (Mexico etc.), especially in the rural countryside, but also in the cities. Sleeping around with different women that aren't your wife, impregnating them, fathering children that end up discovering years or decades later that they have half-siblings that they never knew about before. It's because "conquering" (conquistar) women was (is?) seen as "macho" and a sign of virility, so the logic was: the more women bedded, the better, and the more "macho" you were. As you said though, the only caveat was to "keep the whores/harlots out of the house". Among the women/mothers, they talked about it among themselves while cooking or doing housework (with their neighbors who were also mothers, with their female sisters and cousins who were the aunts of their children etc.) as "Men are outside doing what men do." and "I don't care whether or not he's fucking whores outside the house, as long as he keeps bringing bread to the table and a roof over our heads."
>>

 No.398251

>>385010
one we're materialists, and recognize the underlying constraint that lead to the current love and family concepts
second, we recognize the spooks imposed by modern society onto all human relations, but especially the ones related to family and love
third, we are able to imagine alternatives
>>

 No.399398

>>386897
>>386911
That's actually the one thing that bothers me the most about Caleb, aside from his economism and class-collaborationism and light antisemitism. He constantly equates sex with degeneracy and birth control with eugenics, like instead of shaming women for being "sluts" he shames them for being "Malthusians". It also makes sense given his whole "after the revolution there will be mass baby-making orgies to increase the population so muh productive forces can keep increasing" line.
>>

 No.401496

i am 'cynical' because im a lonely weirdo and am aware of the fact that having 'good' politics or being a 'good' person has nothing to do with love, which seems to exist entirely in its own abstract axis.
>>

 No.401498

>>397639
This isn't normal at all, unless you live in very rural, very isolated communities.

>t. Mexican
>>

 No.401523

>>396965
> I think there's a lot to critique there and analyse why that happened.
Because the "socially progressive" stuff always comes from upper class university activists and privately-owned media, not ordinary working families.
Thus once you eliminate the bourgeois influencers, only the "conservative" (not really, but youd call it that way) remains.
>>

 No.401714

>>401523
>Thus once you eliminate the bourgeois influencers, only the "conservative" (not really, but youd call it that way) remains.
When has this relatively ever been the case?
>>

 No.401725

>>401498
>This isn't normal at all, unless you live in very rural, very isolated communities.
Define "very rural" and "isolated". Because this is very contextual in regards to the time being discussed. For example, this is literally a common occurance in the Philippines, even today.
>>

 No.402963

LOVE'LL GET YOU LIKE A CASE OF ANTHRAX
>>

 No.403010

>>401523
Do you mean that it would be neither progressive nor conservative? I Always thought socialist countries were kind of middle of the road on that kind of stuff usually.
>>

 No.403045

>>385484
have my babies

Unique IPs: 111

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome