No.1825870
it wont happen doe
No.1825872
Hysterical and American thread.
>have zero prospects for home or car ownership
Petit-bourgeois concerns.
>have zero prospects for a stable career, zero prospects for retiring
So are they proletarian or not?
>Given historical precedent
We've had beta uprisings before?
No.1825883
Yeah it's going to happen and since the red scare effectively purged the West of organized communist resistance it's going to be an emotional hypermilitarist fascism that turns all those men into cannon fodder just like what HP Lovecraft predicted.
For anyone still living in the West I'd say your best bet is to just gtfo and beg for asylum in another non-Western aligned country. The writing is on the wall; stay there at your own risk.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
No.1825884
>>1825883>emotional hypermilitarist fascismmedium.com brain
No.1825886
>>1825868so long as they've got food and shelter there's nothing to fear. hopelessness doesn't lead to revolution, it leads to suicide.
No.1825891
>>1825884>Pointing out fascism is what capitalists fall back to when in danger is like being a member of another siteWtf are you even trying to say. Kill yourself.
No.1825894
>>1825883>For anyone still living in the West I'd say your best bet is to just gtfo and beg for asylum in another non-Western aligned country. The writing is on the wall; stay there at your own risk.Yes commies, please, go live in China, we want you gone.
No.1825896
>>1825891have you even looked at the state of the world since fascism was defeated you sheltered faggot? fascism was a historically specific movement in response to the looming threat of proletarian revolution. it doesnt exist anymore, its been subsumed by democracy completely which has adopted much of its functions since the end of the second imperialist world war
>fascism is when uhhhhh violence, but like, even more violence than todaynice analysis genius, as expected from a liberal who thinks china has anything to do with communism
No.1825898
Have you heard of a guy called peter turchin?
According to him the 2020s are going to be the peak of chaos due to what he calls elite over production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproductionThat its not the lowerclass but the upperclass who have no use anymore who are rioting and protesting. on both the left and right
You saw the left turn out in black lives matter and the right turn out in jan 6.
Its possible with the rise of AI more "elites" will be out of a job because it effects the white collare knowledge economy and this could lead to more protests and the like
No.1825902
>>1825868>Given historical precedent, it appears we're very close to a violent right-wing revolution led by this demographic.What historical precedent?
No.1825903
>>1825896Partly - I agree. Western communists only successfully organized and struggled against fascism (during the interbellum) and have no experience in struggling against the liberals - so they imagine fascists everywhere to opportunistically push united front movements instead of building a communist worker movement.
No.1825904
>>1825898capitalist society always tends to create a giant mass of ever-increasing middle-class parasites whose entire function is to be consumers, to aid the realization of surplus-value by the purchase of commodities produced which the bourgeoisie itself cannot perform. the whole deal with the petit-bourgeois is that its a very unstable class position
No.1825905
>>1825903indeed 'fascism' is just another leftoid scareword invoked with the intention of the preservation of bourgeois democracy - fascism threatens in the future, ergo protect democracy now
No.1825907
>>1825896>fascism was defeatedYou sweet summer child.
No.1825908
>>1825907finish reading the post before jumping at things you disagree with lmfao
what leftoids like you truly havent grappled with is that the capitalist system doesnt need to rely on fascism for its preservation these days, and a lot of what leftists think is fascism is just liberalism. capital has a perfectly fine tool in bourgeois democracy
No.1825911
>>1825908Yes the attempted military coups against Venezuela and Bolivia and direct military coups in Ukraine and Haiti really prove that fascism doesn't exist anymore you absolute moron.
>It's not real fascism if it fails!!111Kill yourself
No.1825914
Honey, it's the fascism-is-rising-defend-democracy-by-any-means boogeyman season again!
>>1825891>>1825903>>1825905>so they imagine fascists everywhere to opportunistically push united front movements instead of building a communist worker movement.All the pseudo-communists were engaged in partisanism and united-frontist collaboration to "defeat fascism". The result was a loss of class independence, binding the proletariat to defense of the capitalist state and defeat of all class forces. This is well-documented history.
>>1825907Many will be unsettled but it's just true. 'X is a fascist' or 'We are moving towards fascism' more often than not serves to shift blame away from liberal democratism towards some type of alleged non-democracy that gets christened "fascist".
<erm, it's not REAL democracy you see>>1825911>fascism is when military coups Wow, fascism has existed for centuries then. Words don't have meanings anymore. Thank you liberalism.
>>1825898Get offline and read marxist theory sometime, none of this is new. Society is not divided into just two classes. There is an extremely huge petit-bourgeois stratum, there is, in the more backward regions, a large semi-proletarian stratum, there is even within the workers a certain reactionary-minded stratum.
No.1825915
>>1825904Retarded anti Marxist analysis. Marx predicted increasing immiserstion of the population not prosperity and a "growing middle class". That middle class is an illusion. A carrot dealt out during the cold war that is quickly being withdrawn and consumed and indeed was being attacked even before the USSR even fell. Hilarious how third worldists will spit on Marx even though his prediction was correct in the long run.
No.1825916
>>1825868Why are there more single men than women?
No.1825918
>>1825896fascism is when the colonial methods of oppression are brought home to the imperial core due to the collapsing capability of an empire to project power outside its own borders.
No.1825919
>>1825916because chad fucked your bitch, you little cuck. now go shoot some people about it in your impotent rage
No.1825921
>>1825915>anti-marxistyou havent read theories of surplus-value lol
as the real wage of the proletarian fluctuates and trends downwards as the norm of capital theres also a petit bourgeois that is spawned
>implying im a "third worldist"actually the most offensive part of your post
No.1825922
>>1825914ukraine is a fascist state
No.1825923
>>1825914Military coups can be progressive but every one I just listed in my post was reactionary and carried out on behalf of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. What is fascism other than capitalist barbarity unleashed to stomp on workers.
Your whole analysis is retarded. You just want to avoid being seen as cringe because Biden invokes some hypocritical anti fascist rhetoric while arming Nazis in Ukraine. You base your entire outlook on who says what and rather than looking for a correct identification of fascist regimes you want to junk it all together because you can't bear to be associated with Dems rather than pointing out the Dems are arming fascist regimes. Kill yourself.
No.1825926
>>1825921The petite bourgeois are a minority in every society. You even admit the real wage stagnates according to Marx. You're desperately backpedaling to cover up your slip.
No.1825929
>>1825918Was the Spanish colonization of the Americas 'fascist' too? Ridiculous.
>>1825923>Military coups can be progressive>You just want to avoid being seen as cringe because BidenSorry, is this a ChatGPT bot? You're bringing up a bunch of unrelated garbage, completely unable to argue besides stomping your feet like a child and telling me to kill myself because I pointed out your analysis is retarded and arbitrary. You're a liberal who mistakes form for content and is incapable of analyzing history.
No.1825930
>>1825926The reserveless proletariat is the real minority and it gets smaller every day.
No.1825931
It's infantile to believe that reaction can be stopped before it settles in. It's my belief it's part of the dialectics for reaction to always by the rule of historical materialism come before. Reaction is a law of capitalist decline, if capitalism hasn't declined enough for the need of it then what basis for revolution is there? It's clearly shown that every revolutionary upheaval was what followed the heights of reaction in the capitalist epoch.
No.1825932
>>1825918>imperial coreretard alert
No.1825933
>>1825868Communists do not recruit 'allies' from the petit-bourgeoisie by pandering to their interests. You are on the side of reaction? Go to hell, it's that simple.
No.1825934
>>1825927Answer two questions
1) Did Marx predict the petite bourgeoisie would grow (like you claim) or shrink
2) What is your definition of petite bourgeoisie? Do you imagine the majority of people in any country own their own business or are self employed?
You laugh despite outing yourself as an utter retard. Even Lenin said the petite bourgeoisie in pre-revolutinary Russia was being crushed to nothing and the average petite bourgeois wanted to commit suicide. You are not a Marxist but a fraud.
No.1825936
>>1825929You were the one who brought up liberals and American-brain. I just merely turned the argument back on you for trying to junk fascist analysis simply based off what dumbass Americans say. Then you are so fuckin stupid that you couldn't even understand your own argument being turned against you and accused me of being a bot. Kill yourself.
No.1825937
>>1825918It's not only the turn inwards but the frantic grasp of what was held outwards. These 2 forces work on each other to accelerate fascism.
No.1825938
>>1825936wow its almost like i was complaining that op is bringing up anglo statistics as representative of anything 😂
>I just merely turned the argument back on youwowwwww we got a socrates over here 😂😂😂
so were you trying to make an actual point or only out yourself as a brainlet liberal?
No.1825940
>>1825936>off what dumbass Americans sayalso ? shitty analysis of 'fascism' like yours isnt exclusive to americans?
No.1825941
>>1825934>>1825926It benefits petit-bourgeois to pretend that they are proletarians and that the proletariat is somehow the vast majority of the population, especially in the West. In this way they can appropriate communism for their own sectional ends by having proletarians fight for them.
No.1825942
>>1825934Not that anon but I'd say for every petite bourgeois that the large Bourgeoisie crunch the class war encourages another prole to make the petite bourgeois leap. This is the epitope of what America has perfected
No.1825945
>>1825936You're going to blow a blood vessel if you keep that up. You are talking to at least two different people too. Plus you still haven't explained how the fact that the democracies successfully assimilated the most oppressive features of fascism - corporatism, concentration of political power, integration of the proletariat into a national collective, etc. is wrong. You can only resort to childish retorts.
<Fascism: always just around the corner, so behave. No.1825949
>>1825940What mainstream American calls Haiti a fascist dictatorship? Your entire "argument", if one can even call your idiocy that, rests off guilt by association with Democrats. My analysis is my own and is far more consistent than whatever junk you're trying to push. I can even address your retarded rebuttals
>What about American genocide of Native AmericansWas America a capitalist nation during its formative years? THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU ANSWER. Furthermore fascism is not "when lots of people die" nor does it pretend to be a shorthand for every cruelty ever recorded in world history. The Roman Empire was brutal but it was not fascist. Fascism specifically refers to capitalist societies in decay and has a meaning grounded in a specific time.
No.1825951
>>1825949i havent mentioned the democrats even once, are you actually mentally retarded?
>My analysis is my ownno wonder its garbage lol
you cant define fascism, only express terror at it
No.1825952
its not democracy working as intended, its actually Fascism(TM)!
No.1825953
>>1825949Same old liberal bullshit, heralding the imminent return of fascism which never comes.
No.1825957
>>1825951Stop hiding on TOR and samefagging did you even realize the mods made it so everyone ca tell when you do this?
Anyways all you can do is call me names because you can't even address my argument. I can dismantle any of yours
>Muh corporatismWhat is the unionisation rate of America or any westoid liberal society? Has the trend over the past half century been upwards or downwards? YOU LITERALLY ARE WRONG EVEN WHEN I USE YOUR OWN DEFINITION. FUCKING IDIOT.
No.1825958
>>1825956 (me)
Like seriously I wonder why 80% of the nonsense comes from Tor
No.1825959
>>1825957everyone posting from tor gets the same name you stupid ape. youre apallingly stupid holy shit
No.1825961
>>1825956>>1825958>basic marxism is le funny 4chan memeLeftoidpol never ceases to amaze. What point are you even trying to make here exactly?
No.1825962
>>1825931I think my comment here basically is /thread and it's /thread for the last dozens and dozens of threads we've had like this. We direly want to save the day, we want to stop fascism before it occurs. What we don't realize is it accelerates the decline and is infact necessary for revolution to happen at all dare I say.
No.1825963
>>1825962People here have deluded themselves into thinking that measures designed for nothing more than the preservation of the middle-class can have some transformative, miraculous effect on society.
No.1825965
>>1825954Social mobility is the measure of how easy it is to become middle-class. When a petit-bourgeois is proletarianized it doesn't mean nobody else can become petit-bourgeois (quite the opposite in practice…).
No.1825966
>>1825963It's a model destined for upholding social democracy. It's a model of saving liberalism. If capitalism doesn't collapse revolution doesn't occur. We can't save capitalism from it's demise by adverting fascism and at the same time move towards socialism. Literally all salvationist "praxis" does is guarantee some FDR like result.
No.1825968
>>1825961>>1825941 It's not basic marxism, it's unsourced revisionist, turd worldist nonsense you either picked up somewhere or you made up on the spot.
Boil yourself
No.1825971
Why do we only reply to each other in chains of people replying already to what was said to you. This often breaks down conversation and becomes some dual instead of a interactive conversation.
No.1825973
>>1825965Complete nonsense. The petit bourgeois requires capital to be evenlish distributed to even exist while at the same time the growing concentration of capital and developing MoPs push them out of the market.
You're full of utter bullshit
No.1825974
>>1825959Yes because when you make 3 one sentence posts within 2 minutes all before anyone else replies to anything, it's ackshually 3 different people. Kill yourself you can't even lie convincingly.
No.1825975
>>1825968>see West mentioned>immediately assume it's third-worldist idiocyI sympathize with you because I also hate that sect but you need to actually comprehend a post before browsing your reddit reaction folder and hitting New Reply.
Whenever the petit-bourgeois are fearful of losing their class privileges they attempt to appropriate the communist movement for their own desired ends, this has happened since ever and is worse than ever today.
>>1825973Tone down the funny pictures and actually define what a petit-bourgeois is.
>>1825966It would be interesting to see leftists explain exactly why they think 'fascism' is returning in 2024, and what the class basis for this is. Historical fascism was a response to the intense period of class struggle that occurred at the start of the 20th century, but the struggle has been largely dormant for decades now. Moreover as stated several times already the most useful features of fascism from a bourgeois point of view have already been absorbed by the democracies. Why is there a need, today, for a movement to stifle intrabourgeois differences and redomesticate the proletariat? Why in America, in particular? Why is anything being espoused ITT incompatible with the democracy we're all familiar with? Nobody ever bothers to answer these questions. Everyone is supposed to just get hysterical whenever things are "bad".
<What is for the petit-bourgeois the end of the world and society ('fascist dictatorship') is but the normal everyday reality for the proletarian. No.1825978
>>1825973>The petit bourgeois requires capital to be evenlish distributed to even existthis is nonsense lol
No.1825979
>>1825872>bourgeoisie is when you own a house and a cartheorylet
>>1825883porky doesn't do fascism unless it's necessary. with organized labour a near non-existent threat in the US, porky is better off staying the course
No.1825981
>>1825978It is a requirement. For the petit bourj to be, as capitalists, they require capital, which must not be already concentrated for it to be available. Hence "evenlish distributed"
>>1825975> Whenever the petit-bourgeois are fearful of losing their class privileges they attempt to appropriate the communist movement for their own desired ends, this has happened since ever and is worse than ever today.And I am not countering that, I am countering
> [The] petit-bourgeois to pretend that they are proletarians and that the proletariat is somehow the vast majority of the population, especially in the West.The implication that the proletariat is somehow not the vast majority of the population of nearly every nation, in 2024, is bullshit
> define what a petit-bourgeois is.As the name suggest, they're small capitalists, small producers, usually characterized by taking direct part in the production process and having few to none proletarians at their pay.
They are not rich workers, they are not highly educated workers
No.1825989
>>1825981I know being proletarian has nothing to do with poverty in itself, but the proletarian is not simply a wage-laborer either, he is a propertyless, reserveless mass wage-laborer, ie, he has absolutely nothing at all to fall back on other than his wages, with absolutely no profit from any kind of capital, no matter how small, meaning they are thrown into the streets to starve on losing their job. This is what makes them a revolutionary element within bourgeois society.
An income that is large enough to accumulate savings and/or investments disqualifies the earner from proletarian status. A doctor, engineer or other white-collar job does not meet this criterion, ergo they are not proletarians by any stretch of the imagination. These people are middle class, ie, petit-bourgeois. They are not required for a proletarian revolution nor do they have any independent potential owing to their class impotence.
The proletariat is not the majority in most of the major capitalist nations, including maybe China today, and is diminishing relatively even in others. Some 'communists' are advocates of electoral democracy, or democracy in general, thus necessarily rest on the presumption that the proletariat forms the vast majority of society. Consequently they must reduce the definition of a proletarian to everyone who works because if it's not the majority their positions fall flat.
No.1825990
>>1825975The fascism of the 20th century was a reaction to the heights of class struggle. You are completely correct that liberalism has absorbed most of the aspects of fascism. This was done mostly in the birth of neoliberalism. With this the aesthetics and structures that made fascism apparent, were removed and the imperialism and economics was applied. It was what the Austrian school/Chicago school.. of economics is, its a stroke of brilliance by the Bourgeois class. they with the experiment of Pinochet Chile found a way to reform fascism into the structures of the liberal model. So that the new liberalism of Regan/Thatcher was actually the make over of what was applicable in fascism while maintaining subtlety.
So if that is all the case and fascism has essentially become a redundant term in relation to what it was in the 20th century; what does this mean for reaction? With neoliberalism and then the 1991 defeat, the class struggle was neutralized. Now what this remodeled fascism/new liberalism is facing isn't the rebirth of class struggle for the most part. What I believe it's facing is a terminal condition in which capitalism has been taking ever closer to its death. What's to come is capitalism's last showdown. In 20th century fascism the class struggle was very present and had to be actively suppressed now they are having the foresight to see it well in advance. This is a retroactive class war of maintenance of class dominance, rather then a thrown together class struggle to a active proletariat. In this since we're in territory not yet very describable.
No.1825996
>>1825989>An income that is large enough to accumulate savings and/or investments disqualifies the earner from proletarian statuswrong
>These people are middle class, ie, petit-bourgeoisthere's no such thing as a middle class
No.1826006
>>1825868What if /leftypol/ itself pandered to these young men and gave them class consciousness and directed them away from reactionary false consciousness?
No.1826015
>>1825989> he is a propertyless, reserveless mass wage-laborer, ie, he has absolutely nothing at all to fall back on other than his wages, with absolutely no profit from any kind of capital, no matter how small, meaning they are thrown into the streets to starve on losing their job. Luv when randoms tack on shit to definitions nobody else upholds. You also claim that
> being proletarian has nothing to do with povertyAnd immedialy make that the most important factor, above being a wage laborer non even a comma later.
Your entire argument contradicts your first assertion
> An income that is large enough to accumulate savings and/or investments disqualifies the earner from proletarian status. A doctor, engineer or other white-collar job does not meet this criterion, ergo they are not proletarians by any stretch of the imagination.>A larger part of the worker’s own surplus product, which is always increasing and is continually being transformed into additional capital, comes back to them in the shape of means of payment, so that they can extend the circle of their enjoyments, make additions to their consumption fund of clothes, furniture, etc., and lay by a small reserve fund of money. But these things no more abolish the exploitation of the wage-labourer, and his situation of dependence, than do better clothing, food and treatment, and a larger peculium, in the case of the slave. A rise in the price of labour, as a consequence of the accumulation of capital, only means in fact that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-labourer has already forged for himself allow it to be loosened somewhat.
> These people are middle class, ie, petit-bourgeois. Do words mean anything anymore?
No.1826043
>>1825989A proletarian is only defined by the sell of labor-power as a commodity to a buyer. Labor-power doesn't just manifest as a physical expenditure of energy, that's the vulgar marxist position.
A segment of petite-bourgeoisie have been involved in almost ever successful historical revolutions.
>The proletariat is not the majority in most of the major capitalist nationsBoth true and not true. The nature of work is becoming individualized to an unprecedented degree. If anything it would be easier to conceptualize this as the growth of the lumpenproletariat and not the decline of the proletariat.
No.1826079
>>1825989Good take. The silliness of the rebuttals is that they assume a classification is only correct if it adheres to past dogma or many people uphold it, neither is correct. This definition also explains the lack of urgency people in the West feel to abolish capitalism in favor of socialism.
No.1826112
The west will do what it always does and offshore the revolution. It's quite simple really. Of the 51% that don't have a gf, lots of those guys are ambitious, they are the ones that would otherwise start a revolution. Those ambitious westcels will just go to the Philippines and get a wife from there. They will be pacified by getting a Filipino gf.
Now, the young men in the Philippines will be pissed off and guess what, they elected a macho right-wing douche. Southeast Asian countries will be volatile in the coming decade as westcels steal their women. Chinese dudes are also stealing brides from there too because China has a bigger demographic problem.
No.1826179
>>1826112passport broing is still a very marginal phenomenon
No.1826205
Weve been hearing about a new incoming fascist revolution in the VVest since 1945 and all we ever got was a more conservative governement replacing the center-left government (which will regain power afterward anyway).
No.1826250
>>1825989My job has a 401k offering, does that make me petit bourgeois?
No.1826258
>>1826079lacking class consciousness doesn't make you not part of a class any more than not being aware of gravity makes you not fall if you lose your balance
No.1826265
>>1826258Their argument is that having any spending money or savings makes you no longer proletarian though, the argument isn't about consciousness
No.1826329
>>1826265the first anon says that yeah, but the other anon is suggesting that proles in the imperial core aren't proles because they lack class consciousness
No.1826337
>>1825989>An income that is large enough to accumulate savings and/or investments disqualifies the earner from proletarian status.This is nonsense because capitalism runs on the proletariat being able to reproduce itself biologically. If proles did not have 2.5 children on average, there would be no growth of the proletariat, and if proletarians had absolutely zero savings they wouldn't be able to have kids or purchase any commodities for consumption beyond food/water/rent. They would only be able to subsist, and wouldn't be able to have kids. The reserve army of labour would shrink rather than grow. The proletariat is only unable to save
after having children. Most proles are able to save if they avoid having children, which is yet another strong argument in favor of birth strike tactics, which shrinks the reserve army of labour and deprives porky of growth.
No.1826342
<jfc the state of this thread
loove it when threads like these boil down to petty infighting amongst one-another as if retarded arguments about the nature of fascism change the fact that these men are very much real and all have the tendencies towards violence. who cares if its fascist in nature or not, when the same violence can still be directed towards proles and minorities and destroy thsi fucking country?
>51% of young zoomer men 18-29 are single, have zero prospets for home or car ownership, have zero aspets for a stable areer, zero prospects for retiring, zero prospects for anything besides abject poverty
while i agree with some comments that their is no historical precendent to a joker-esque incel army, the fact of that matter is this only boils down to a lack of central leadership, it is a FACT that we have seen countless violent outbursts from these type of men, they just happen to centralize their anger towards themselves and go out in these kamikaze shootings, like the Christchurch shooting, Buffalo shooting, Elliot Rodgers, Sandy Hook, etc. these men simply lack organization, their anger and willingness to violence is very much there, it's simply a matter of time.
No.1826352
>>1826112You actually need money to get a mail-order bride. Meanwhile wages get dumped and purchasing power weakens in the west.
To get a gold digger from the third world requires a hefty financial advantage, even moreso for incels, as they can’t even hold a conversation with women without spaghetti falling out of their pockets, so they need to use their money advantage to get a companion.
As the empire crumbles and porky goes into overdrive mode to keep the rates of profit up so does the financial advantage vanish.
No.1826392
>>1826381>men and women are differenta real shocker
No.1826393
>>1826379
There is no looksmatch and there never was, not in 1950s and also not in the 1850s, the difference between then and now is that the male surplus is alot higher now.
No.1826394
>>1825868>What is to be done?We should call them nazies and other forms of evil, regardless of what they say or believe. Then we need to get them fired and banned from social media while justifying violence and hatred against them.
Then they will become lefties.
No.1826395
>>1826394show me one person that's got cancelled for being a nazi that didn't have it coming
No.1826437
>>1825868It won't be on the entire west tho.
No.1826438
>>1826394Sorry Anon, but I must respectfully disagree. If you become a Neo-Nazi after some twitter-fag called you a nazi online, you should just turn off your computer. I don't know exactly who you're referencing, so I won't make any examples, but I can also tell you that the people who are doing such doxxing and "activism" are NOT the vanguard of change. They are idpol faggots who coonsom and use the vehicles of political correctness to indirectly push the mainstream agenda. They don't make people's lives better, they don't lift people out of crippling poverty or elevate proles, they just consoom. These creatures are not our allies, they are puppets of the state.
No.1826439
>>1825868>51% of young zoomer men 18-29 are single, have zero prospects for home or car ownership, have zero prospects for a stable career, zero prospects for retiring, zero prospects for anything besides abject poverty, and are becoming increasingly violent.All those things also create communists.
No.1826450
>>1826392>>1826379Why are there actual incels on this website? It's obvious that your amateur attempts at evolutionary psychology are incompatible with reality. "Hypergamy" this, "cock carousel" that - all lazy excuses gathered by looking for the most outrageous examples of party animals and just saying that all women are like that. Even chinlets themselves are having regular internal arguments over this shit, like the supposed
VVHITE GENOCIDE BY COALBURNERS and the fact that white women have some of the lowest rates of interracial marriage in the US. That's not even touching on the fact that this bullshit is incompatible with dialectical materialism. Read Engels when you're ready.
No.1826451
>>1826440Also watch the Rampage trilogy directed by Uwe Boll, it's very relevant to modern trends like ecofascism.
Read On Guerilla Warfare by Mao
here's a quote:
“A potential revolutionary situation exists in any country where the government consistently fails in its obligation to ensure at least a minimally decent standard of life for the great majority of its citizens.”
― Mao Tse-tung, Mao Tse-Tung On Guerrilla Warfare
No.1826454
>>1826450Stop replying to nazi flag. Just filter him. Report and move on.
No.1826472
>>1826450This piece written by Engles was misinterpreted by radlibs as an excuse to encourage reactionary polyamorous harems.
Liberals don’t actually READ Engles. They just look at a headline and make assumptions.
No.1826479
>>1826373Why though. Old men look like shit.
t. bisexual dude
No.1826480
>>1826385i post that clip because it's funny. i literally don't care whose mouth it came out of. if sam hyde said "communism is based on terror" i would clip the first three words and post that. maybe you should just admit that the meme struck a nerve with you instead of concern trolling about how problematic you find some washed up adult swim comedian who has zero impact on your life.
No.1826481
>>1825868>51% of young zoomer men 18-29 are single, have zero prospects for home or car ownership, have zero prospects for a stable career, zero prospects for retiring, zero prospects for anything besides abject poverty, and are becoming increasingly violent and politically radicalized towards the rightThe notion of "left" or "right" is inherently poisoned by the status quo. Plenty of people hold an incoherent mismatch of positions because of culture war, false consciousness reasons. Or , because of liberal framing, believe their politics to be a lot more moderate than they really are. But on that:
Let's say that indeed a large mass of people is "radicalized" towards what they understand as "right wing" violence. Taking out the culture war stuff. What would be this "violent right-wing revolution" be, and how, if at all would it upset the status quo?
Because if it's just a culture war coat of paint over a red scare, a massive upwards transfer of wealth, anti worker policies, brutal repression of left wing protests, racialized policies, a national security state that surveils everyone (and can whack anyone with impunity), persecution of adversarial press, intense xenophobia and jingoism,mainstreamed genocidal language ,sporadic rightoid terrorism (with the guidance of the security state, no doubt), or a ramping up of hostilities in the cold war… that's boilerplate liberalism
now.
You don't need a "revolution" for that.
No.1826482
>>1826385btw do you want me to re-record it with my voice so you can stop complaining about sam hyde every time i make fun of you for being an incel?
No.1826484
>>1826479 (me)
Old men literally look like testicles. They’re round, hairy and wrinkly.
No.1826489
>>1826479>>1826484I actually have no idea as to why. Every explanation I get is evopsych nonsense/idealistic bullshit.
I'm also bisexual.
No.1826492
>>1826392>hurr durr it good when man fuck many woman>it bad when woman "enter man harem">why? cuz differentyou literally can't have men "sowing their oats" without women "entering a harem." think about it.
No.1826493
>>1826479>Why do chicks go for older menIsn't it obvious?
older men statistically have more money, but also they have a ton of other stuff too. More stable lives, more stable jobs, fewer addictions, act less insane, have gotten over the phase of their life where they need to do dangerous/edgy shit like join the military and drink lots of alcohol every weekend, have entered the phase where they are ready to help raise children, and are also more feeble and therefore easier to fight back against in an unarmed domestic violence incident. Now granted there are older guys that break all these stereotypes, but in aggregate, younger guys tend to be more dangerous. Car crash statistics prove this.
No.1826502
>>1825891You have no definition of fascism. Fascism is just what you consider extreme right wing politics. America is already fascist and has been for over a century.
1st screenshot is Lukács 2nd is George Jackson's Blood In My Eye, you're welcome for the recommendations Tank. Iron Felix is off fishing so you're stuck with me and I actually know my shit.
No.1826504
>>1826502I hate the US in a political sense for its foreign policy and hyper-capitalist economics. However, you are going to tell me the US is fascist? I don't believe that. Only the republican party is fascist, not the democrats. Are you saying even the New Deal FDR era was fascist? Fascism in one definition is palingetic ultranationalism, which the republican party fits the bill of. I'd just categorize the USA as an unregulated capitalist nightmare that is imperialist in many ways but it's not fascist.
No.1826508
>>1826472Yeah, the radical liberals use any tool to legitimize their bs. Real people's lives and opinions regularly fly in the face of their vision of "progress" - for instance, we do see that polyamorous people are significantly more likely to be male.
https://openpsychometrics.org/research/demographics-of-polyamory/Engels' explanation of the dynamic seems to be correspond to the data we have despite the fact that he lived more than a century ago and got a lot completely wrong.
No.1826513
>>1826381lmfao
>>1826385You seem grumpy. Maybe take a nap? Did you eat today?
No.1826516
>>1826513>You seem grumpy. Maybe take a nap? Did you eat today?NTA but responding to somebody upset with crypto right wing bullshit with false positivity is right out of the Remilia-Thieloid playbook times are changing buddy, edgy irony shit has been mapped and codified and weaponized by Sam Altman and Elon Musk's retardlings who are themselves indistinguishable from AI in their posting
No.1826518
>>1826508wow yeah move over engels we've got the most rigorous studies in the world now, awesome data there, dude
No.1826524
I don’t think it’s inevitable and I don’t think it’s bound to be right wing.
The right wing has one advantage in that they can openly say: “Yeah, everything is falling apart, shit sucks” while the Left gets talked over by liberals huffing
>“Ummm, everything is fine sweetie, and you’re a dirty Russian if you think otherwise! 😌”
Of course there’s also the matter that the Right seems to speak to immediate concerns. If a lonely guy types “why can’t I get a girlfriend” into google, they’ll run across redpill shit eventually. Or maybe Incel stuff. People will say “maybe the Left should address it?” But our response usually boils down to “its capitalism’s fault.” That doesn’t resolve their problem, just explains it. At least Andrew Tate can grift that you WILL get a girlfriend/be successful if you act like an asshole. What can we tell them? “Overthrow Capitalism!”
>“Oh yeah, I’ll get right on that. I’ll overthrow Capitalism when I get off work.”
See that’s a big problem I’ve noticed in a lot of Leftist rhetoric. We can talk to people. We can win them over with ideas about how the world should look. Then we jump the gun—“And that’s why we need a revolution!” In stable countries, even ones facing crises like America, you come across as deeply unserious when you predicate all your ideals, explicitly, on a revolution: I hate to say it, but most people haven’t wholly bought into the idea that “revolution” is the answer. Especially when their concerns aren’t “I am literally starving to death under the current way of doing things.”
To be honest I think a kind of Caesarism increasingly looks like the means with which a kind of “progress” can be gained for people in the developed world.
No.1826528
>>1826524its a scam. you can pay Andre Tate to join Hustlers University, or take his classes to learn crypto trading. but even though it offers a false hope, its still a powerful motivator.because at least there's a one in ten thousand chance they might make it. the chance of a proletarian socialist revolution is not even on the cards for most, so what are they going to choose?
No.1826532
>>1825868>88% of men are employed>men have zero job prospects You’re a retard
No.1826533
>>1826532>88% of men are employedBefore calling anyone retarded, you should look into what that stat actually means.
No.1826535
>>1826532Because working at family dollar or walmart is so fulfilling
No.1826536
>>1826439>>1826535As I was saying, what OP said also creates communists.
No.1826555
>>1826514next time your mom asks you if you ate today make sure to throw your rotten tendies at her and call her a redditor
also make sure to accuse her of being in a harem No.1826601
>>1825868>zero prospects for home ownershipThe US rate of home ownership is still lower than it was before the 2008 recession, but it's higher than it was ten years ago, and we didn't see a revolution in 2015 (nor in the 1960's or before, when home ownership was even rarer).
>or car ownershipcar ownership has steadily increased basically since cars were invented. There is no crisis of car ownership, but if there were, it would probably be a good sign, since if car ownership declines in a developed society it probably means that public transportation improved.
>zero prospects for a stable careerUnemployment in the USA is at historic lows. The labor force participation rate has dropped because fewer people need to work. A lower labor force participation rate but low unemployment rate means more people are choosing to not seek work (I assume they're mostly upper-class and living with their parents or are otherwise NEETS?).
>zero prospects for anything besides abject povertyPoverty in the USA is not historically high right now. In fact it's currently around the poverty rate in 2001, and it will likely continue declining, as is the long-term historical trend. Ten years ago the poverty rate was almost 50% higher, and there was no right-wing revolution in 2013.
>and are becoming increasingly violentnope
>and politically radicalized towards the rightyoung men are more right wing than young women, but all young people are more left wing than old people. If demographic trends hold, the US population will get more, not less, progressive over time.
>Given historical precedent, it appears we're very close to a violent right-wing revolution led by this demographicCan you give an example of a time a rise in young men being single has led to a violent right-wing revolution in a developed capitalist country?
Also, every single problem you mentioned disproportionately affects black and latino men, both of which (but especially the former) have strong reasons not to join the far-right.
There is most definitely no upcoming right-wing revolution. It's a coin toss whether the right will even manage to clinch the next election, and if they do, it won't be because of strong support from young men (who lean democrat on average).
No.1826607
>>1826601your general outline is correct however
>Unemployment in the USA is at historic lows. The labor force participation rate has dropped because fewer people need to work.is a meme. if you have no prospects of getting a job so you don't look, you're not counted as unemployed but as "economically inactive". if you live in a small town where it's obvious there are no jobs but you want a job, you're treated as a voluntary-NEET rather than an involuntary victim of bad economic policy.
low unemployment rate is a target, and anything that becomes a targed ceases to be a useful measure. the dilemma of post-1980s policymaking is in large part a dilemma of masking high unemployment. why do you think we suddenly decided, across the developed world, that everyone had to go to college? it's not because of a sudden enthusiasm for knowledge, and it's certainly not because a degree in politics equips workers with the skills they're going to need in the service-sector hell of today. no, it's because it quietly bumps the school leaving age up to 20+ for a chunk of the population. being in education means not being NEET and certainly not being
unemployed.
there's a labor shortage, but you can apply for 10 jobs and be rejected from them all. what riddles economic narratives become when confronted with the twin demons of "math" and "empirical testing"
No.1826622
>>1826601>>1826614Different Anon, but poverty statistics are notoriously bunk as they are used as a political maypole. The definitions are often different (up to and including the bizarre) between studies, which in turn causes source poisoning in aggregate studies. I've only ever read one meta study which addressed this, but even that one still used it. ymmv I guess.
This is also how real wage can remain stagnant or even fall, with poverty somehow not increasing. Or, indeed, how in the West poverty has never been lower, but people who depend on food aid has at the same time been the highest since the immediate post war period.
No.1826638
>>1825916Because there are more men than women. It's especially bad for Chinese men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_sex_ratioThe World Factbook (2020 estimates).[1] Country/region
At birth 0–14 years 15–24 years 25–54 years
China 1.11 1.16 1.17 1.05
No.1826642
>>1826533Cool non-argument. If it means something other than 88% are employed, OP should let us in on the secret
>inb4 uh ackshually unemployment only refers to people who have lost a job less than 12 weeks ago, after 4 weeks pass they’re no longer considered unnemployedYeah that is true for the DOL unemployments
rate. That figure is ~3.8%. If you take into account all the NEET men in USA you will get a figure around 12%. Which would give us 88% employed men
No.1826820
>>1826662Yes, and that number is 3.8%. That isn’t the number being tracked in the chart. That data (also collected by DOL) indicates that 88% of men between 25 and 55 are employed. There is no massive crisis of unemployed men
No.1826825
>>1826524Replying to the last point, just to get the ball rolling.
One of the issues which has been affecting men in particular is lonelyness and the issues that come with the lack of proper socialization on the top of that, which manifest themself as inceldom, misogyny, inability to create romantic bonds and general anti-social behavior.
A policy to actually address this would be the creation and fostering of new "3rd places", with the explicit goal of favouring socialization en mass from a young age.
No.1826840
>>1826825>the lack of proper socialization on the top of that, which manifest themself as inceldom, misogyny, inability to create romantic bonds and general anti-social behavior.Sorry but this is a fantasy. Lots of women will throw themselves at you if you've got looks, money or social status and especially if you have all three. Misogyny, lack of romantic bonds and anti-social behavior won't change that.
Just look at Jeremy Meeks. Anti-social criminal crips gang member who for some mysterious reason woman were attracted to. He even ended up having a child with some billionaire's daughter while still being married.
Of course it's not mysterious to anyone but the most purposefully obtuse, it's because he's good looking, his prison mug shot got media attention and he became a model/actor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Meeks No.1826845
>>1826840The question of the chicken and the egg.
Let me ask you a question, why is inceldom only now a problem even though good looking badboys that women fawn over existed for millenia? Parasocial relationships aren't new, or do you think Presley's fanbase was male only, or all those bodybands popping up since like the 80s? Ever heard of the story how the sister of the Roman emperor fell in love with Atilla the Hun, it's like I wrote, millenia old. Yet incels are only now a problem.
NTA but
>>1826825>and the issues that come with the lack of proper socializationIs spot on.
No.1826854
>>1826845Social media is the main culprit. Before social media people had to go through various irl social functions and friend groups to "looksmatch" or "socialmatch" with partners. Maybe rockstars blow through town and throw it out of wack but that was temporary.
Now young women can just tap their phone and join above average guy's temp harem until he ditches her. At which point she tries to get with the average men.
This reflects the data of there being more single young men than single young women and then it levels out.
But will those rejected average men just accept the older average woman now that she wants to settle? Maybe that's changing.
No.1826944
>>1826820>88% of men between 25 and 55You first said 88% of men now it's 88% of men between 25 and 55 lol. There are more men who aren't looking for jobs and are also unemployed, but they don't count as being unemployed. I never said it was in a crisis, I said you should look into what that Stat means before calling anyone retarded. Seems like youre still hung up on what OP is saying and not what I told you.
No.1826976
>>1826845Incels, including the ones here, live in pure fantasy land. Arguing with them about anything pertaining to reality is moot. Which in turns answers your question, inceldom came to be now because hyperreality has taken over reality. We live in pure, unsubstantiated fantastical political fantasy land. Cyberspace is meatspace, meatspace is virtual.
No.1826982
>>1826854That analysis doesn't make sense. If women are the ones choosing, why are you reffering to harems? Would women choosing partners correspond to women having male harems? It seems like you wanna force that "hot guys have girl harems" in there.
No.1826987
>>1826978
Yet another example of incels completely departed from reality. Literally no one has EVER denied that "looks don't matter". Pure, unadulterated, fantastical solipsistic virtual schizophrenic ramblings of an atomized individual living in post modernity.
No.1826992
>>1826978
>incel civil war
what am i reading herr?
No.1826996
>>1826990
kek. is this a copypasta or insecurity manifest?
No.1827015
>>1826974
He was saying social media in a neutral way not as a negative. But denying that social media expanded the dating market is coping and denying the reality for many in this generation
No.1827022
>>1826854>Maybe rockstars blow through town and throw it out of wack but that was temporary. The meme of a person being born and dying in the same village in le olden times is just that, a meme.
No.1827024
>>1827022Yes, but there were no rockstars. Bards, maybe.
No.1827026
>>1827024Bards and actors were seen as untouchables. There were always popular and handsome people. Men moved around, moved into cities to take on work as apprentices in their journeyman years. People were mobile, women had a huge dating pool. Yet somehow no incels.
No.1827041
>>1827032>touch grassThats never gonna happen, all incel websites wallow in self-pity, it’s like a bizarro /pol/ with accounts of wignat chinlets with their SS and greeco-roman marble statue profile pictures, instead of claiming that white people are the most trad and strong and most superior and interracial dating isn’t real and rahowa will commence
they flip it around claiming that white women are da worst and all race traitors and white men are weak (and also race traitors) and on and on and thats why they are incel and get zero pussy.
Its unironically hilarious when you watch brown and white incels fights, you would expect that they are gonna insult the opposing side, instead they insult themselves to seem as inferior as possible.
As shrimple as that, they all need to see a shrink.
No.1827050
>>1826990
People deny looks don't matter because they have ugly motherfuckers as acquaintances and friends getting good game. It's really not that fucking hard, you just don't touch grass. You're an extremely atomized, improperly socialized individual. You've been thoroughly fucked by capitalism. You have at least capitalist-induced autism if not just capitalism-enhances autism. It's not "over" for you, but you've been dealt a pretty shit hand, unrelated to your looks. You have been forcibly removed from the normal processes of socialization and hence are now like an adult dog that's seeing other dogs for the first time in it's life.
No.1827064
>>1827051
have you ever left your amerikan shitlib bubble of tiktok-brained consoomers?
No.1827067
>>1827051
>But as a side note, women dating women also contributes to this single imbalance. A lot more women are bisexual than men.
Guess what % of the population is lesbian or bi.
No.1827071
Would someone count as a "incel" if they never cared about sex and chose to abstain completely from it?
No.1827072
>>1827050Have a hard time believing that, sorry redditor. It seems way more like it's a combination of middle aged genetic runoff convinced that it's still 1993 and women are still going to give some hideous obese bastard a shot when they don't have to nor want to, and average looking dudes that take their cues from middle aged people at the mall.
When I was in uni I didn't see very unattractive dudes getting laid no matter what pathetic lines they tried to spew, and my own gf outright despises ugly men that try "spitting game" and admits most women do as well; I think I'll go with what she says about that over some coping average chump who wants to believe his orgy is just around the corner
Ngl I think it's funny that any man who says women primarily care about looks in choosing a sex partner are always attacked by chumps on the lower end of average, it's never handsome men nor ugly men, it's always losers just in the middle that maybe get laid once a year that desperately need to believe those few encounters mean something and aren't essentially random chance
Do women not deserve to be with handsome men? They need to be with hideous ogres like you that are only funny to your other idiot friends? Do you think handsome men rant and rave about how looks don't matter the way unattractive near-incels do? A man with looks relishes his looks.
No.1827073
>>1827071Then they would celibate.
No.1827081
Anti-incels regularly dehumanize women by claiming they're angelic beings that happily fuck genetic run-off they aren't attracted to so long as they spew some idiotic cliches and let unfunny jokes dribble from their lips like a baby drooling
Incels and anti-incels both believe women are evil if they don't have sex with ugly men, except anti-incels claim women are therefore good because some of them occasionally do fuck ugly men
No.1827087
>>1827073Good. I never really cared for sex. Thought it really wasn't that big of a deal and never understood why people put so much stock in it. I mean it's not really that much of an accomplishment in the grand scheme of things.
Besides, I don't want children because I don't think I'd be a good father.
No.1827093
tbh lumping 30 year old milennials and 49 gen xers is dishonest. Since it was 2019 when that survey was done I think 30 to 39 would be more accurate.
No.1827131
>>1827087>not really that much of an accomplishmentwhy would anybody care about it being an accomplishment? people like sex because its enjoyable and intimate
No.1827139
>>1827131>why would anybody care about it being an accomplishmentIt is considered an accomplishment. You should know that there is a stigma to being a virgin especially if you graduated college without losing it. That's why some people who don't enjoy sex do it just to get it over with.
No.1827147
>>1827139I don’t know the virginal status of almost any of my male friends. Why are you so convinced people are aware of yours and judging you for it. You’re probably just a neurotic internet addicted shut in
No.1827151
>>1827125
Maybe it's a culture thing. Making out and having sex here doesn't mean you're "dating" someone, no one expects "loyalty" until a relationship is clearly established and then, people are typically loyal, with a few outliers cheating on them (this usually gets found out pretty soon, gossip spreads like wildfire and technology is the enemy of secrecy). I'm Brazilian if it matters. Is there anything I'm not getting?
No.1827160
>>1827147I'm trying to make you understand why this anon
>>1827087 said this. There is a lot of false bravado that goes on with guys lying to their partners about their "experience" and to their friends.No one goes up to their friend and ask "hey are you a virgin". As you get older for some it is a red flag because you are questioned on why did you avoid intimate relationships and so on.
>You’re probably just a neurotic internet addicted shut inNot at all. Touching grass will let you know that. Just because you don't know the virginal status of your friends does not mean that there is not societal pressure to lose it. Whether in High School or College. Hell there was pressure before widespread internet like you implied. Being a virgin in the 90s and 00s you were considered a loser especially when you went out partying. Thats why you hide it.
No.1827173
>>1827139oh i am aware that various kinds of freaks put a lot of stock in sex for clout and i think it is sad
No.1827180
>>1827151ive spent some time in brazil coming from the US & in my experience brazilians have a much more healthy and mature attitude towards sex, americans have a neurotic protestant attitude where sex is simultaneously shameful and the only thing worth actually pursuing, and people actively pursue casual sex but then act weird and jealous when it doesnt lead to something more seriois despite never clearly communicating.
my friends in brazil laughed at me for being worried that a girl i slept with was expecting more than that cause she kept texting me, had to explain this to them when they were like no why would you assume that
No.1827190
>>1827147NTA but I don't know why that fact bothers you so much. Before people used to insult someone by calling them "incel" it was "virgin". YOU personally not caring doesn't mean it's not a big deal to other people.
No.1827192
>>1827147What country are you in?
No.1827199
>>1827087>why people put so much stock in itSex is commodified and porky wants you to have it so he can sell you shit.
Decommodify sex and you mostly solve the “incel problem”.
No.1827203
>>1827051
So it’s mostly due to the jawline kulaks. It’s simple for a socialist government to just castrate promiscuous men. That way there are less sexual assaults and there is less reactionary semi-harem behavior.
No.1827206
>ummmm segs isn't important sweatyIf you say this and aren't a freak of nature with limited sex drive kill yourself unironically. I'm as sick of incel arguments online as the people who say this are, but they are part of the problem. Perpetuating this patronizing attitude just drives sexually marginalized people to right wing grifters.
>>1827199>Sex is commodified and porky wants you to NOT have it so he can sell you shitftfy.
No.1827209
>>1827206How? Look how huge dating websites are. It’s a multi BILLION dollar industry. Look at all of the how-to-be alpha chad videos and books being sold out there. Look at how huge the birth control industry is.
They obviously want to put an importance on sex and they overvalue it because that is how they sell it.
No.1827212
>>1827190That people use that as an insult doesn't mean they actually care. They simply understand that they can get under other people's skin that way.
No.1827217
>>1827212Would you call someone racial or ethnic slurs to get under their skin?
No.1827228
>>1827209>dating websitesprofit on frustrated and unsuccessful return users converting into paying customers as well as data
>how-to-be alpha chad videos and booksNobody who fucks is buying that shit
>birth control industryThis is the only thing you listed that directly profits on sexual satisfaction rather than frustration.
No.1827239
>>1827229
People use slurs to have a sense of superiority over someone which you just basically said. So calling someone a virgin is talking about some incompetence. Same thing with calling a woman a hoe. In some way you do care or you wouldn't use that word to insult someone. It's like calling someone "gay" back in the day. You gonna say that they did not care and used it just as an insult?
No.1827244
>>1827032Where’s the proof that men in their 50s and 60s with a little bit of money are snatching up all the women in their prime years? Should be pretty easy to produce. I’ll wait.
No.1827249
>>1827244>Where’s the proof that men in their 50s and 60s with a little bit of money are snatching up all the women in their prime years?Where's the proof that the anon you're replying to said 50s and 60s? Older than 25 could mean older twenties, thirties, forties…
No.1827251
>>1827249Fine provide proof of even that then.
No.1827267
>>1827251Go ask your mom (really)if she had to choose which she would choose. A 20 year old that gets excited when his favorite twitch streamer starts playing fortnite or someone near her age?
No.1827271
>>1827256The point goes back to
>>1827190 . Insults are meant to denigrate a person and are used in your cultural context. You can give those fat or short insults because they are not desired traits in the society and you know it. Calling someone a virgin is an insult in our context and you use it knowing that you are not a virgin so it cannot be used against you(that is assuming you are not a virgin)
No.1827284
>>1826982>If women are the ones choosing, why are you referring to harems? Because they end up choosing and dating the same guy all at once.
< Harem. Noun. < 2. informal : a group of women associated with one man< 3. a group of females associated with one male —used of polygamous animals>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harem>It seems like you wanna force that "hot guys have girl harems" in there.It's incredibly obvious hot and rich guys would end up getting harems. Weird how you are so opposed to the use of word even when it describes the situation perfectly…
No.1827286
>>1827256
>I don‘t get a feeling of superiority by doing it but it‘s really just to cause hurt or insecurity when I deem it useful.
It doesn't matter what you feel when you insult someone else. You're trying to make *someone else* feel a certain way by insulting them.
No.1827291
>>1827288accursed image
if you know you know
No.1827296
>>1827288They all look like total fuckin dweebs and the worst part is they don't have to, if they gave even a little bit of a fuck
No.1827298
>>1827296one of them raped their collective baby
No.1827307
>>1827271>>1827286What a bullshit copout, no, you use the insult because you think it's a lowly status for someone to occupy, like a pigskin calling a black man n*ghur before lynching him, you know how many of your kind claim not to hate black people while using slurs?
Whenever people talk this way they really should have stones and bricks pelted at them for lying to their own hearts
No.1827311
>It’s only a matter of time before someone builds the next billion-dollar dating app that will pair real-life users with artificial intelligence-created girlfriends, according to a tech executive.>Greg Isenberg, CEO of Late Checkout, shared that he met a man in Miami who “admitted to me that he spends $10,000/month” on “AI girlfriend” apps.>“I thought he was kidding,” Isenberg wrote. “But, he’s a 24 year old single guy who loves it.”>When Isenberg asked him what he loved about it, the Miami man is quoted as saying: “Some people play video games, I play with AI girlfriends.”>Isenberg said that he was told by the man: “I love that I could use voice notes now with my AI girlfriends.”>“I get to customize my AI girlfriend,” the man told Isenberg. “Likes, dislikes etc. It’s comfort at the end of the day.”https://nypost.com/2024/04/15/business/tech-exec-predicts-ai-girlfriends-will-create-1b-business/ No.1827316
>>1827312The comimg shift from flesh girlfriends to subscription robot girlfriends and its effects on our economy are materialist.
No.1827318
>>1827311reading coomers cooing over their llm waifus on 4ch is horrific
No.1827321
>>1827312Blacklist "anti-incel" and ban nazi flag. Simple as
No.1827324
>>1827319I will hope to marry a cute dom robot man who will treat me cuddles and make me lots of money
No.1827328
>>1827307Not sure why you replied to me at
>>1827286 but I agree with your entire post.
No.1827342
Incel shit is fundamentally about hating women - they see them as a deprecating asset, about as reusable as rubber gloves. But that's not the real problem, the real problem is that it teaches men that whatever they actually enjoy is irrelevant and only tiktoker frat boys are living the biologically determined good life. That is vile.
>>1827284Women are the ones making groups on the internet to check whether they're dating the same guy. Men don't do that. Women are significantly less likely to be interested in anything related to polygamy.
No.1827349
>>1827307This, I'm
>>1827271 and tried to understand what he was trying to say and came to the same conclusion as you
No.1827371
>>1827342>Women are the ones making groups on the internet to check whether they're dating the same guy.Women so routinely end up dating the same guy that they need to employ entire websites making sure they aren’t? I don’t see how this is a point in your favor. It’s more proof that a small male minority has a monopoly on women.
No.1827374
>>1826854> Social media is the main culprit. Before social media people had to go through various irl social functionsAnd you think people just decided to use the worst option, social media because it felt like it?
I am sorry, but this thing that we have in our hands right now is a product of objective material developments. Capitalism has progressively eaten away at the social lives of the proles, by intensifying and lengthening work, by making going out more expensive, by creating urban sprawl and suburbs, and by closing down places where socialization could happen because they weren't profitable enough
No.1827383
>>1827072> gf outright despises ugly men that try "spitting game" and admits most women do as wellIf that is indeed so, then I don't wanna ever hear again about unrealistic bosy standards or sexual objectification lol
No.1827384
>>1827040
Why? Because if they have a bit of gibs for a few months if they lose their jobs instead of starving immediately?
No.1827401
Against whom would these right wingers exactly revolt against? At worst you'll have reaction eating its own tail.
No.1827462
>>1827312The rest of OP's premise is dumb. His infographic is irrelevant (one chart is for UK and apparently 25-54 is now young). Also this:
>>1827401 No.1827677
>>1827384Because their exact place in this economic system has a bearing on their attitude towards it. They have a comfortable place in it, they would like to maintain it and are not interested in radical changes such as overturning the entire economic system to implement a new of which they don‘t know will work.
>Because if they have a bit of gibs for a few months if they lose their jobs instead of starving immediately?They don‘t think that they will spontaneously lose their jobs and then also not find one later on. What impacts their outlook is their wealthy income and they will likely keep their livelihood until they retire. From their perspective there is no point for them to revolt.
No.1827679
>>1825989>>1826079Indeed, the moralists and liberals ITT seethe at societal phenomena being defined properly.
No.1827680
>>1827377The whole point of the class system is that your position in it defines your ideas. The only petit-bourgeois who take "anti-capitalist" stances (let's charitably call them "communists") are the ones who feel guilty about it.
No.1827682
>>1827401Revolt wasn‘t a proper word anyways. It‘s just going to be terror attacks against boogyman.
No.1827687
Why do these kinds of threads get so many replies?
No.1827692
>>1827687The anti-incel defense force can't help themselves and have to try make more posts than their perceived enemies.
No.1827693
>>1827687Its about sexo, or the lack thereof
No.1827694
I love it lol
No.1827695
>>1827687cos no one here read marx and no one kissed a girl but reading is hard so…
No.1827700
>>1827699you must be the first person ever to have this genuinly orginial and unique idea.
be proud of yourself.
No.1827701
>>1827700Mindless ideas deserve mindless comparisons to other mindless ideas.
No.1827779
>>1827677> They have a comfortable place in it, they would like to maintain it and are not interested in radical changes such as overturning the entire economic system to implement a new of which they don‘t know will work.> They don‘t think that they will spontaneously lose their jobs and then also not find one later on. What impacts their outlook is their wealthy income and they will likely keep their livelihood until they retire. From their perspective there is no point for them to revolt.I swear to god I can only see three types of people unironically holding this stance:
1 rich kids whose parents shit money, who have legitly no contact with the broader masses
2 NEETs who literraly never go ouside or talk to people
3 non-westeners who have gobbled up porky propaganda
Either way, in cases those are people who think the average westener still lives in the golden age of social democracy and still has the spending power to afford all the consumer shit as in the 90's.
The former came under attack almost half a century ago by the likes of Thatcher and Regan, which completely broke anything that could resembke a class collaboration in the west, immiserating millions of people. As for the latter, most of that lifestyle was fueled by debt, and in practice it has completely and utterly vanished in the last 15 years.
There is a growing desperate need of change in the west: it's painfully obvious to the point ypu don't even need to go outside to notice it. Why do you think we're seeing a resurgence of fascists and the like right now? Because the living standards are declining and liberalism is utterly powerless.
>>1827680> The whole point of the class system is that your position in it defines your ideas. The only petit-bourgeois who take "anti-capitalist" stances (let's charitably call them "communists") are the ones who feel guilty about it.You keep using that term, a marxist classification, while also rejecting the marxist classification of what is or isn't a proletarian.
Coincidentally you're also the moron who said that poverty isn't the most important factor in determining class position and then make it the only factor that matters, above the relationship to the MoP, not even a sentence later.
You use marxian analysis while it supports your point and immediatly hide it up your arse the moment it contradicts you. So what is a petit-bourgeois? What is a bourgeois?
You also completely sleep on the falling rate of profit, which make the arrangement you described among westeners untenable anyway in the long run even in theory, while in practice it has already been unilaterally broken decades ago by the porkies here.
Or I guess you could also call a westoid, baizu, firsty or whatever, which would make you automatically right without needing to reply to anything I wrote, which is also an option.
No.1827790
>>1827699Kapital better serves as reference today due to Marx's usage of language than most people realize. I hope you have read the original German anon. Preferably the copy annotated by Marx himself.
No.1827876
>>1827687They're polemic. There are no conclusive answers to the questions proposed.
No.1827887
>>1827779>the average westenerNot who I addressed.
No.1827993
>>1827887>I'm uhhhh addressing le third world hyperproletariat on this 90% English speaking board locating on an Anglo webserverThis level of internet LARP is so fucking cringe
No.1828075
>>1827993> locating on an Anglo webserverThat's just our CDN
No.1828082
>>1827677This is false tbh. I'd actually argue that the West is primed for social unrest precisely because they are richer than us, so paradoxically they are more sensitive to faltering economy and a developed civil society means that the cost barrier to political mobilization is lower than in the Third World.
If you look at lower middle class countries like India, conversely, you'll find that most people do not desire a revolution against capitalism. A lot of people wanted stability and order because the main focus is economic growth, not redistribution of resources.
No.1828083
>>1827993Third world workers can know more then one language and can talk english. Most of my coleagues do know the basics. Also google translate, this isnt a school test, you can cheat
No.1828084
>>1828083they're not smart enough for marxism
No.1828103
>>1828084Wow, nice classism
No.1828104
>>1828082It's cute you believe the petit-bourgeois turn to communism when they are at risk of becoming proletarianized and not the vilest reaction.
No.1828128
>>1828082Sweeping generalizations being as they are, the activity you see in western socities is a grievance politics.
Poverty does not bestow you with an enlightened perspective.
No.1828207
>>1825868A bunch of schizos shooting up Walmarts is not a revolution
No.1828322
>>1827228Ok I stand corrected. They’re TELLING you to have sex. They are emphasizing its importance for profit.
No.1828379
>>1828322I mean most people want to have sex so yes there are more products that appeal to people's desire to have sex than ones that proclaim they're for non sex havers, what's your point?
No.1828397
>>1826112>Those ambitious westcels will just go to the Philippines and get a wife from there.Except racism is extremely popular with this demographic. They don't just want pussy, they want white babies, and the "wife, house, picket fence" lifestyle they at least imagine their grandparents had
Add to this Biden's effectively open borders policies and you really do have a recipe for something akin to 20th century fascism
No.1828597
Total brainlet here, how can there be a "right-wing revolution" if capitalism is the dominant economic system? What exactly would they be revolting against?
No.1828616
>>1827701>le bible and marx are equally mindlessplease neck yourself
No.1828765
>>1828104Mainly because by "petit-bourgeois" you just mean a bunch of proles
No.1828766
>>1828765Read a thread before repeating the same uninformed bullshit for the nth time.
->
>>1825989 No.1828770
>>1828766Where do you got your definition of proletariat, middle class and petty bourgeoisie?
No.1828825
>>1828104Yeah, they do if the conditions allow it and there's a party to make it happen. It doesn't happen automatically, bourgeois also exert a lot of force to turn people reactionary.
No.1829776
>>1825989The utopian capitalist dream is that everyone is a capitalist. While we've accomplished this in many regards, it remains an unresolvable contradiction of the capitalist economy. For most people, the most capitalist they'll ever get to be is risking their retirement savings
No.1830001
I've been lurking, I have a quick question, this thread seems to be the most pertinent place to ask it: were any of you former /pol/fucks, and when you woke up, how did you reconcile your past beliefs with your present ones?
No.1830005
>>1830001I was never anything close to a /pol/yp (in my country we don't have really an equivalent). But being an underage liberal, you just eventually forget about it. My advice would be to just wait.
No.1830013
>>1830005OK. Do you tend to hate or meet with suspicion, people who once held terrible positions, and have renounced them out of sincere growth?
Do you believe such a thing is possible, or is always some kind of front?
No.1830014
>>1830013Everyone puts up a front. As Shakespeare said "All the world's a stage".
No.1830015
>>1830014That is probably valid. Thanks.
No.1830021
The chances of a violent right-wing revolution are exaggerated greatly. I feel like people who spend too much time online and surround themselves with similar political spectrum beliefs tend to fall into a trap of believing doomsday scenarios because of over exposure to information and being surrounded by communities where those beliefs are the norm
No.1830023
>>1830021what the fuck is a right-wing revolution. the whole world is capitalist already
No.1830026
>>1830023The petit bourgeois fighting against the (inter)national bourgeois. Or alternatively it's fixed, extractive capital fighting financial capital.
No.1830027
>>1830026>petit bourgeois fighting against the (inter)national bourgeoisthats just plain reaction
>fixed, extractive capital fighting financial capital?????
No.1830029
>>1830027>?????Think of oil barons fighting bankers for control of their finances and the political direction of the country they operate out of
No.1830032
>>1830029Daily reminder that Finance Capital has caused 0 (0!) wars ever. Yes I know Lenin talked about finance capital as an amalgamation of finance and industrial capital yes I know shut the fuck up he was wrong since there are very clear divergent interests between finance proper and industrial capital. Banks do not want wars. Bankers think wars are retarded and everyone should just be trading with each other in one global market with free flow of capital. Look at how upset bankers are with the War on China shit when all they want to do is access the Chinese market and now all this protectionist bullshit is cropping up.
Meanwhile Industrial Capital caused WW1, WW2, and basically every war America got involved in after WW2. When American military supplies are deployed to help Israel, it is companies like Lockheed Martin that profit, and they pass on that profit to the legislators. It isn't fucking goldman sachs, whose board of directors would be holed up in a panic room trying to forecast worse case scenarios and freaking out about the price of oil and the consequences of a full scale war with Iran.
Finance Capital is the pacifist bourgeoisie. When they lose power to dipshit industrialists and politicians things will start to get extremely dangerous.
Also all fascist regimes in history have been led by national bourgeois industrialists and large landowners.
No.1830047
>>1828766We already replied to your bullshit nonsense, and it's quite telling that your reply to that where either "no u", "I wasn't talking about that" or "marx was wrong on that one" without addressing anything
No.1830142
>>1830032>everyone should just be trading with each other in one global market with free flow of capitaland that's what causes wars you stupid uyghur
No.1830153
The word revolution implies change, nothing will change the decay will continue. All of this is a natural result of the decaying social democratic movement, they are actively alienating the workers and poisoning the well for left wing movements in general by asociating themselves with actually leftist parties.
No.1830253
>>1826493>older men statistically have more moneycould have just stopped there
everything else is cope
No.1830405
>>1830235
>Also older men also have lots of car crashes.
No, they're just more likely to die and get injured from a car crash.
No.1830542
>>1830438
>whom like to bike in the road when they have a sidewalk they can use.
Retard.
You're not supposed to cycle on the side WALK it's for WALKING you retarded driver shit just stop running down cyclists.
No.1830586
>>1830542Motherfucker doesn't know basic road laws, yet crows about precious cyclists on the runway. Always the same shit.
No.1830593
>>1825868I don't think we're going to see an incel uprising, simply because they don't have the revolutionary spirit. Revolutionaries are necessarily extroverted, good at working with others, and strong leaders. Incels, as a group, are about as far from that as you can get: poorly socialized shutins that can barely carry a conversation.
I think, if there were going to be a right-wing revolution in the west, it'd be lead (at least on the ground floor) by postironic troll types like soyteens and Kiwifarms users. They're much better at organizing, and much more willing to put their plans into action.
No.1830716
>>1828379>I mean most people want to have sexPorky is exaggerating this relatively minor desire significantly.
That’s the point I’m trying to make.
No.1830717
>>1828207Why do they go for schools and Walmarts and not corporate HQs or their state capitols?
No.1830725
>>1830716It's not a minor desire man. It's one of our fundamental drives.
No.1830728
>>1830725no it isn't lmao.
t. feminist
No.1830731
>>1830725Not for me. I may have sexual urges but I don't have a desire to have sex.
No.1830735
>>1825870This.
I say this as a young man who will die alone without a home or a wife, no one cares.
We're sad, but no one is going to do shit.
Nothing ever happens.
>>1827342>Incel shit is fundamentally about hating women - they see them as a deprecating assetNo, the entire point is that women see men as a depreciating asset.
And to be fair most are, but it's kind of a shitty thing to do under capitalism and reinforces it.
>>1830731I went through a involuntary nofap stint for months, I won't lie, I had to cope with just directly investing into hookers. Sex is totally a necessity and fuck anyone who won't at least admit it.
>but masturba–Is an outlet for them but not the proof that you don't have them.
You know who the only people in history who had no urges were? Monks who never saw women in 1900 or before.
No.1830745
>listen to a fascist podcast with cultured thug (fash who actually reads theory
>mentions he’s formed an org to advocate “third positionist” politics
>podcasters openly dismissed white nationalists as misanthropic losers
>”yeah I’ve actually brought up third position its beliefs in socialist spaces and most were open to it until they found out I was a fascist”
>they said they’re explicitly rejecting racism in their politics in order to get power
>”we want to recruit third position candidates to run for office”
>”yeah I’ve debated commies like Maupin and they don’t even read our theories so they can’t really make counter arguments”
>”People are so done with identity politics, from the left and right, so we’ve got room to grow there.”
It was a reupload, so it could’ve been from a while ago, but it’s pretty fucking wild to hear everything I warned about being repeated by fascists themselves. I think we’re gonna see a reorganization of whatever dregs left from the AltRight into a more intellectually coherent movement. It’s why I encourage the Left getting its shit together.
No.1830756
>>1830725That's not a survival drive it's a reward structure man
No.1830815
>>1830745>cultured thugI've never heard of that man in my life. He probably has an audience, but it seems pretty niche and not an actual threat.
The alt-right was a time and place thing. A lot of people got swept up in it because, at the time, it seemed like the only alternative to the liberal status quo. Since then, the presence of Illiberal leftism in America has grown significantly, siphoning away most of the audience that was only there for the anti-establishment element. And beyond that, popular opinion on social issues, particularly homosexuality, have shifted such that pure reaction has become a much harder sell.
No.1830851
>>1830745Third Position is just social democracy with authoritarian characteristics. The closest American political group with similar economic views are Progressive Democrats. Without racism they are just edgy Democrats.
No.1830852
>>1830851>social democracy with authoritarian characteristicsSounds like most political parties…
No.1830875
>>1830032>Daily reminder that Finance Capital has caused 0 (0!) wars ever.Retard. What caused WWI or the trillion colonial wars during and after the scramble for africa? Was it western industrialists who had nowhere to buy resources? Or was it finance that needed a wider area to apply their capital?
No.1830876
>>1830875The answer is both btw, industrial capital can buy resources elsewhere but that would mean smaller margins and that's just not gonna fly
No.1830877
>>1830032>>1830875What exactly do you achieve by separating parts of capitalism like this and then attributing "evils" to them too?
No.1830924
>>1830032God tier bait, but the name gives it away.
I tip my fedora to you good sir.
No.1837540
>>1830725Yet porky MAKES it far more important than it is.
No.1837563
>>1833279
I love the
>it's not real whites
take. It's beautiful.
No.1837575
>>1825868The right-wing causes those problems OP
No.1837606
>>1837593
Well I mean obviously actual orthodox Nazism can't rise again but that doesn't mean some fucked up hybrid can't where they genocide people for being 'groomers' or some shit.
No.1837610
>>1837609
Well obviously reactionism is self destructive but that doesn't stop a shit load of people dying in the mean time.
No.1837611
>>1833279
>>1837609
future reaction will be based on christian identity not white identity that way it can have cross race appeal. The future right wing revolution is handmaids tale not 4th reich
No.1837622
>>1837609
>It would also not be very durable political project
I have bad news about the durability of the thousand-year reich
No.1837630
the future will be richi Sunak techno-brahmanism. the far right was so obsessed about the jews that they didn't see the brahmins taking over.
No.1837633
>>1837623
>The abrahamix right in the west have been subverted by feminist ideas for a while now. It's a very effeminate right-wing movement.
not really. Maybe thats true of other western nations, but definitely not the US at least out side of the usual places like NYC/Cali/Portland
Christianity in America is just a nietzschean power cult for aggrieved male egos atm.
The whole argument of why Christianity won over paganism in the classical world is because Christianity appealed to the slaves and other oppressed members of society (what Nietzsche derisively called 'slave morality') while Roman paganism glorified conquest, strength, heroism, etc. The irony is that Christian Nationalism has turned christians in the west into basically the very same figures that christianity originally was against, while the people actually embodying "christian" values are secular leftists.
White christian small business owners are the new pagan aristocrats, while Wiccans, Atheists, New Agers, non theistic Satanists, and Agnostics are ironically far closer to being "Christian" while modern day Christians are just doing ancient bronze age patriarchy combined with petit bourgeois rage.
No.1837635
>>1837630probably, at least in the US IT sector this is already the case as Indians have a super high level of racial pride and ethnic nepotism, even down to caste and sub-ethnicity i.e. Tamil/Telugu only hiring their own kind, Punjabi sikhs only hiring their own, etc., even specifically from their own state/town/city and the spouses of current employees.
Hindus in the US will probably become the new jews since they don't assimilate, you can see east asians and hispanics after a generation or two start giving their kids anglo-american names like John/Emily etc. and are either secular or christian while Indians keep their hinduism, culture, and give their kids sanskritic names and continue to to identify as Indian.
No.1837639
>>1837633I really don't think so. It's important to remember that the "tradcaths" and other Christ larp you see on the internet doesn't reflect on the people who actually go to church. It looks more like a club where people go to socialize and stuff, devoid of any actual belief. While on average these "Christians" are more right-leaning, it's more due to how popular this activity is among different groups. Christians are just as capable of following "the left" and even actual communists, especially the Catholics.
No.1837666
>>1825908Yes and this was true since globalism as shown by pinochet
No.1837681
>>1837659
>I can see it but it won't last long.
No, second generation indian americans will turn rightoid.
First generation migrants are liberal technocratic woke nehruvian socialist, while their children will be trust fund babies who's dad thats a VP at Oracle payed for tutoring so they could get into Harvard and then work on wall street and become libertarian or conservative douchebags like Vivek Ramaswamy, Saagar Entjeti, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, etc.
No.1837693
>>1833279
im pretty sure dworkin isn't even a rightoid, she's a second wave anti trans feminist. the only thing shes 'right wing' on is trans shit. the rest of your figures are literal whos.
Real fascism won't come from these weirdos, you're right about that. It will come from random fatass evangelical maga-boomers. i.e. 3%ers not retarded young channer/fbi.gov autists who dropped out of their engineering program/community college
No.1837816
Op hasn’t explained why this shit will result in revolution and not merely a conservative government being voted in. One example of this is South Korea
No.1837842
>>1830725it's amazing how many people dogpiled you using their (relatively rare) neurodivergence as an example of how most people supposedly are. Most people wanna fuck and have kids. It wouldn't keep happening otherwise. Sure porky encourages it but it's one of the few things they don't completely have control over.
No.1837844
>>1830253>cope is when you bring up other things that also contribute to the point you're makingwhat? If you think those other things don't also matter, on top of the money, you're delusional.
No.1837852
>>1837842Fuck yes, have kids no. Most of human history kids were just the inadvertent side effect of fucking which is why as soon as birth control was invented people immediately started having fewer children.
No.1838367
>>1830725You fundamentally don't get it.
Unique IPs: 125