Cosmetics Industry as capitalist waste

Daily reminder that women circumcise their faces with nose jobs and rat saliva (Botox) because they want to impress other women.

What about all the animals China is driving to extinction because of their superstitious aphrodisiac bullshit?

wow so brave yet so controversial

just what this board needs, another women-hate thread.

Dude it's totally not woman hate, it's like, you know, a Marxist critique of the consumption habbits of "the lesser sex". There's no way the superior sex would ever spend excessively on clothes or other accessories.

Attached: f9bdcdf4e45d77562c380dc607deff1a9187dac2c9b4794b9a3a2607d44d7fe4.jpg (639x960, 51.55K)

Clothing does not count as it is something all sexes use, the cosmetics industry as a whole is something women predominantly use, even on channels run by gay men like Jefree Star and James Charles or whatever, their entire audience is composed of women. Not one man. Statistically men spend more on clothing but spend nothing on cosmetics. Before you bring up accessories, most men aren't rich enough to spend money on watches, or jewelry. Or at least I haven't found anything noticeable from anyone I've seen but maybe that's because I don't pay enough attention and only really go to the gym and poor areas.
Ignoring the fact that women lift too, weights literally are a tool used for labor which translates to looks. They factually cannot be counted as a cosmetic or accessories.
The one thing I can think of that could barely count as an accessory that me and other men spend money on is protection gear and armor for sports or fighting.
The difference is that protection does not correlate with cosmetic once again due to the fact that it's use is different from a cosmetic.
Cosmetics has no purpose other than to hide the faces of women. It does nothing but promote a lie and devalue actual labor women have put into looking good by letting any two bit whore put on a fake skin mask and 38 layers of make up to make herself look 16 again. Cosmetics are not only wasteful, but immoral, and are the epitome of capitalism.

Attached: leftpol's equivalent of the tails the fox bench.jpg (720x1280, 525.91K)

ur full of shit m8, im a stereotypical manly man who works construction, has a beard, broad build and the muscles and i have:
never bought any cosmetics
never bought any jewelry
almost never bought any clothes either, i got my steel reinforced construction boots from the bosses and they also bought 90% of my work jumpsuits, overalls, pants and jackets which i actually wear around as my casual clothes too, ive set aside a pair that is clean from all the cement and rust and sand and lime and tears, and i just wear these work clothes i do not work in

OP brought up clothes first.
And I have no idea about the rest of your shitpost. I didn't bring up weights.
What about smartphones, fancy cars, restaurant visits, expensive sunglasses? And today's gamer kids needing flashy 300$ keyboards designed to play fortnite

Not what I said and don't care about what you buy. I have not spent money on clothes and shit like that for probably 10 years, but what I personally do has no relevance to this discussion. Anecdotal evidence is no good for anything.

Tankie is a feminazi. Why am I not surprised? Combat feminism.

There's a containment thread where you can post shit like this all day, but you're too retarded to use it.

What exactly was "femnazi" about my post? Not mindlessly hating women isn't feminism.

...

Criticizing women for something that is not exclusive to women while calling them "lesser sex" is a sign of misogyny, would you not agree?
If OP had just kept it about bashing the cosmetic industry then sure, whatever, still a classic sign of dumbfuckery, being mad about unethical business practices when we as Marxists should be concerned about the exploitation of workers, not consumers.
I truly wish I didn't have to be the feminist of this board, I wish I could read and post about communist theory, but this board doesn't allow for any of that. Half the posters are nazbol idpolers thinly veiling their misogyny. Really just look at this thread, do you see a critique of the cosmetic industry or do you see a critique of women's consumption habbits? What do think pushed OP to make this thread?

Oh hang on I didn't see your other posts let me respond to that first.
Tools used by both sexes.
Literally no one that isn't a bourgeoisie regardless of sex will buy that.
Usually paid for by men for women
I've never spent more than $5 on sunglasses, and that was in Miami where me and my family needed them for protection. Cosmetics are not protection.
Tools deflect aesthetics. Therefore it ultimately does not count either. Statistically the cosmetics industry is still something only women use and support. Therefore it makes sense to call out only women. Most men don't buy make up. The average woman does. Most make up and cosmetics have no protective properties and cannot be used as tools besides maybe those small flip mirrors.

Attached: 6cd.png (680x416, 553.3K)

100% true. All these women who are like "but everyone thinks something is wrong with me without makeup and you will think i'm ugly without it" like it's an actual excuse for it just show how fucking entrenched this industry is in the lives of women.

Chans were a mistake

Attached: DtBamK7WsAAE9Fi.jpeg (1024x576, 36.79K)

ok im gonna say it! im gonna say it! im gonna say it!! here i go!!

women are inferior workers and shallow human beans
it is empirically, measurably and demonstrably true that women have lower bone density, muscle mass and lung capacity
ok fine, lets remove all the anecdotes by focusing solely on the olympic tier powerlifters
female olympic tier powerlifters basically lift as much as untrained talented 15 year old boys
biopsy also reveals women are inferior at the measurable things ive mentioned
there is a reason you have male/female categories in boxing, and all the sports, women would get turbo extra hyper ultra wrecked if they competed against men

women cant compete with men when it comes to coal mining, construction, military or anything labor intensive
they are biologically equipped to take care of children and are inferior to men to everything else
AND THAT IS A FACT

Come the fuck on. A fancy car is THE status symbol for a lot of men, and a lot of women will simply not date a man who doesn't have a fancy car. Dumb consumers like to be fancy and have the things that society says is fancy. They imitate the behaviors of the rulling class.
I doubt very much that most restaurant visits are dates. And even if they are, that doesn't change anything. Men spending money to attract women through consumerism.
Don't care.
Wrong, 21% of men use beauty cream, and while the cosmetics industry for men is quite small compared to women, it has seen insane growth over the past two decades, and will likely continue to grow.

So you're telling me that 84% of men own Ferraris? Show me yours and your neighborhood Mr. Not Porky. Post your address too. Cosmetics are different for that very reason.
Media≠Statistics
I've never seen a man anywhere in the world go outside to a restaurant without a group or woman. The average person goes out to eat for a party or as a status symbol to show off with models or girls for bourg. Once again not the same thing. If someone goes alone and does so to eat, then it's very likely that it's because they need to eat and can't cook and it's probably cheaper. Not for aesthetic reasons. McDonald's and other places don't counts.
Good argument.
Hold on, the fuck.
Where?
Where did you get those statistics?
How can I ousts this 21% of men in the street so I can assault them for their crimes against humanity?

Christ, please contain your assmad. I don't even have a driver's licence, I've used public transportation all my life.
I don't think you understand my argument at all. I'm saying that dumb consumerism is everywhere, and targeting women for specific consumer products aimed at women, while it theoretically can be an honest endeavour, is clearly used on this shitstain of a board for the specific purpose of calling women out for being inferior consumers. Men buy dumb shit too, like fancy dinners for WHATEVER purpose.
To sum up; the rulling classes have been dividing people up on arbitrary grounds for ages, men and women in particular for different reasons, in modern times it is being done to sell products. A REAL man buys this and that, and a REAL woman buys this and that. The cosmetics industry has hiterho been targeting women, but pioneers in the cosmetics market have done a lot to gradually include men with MANLY beauty products.
From the University of Halmstad School of Business and Engineering
diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:238020/FULLTEXT01.pdf
I think your priorities are misplaced.

Attached: MANLY.jpg (590x350, 28.38K)

It was a joke lad. There are no porkies here only FBI agents.
To sum up; the rulling classes have been dividing people up on arbitrary grounds for ages, men and women in particular for different reasons, in modern times it is being done to sell products. A REAL man buys this and that, and a REAL woman buys this and that. The cosmetics industry has hiterho been targeting women, but pioneers in the cosmetics market have done a lot to gradually include men with MANLY beauty products.
Yes but in the case of cosmetics it's 80% women who participate in the industry and it's an unjustifiable industry as a whole.
I am anti protein powder for being un-nutritional garbage being marketed as meal replacement. I need to admit that 80% or more of people who use protein powder are male and as such need to address them as males. I need to explain why the protein industry is bad why it won't help them and how capitalism is the root cause of this and hoe it deters them from true gains. In that same manner we need to address women as being the main cause of the cosmetics industry.
That's all I can say for now.

The only reason it grows is because faggots like you encourage narcissistic, homosexual tendencies! Trannies as well. Trannies are just dudes with makeup and long hair.

But ur mum gay tho.

holy shit who gives a flying fuck let people like what they want

this is literally boomer tier muh iphones are crashing the housing market.

get some fucking perspective

This

is this race realism but for women?

Are you really blaming the individual for succumbing to the environmental pressure they were raise under?

Attached: download (6)

Uh, you could just use regular moisturizers like someone who's not a cannibal savage. That and wearing sunscreen to cut back on sun damage. There's a pretty good amount of skin care that (mostly white) people don't do because they don't know about it.

Most of the bourgeois women who play the lioness in a fight against ‘male privileges’ would, once in possession of the suffrage, follow like meek little lambs in the wake of the conservative and clerical reaction. Indeed, they would surely be far more reactionary than the masculine portion of their class.
t. Rosa Luxemburg
There are stupid consumerist behavior for both genders. Women are not above criticism. They're people too. More accurately, women's gender roles are not above criticism unless you're a misogynist.

In that case I wish you hadn't been raised in an environment that produces fools.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I said.

im 12 and what is this? biology dont real? that it? hurrr duuurrrrr biology dont real for you?

here's a thing to google:
elementary school biology
sexual dimorphism
sexual dimorphism in humans (start from here i guess en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism)
effects of testosterone in the womb
effects of estrogen in the womb
effects of testosterone in the early child development and adolescence
same effects for estrogen

etc etc
you illiterate fucking retard

Oh god, don't use this shitty argument. Sex differences are very real and biologically based (adhering to gender roles is a different matter). Women aren't socialized to have lower bone density. Their bones are under much more stress because of menstruation and hormonal differences that make it harder to calcify bones. There are all sorts of fascinating and complex sex differences like this, but the point is that they don't make men or women different enough to matter in the grand scheme of things. It might affect the ends of the bell curve or with direct competition in athletics, but it doesn't make someone more or less fit for the great majority of work, at least not to any significant degree.

But even if it did - even if women truly were physically weaker or otherwise "inferior" to men - it shouldn't matter on the question of whether or not they are equals in terms of how society treats them. Is an olympian more equal than your average person? Is a cripple less equal? This is where the logic leads if you grant the premise that physical difference should relate to someone's personhood. Don't do that.

Attached: marx ishygddt.jpg (1329x1074, 199.99K)

'scuse me but reality of the situation absolutely is that a cripple is less valuable than an olympian
as long as the abundance of resources exists we might treat both of them equally, but if we all crashed on a deserted tropical island and some of us ended up crippled, or in case of a war where you are physiologically unable to carry a 20 kilos heavy machinegun up hill for 2 days without sleep because you are a woman…
you would utterly and absolutely be left behind to die on your own because gravity and the natural/physical world carries on as usual and doesnt give a shit about your feelings

imagine fascists rounding up and killing people who arent card carrying fascists, do you think you get a pass just because you are crippled?
imagine a near starving wolf pack, do you think you get a pass just because you are a woman?

Anyone marvel at how these sorts of scenarios are so broadly favored in the arguments of rightists (especially the more insane sects, like ayncrap lolberts) precisely because they bear so little resemblance to the reality of human civilization today?

Attached: so such thing as society.png (500x654, 154.74K)

as excellent way to dodge the point of the post and knock down a strawman

if you go by the marx's very own labor theory of value, an olympian can perform more socially necessary valuable labor than a cripple can
an average man can perform more labor than an average woman can

and finally not all workers are born equal, some can figure out advanced math required for advanced aeronautical engineering, composite alloy fiber materials, some can design radio absorbing stealth (ram)jet fighters and bombers
some can just clean toilets or carry food from kitchen to the table

not all workers can perform the same labor
further reading: cognitive development in humans, biology, etc

go back to the gym

COGNITIVE DIFFERENCES
C O G N T I T I V E D I F F E R E N C E S

on a scale from 1 to illiterate how illiterate are you?

But none of this actually matters, due to the fact that everyday life in modern civilization is primarily intellectual or only lightly physical, and the tremendous productivity of labor means that a large number of mostly or completely unproductive people are trivially supported on a temporary or permanent basis.

The days of physical power staving off death for dwindling bands of feral nomads are long past.

Attached: we live in a society.jpg (480x360, 14.83K)

i think you are wrong
the unproductive and counterproductive "workers" should be removed, not encouraged
you are right when you say we do not need large swathes of the population but i dont get why do you proceed to "we dont need em, lets just keep em"

here is what we should do:
provide for all children equally for 20 years, give them all a legitimate and fair opportunity to go to school and if in those 20 years they fail to become doctors/engineers, sorry but fuck them
resources arent unlimited, so why should the human population be? dont you see how unsustainable your opinions are?

you are just going to overcrowd everything with retards in the end, why???

That is why we’re trying to get a better world, Mr. Rightwinger

It is you negress.

And I don't get why you say "we don't need them, let's just kill them". Where is the big problem in having unproductive people when we don't need everyone to be productive? Why do we need a billion doctors and engineers?
Yes they are. Everything humans need to survive can be reproduced on a massive scale using nothing but free energy like solar and wind. We just need to reorganize our economy towards communism.
Don't you see how unsustainable the idea of having your kids potentially put to death for not passing the Autism Level barrier for citizenship? Should we also get rid of all old people who can't work anymore? What even is the fucking point of transcending a capitalist economy built on scarcity if not to use the increased productivity to care for everyone and reduce the workload?

You make me pretty mad tbh.

The discussion in this thread is rapidly devolving and I don't like it.

Attached: Only real niggers will get this.png (1808x1300, 1.57M)

you misunderstand

the world isnt some happy funtime rainbows place, 99% of all life on this planet that ever lived went extinct
when the next meteor strike, hyper super ultra virus: mega edition, aliums, energent crisis, whatever really, when the next big crisis happens, do you want to have a whole lot of double digit tism lvls around or do you want productive problem solvers around, or do you want a capitalist world where the few rich pray on the dumb with fast food, porn, cosmetics, fashion and sports industries?

the only proven way to eliminate stupidity and poverty is to go to the root source and eliminate the poor and the stupid
then we can have socialism

you read these weird japanese comics from right to left, right?

Yes.
Also it's not weird it's bizarre.

Wait a minute.
Okay this thread has officially entered bait derailment territory, everyone evacuate.

And none of that life was like humans.
What the fuck who fucking cares. This is out of our control, economy is not.
One doesn't exclude the other.
Where has this been proven?

'no'
'no'

how is it bait? just today in front of me at the store there was this lowlife in the neighborhood who constantly stinks like booze, is on welfare and does nothing but puke in public, gets drunk, picks fights, does nothing with his life other than make life harder for everyone else around him, i saw him pissing on the street in front of my house multiple times

some honest worker is producing his welfare, why should the rich who parasite on the working class be punished but these lowlife scum who also parasite the working class not? if we had a soviet system he would get 40 years in a uranium mine, as he fucking should

Didn't we just have a thread on this less than a week ago?
Normal.

Nice strawman
Nice strawman

Epic discussion, thanks.

in the developed and industrialized societies, thanks to the machines and computer control, these individuals CAN NOT even perform any socially necessary labor, therefore according to the first few chapters of marx these people cant even quality as workers, because they cant even perform any socially necessary labor

in other words, these people have become parasites and should be purged out of society together with the capitalists

These people should be helped and elevated, you should be sent to gulag.

Nigger you should be gulaged more than anyone here.

Labor will always exist even when it is no longer labor.

No u

Fight me.

can you socialize aligators to do complex analysis partial equations? why not?

i seriously dont understand this retarded wishful thinking, with all due respect
WHO is going to do this impossible work? who is going to pay for it? who is going to finance this turning useless retards into geniuses? who is responsible for this? why was this never done before?
YOU CANT HELP THESE PEOPLE WITH YOUR FEELINGS!

i honestly dont even understand what you said, something either is or isnt x
if we clearly define labor according to marx, then we know what labor is, and over half of society is slowly phasing out of the working class

medieval basket weaver WAS a working class man, but today basket weaving is no longer a socially necessary labor, industrial engineering can spin a hundred meters of fabric in a 5 square meter factory, and output a 100 baskets per hour, removing the medieval basket weavers out of the socially necessary labor and the modern working class

Labor was different every time mop changed. In a post scarcity society labor will mean something different as well even after labor "labor" is obsolete.

but resources ARENT unlimited yet
which makes them scarce
which makes their misuse and wasteful unresponsible spending an existential threat because those resources could have been put to a better use such as getting to socialism

Are you actually retarded?
Where did I ever imply they needed to be turned into geniuses? Why can you not imagine a world where not everyone is the same? It is possible to have smart people and stupid people living in the same world. It is possible to have smart people do smart people work while dumb people do dumb people work, or even no work at all. If society can run smoothly with the input of very little manual labour, then hurray, yes?

by your logic, why is it then impossible for the capitalists and the working class to live together? why even have any political opinions? why even want to do anything?

[citation needed]

What reason is there to believe "we" don't need "them", who exactly fits into which group when, and for what exact purposes? How would the effort of constantly discriminating against and disposing of people require less effort that the pittance of sustaining them, and would this even be effective rather than worsening the problem? What about the sentimental value of friends, family, retirees, etc., versus the psychological effects on society of becoming excessively callous and cruel?

I'm not saying differences don't matter, or even arguing against meritocracy (especially in specific contexts).

I'm urging you to think on the level of modern industrialized human civilization built upon specialized division of labor, as opposed to outmoded parables more suited to dumb primordial beasts of the field than men.

Attached: atlass.gif (790x416, 65.16K)

do you even hate capitalists? according to marx capitalists are bad because they are
1) useless
2) they take away from the working class
how is professional welfare class, or people performing socially unnecessary jobs any different???
the working class
the useless people, capitalists and unemployable, technologically/mathematically illiterate people who cant contribute anything to the modern workforce and economy, who do nothing useful, and who have no military capacity to defend themselves anyway because of how utterly useless they are in all spheres of work and life, people who are alive just because its illegal to kill them, people who slip through the cracks of this huge and inaccurate stereotype and generalization that "all life is sacred"

Capitalist vs worker is not comparable to smart vs stupid. Being smart does not mean you are a different class. Smart workers and dumb workers both benefit from the prosperity of the working class.
Lol what

do you use marx's definition of a worker? because in today's society, you cant be a worker if you are dumb, look up medieval basket weaver post i posted above

in todays economy, where specialized computers and machines do all of the dumb labor at a fraction of a cost of what the human body requires to perform that same labor, dumb workers are just a nuisance and an obstacle on the path towards socialism

Fucking lol. Look at this sheltered kid who never set foot in a factory.

No, though I hate most people that happen to be capitalists. Remember "the hell of capitalism is the firm, not the boss".

If capitalism ceases to be, capitalists will also vanish from existence, because unlike boring IdPol garbage, capitalists aren't an "identity". Capitalists are a class, an inherent consequence of the very structure of our economy.

Attached: material self-interest.png (441x523, 332.38K)

true, ive never seen a factory, but that is because i dont have money to travel to china, where all the factories in the world are
ive worked my fair share of construction jobs where i would just drive around combined construction machine which would mix all the cement with a perfect 3:1 fine sand/fraction to cement with just enough water for the mix not to be too crumbling but also not too much to be mushy, and then it would go into the vibrating chamber so the vibrations kick all the air pockets out because they are lighter than the concrete mix which would fall into their places during vibrations, and then pour the thing where i was supposed to
i could also bulldoze, flatten and dig out all the land that needed such things done to it

ive also worked a few mining jobs because there was opportunity near where i live, just like construction whole mine was worked by a single digit number of workers who basically just drove machines around or stared at the computer screens

oh they cause damage, believe me

they clog the emergency rooms in hospitals because all they do is overdose on drugs, they piss in the streets, they pick drunken fights at the supermarket with the cashiers because they dont have money to pay for what they want, they reach deep into the pockets of the working class through the tax system, and then welfare their way into another cycle of drugs, booze and general clogging of all the public spaces

yeah, hiring a death squads to get rid of all of them in a month, even with all the drone costs and whatnot, would be much cheaper over time than having them around for 60 or however long they live years

Look at it from another angle. The mythical "welfare leech", for instance, is not (in whatever number of genuine cases, if any) solely the result of Calvinist moral defects in character, but an inevitable side-effect of the welfare system existing.

If you don't have a welfare system, of course, it becomes impossible to protect people from fluctuations in the job market, employer abuse, debilitating or highly distracting events in their personal lives, periods of exhaustion or inspiration that require breaks from work necessary for many people to function at their peak, etc.

In this view, the costs of a "leech" is not an independent phenomenon, but an inherent and consciously accepted side-effect of an overall highly beneficial policy.

there is too much of what i call whataboutism in there, about welfare helping these people but not those people and 'what about this' and 'what if that' and so on

the facts are that these absolute leeches and parasites exist
the facts are that they hurt the working class
the facts are that they do no useful work, and are a deficit on the working class

in this way they are identical to the capitalists, so what if its their material interest to do such things? isnt it also our material interest to wipe them out? why does their material interest have a priority over our?

So wait, you're a dumb worker doing dumb labour claiming dumb workers don't exist and there's no dumb labour to be done?
I'm very confused

Precisely the opposite, it is systemic universalist thinking, rather than myopic particularism.
Because it isn't about "us" and "them", but about the entire system.

Welfare, including both the unavoidable bonus of supporting workers, and the unavoidable malus of potentially enabling leeches, is an overall beneficial system.

Capitalism, including the unavoidable malus of exploiting workers, and the other unavoidable malus of creating capitalists, is an overall harmful system.

you misunderstood

this job i did, while it is dumb, would just last century require a 100 people, one to shovel cement, another to shovel sand, another one to carry water, another one to pout it, etc
today a single mechanized worker does all this at the same time
same with mining: back in the day whole "mining towns" would spring out of nowhere when someone discovered a mine, today the equal amount of labor is done by 5 guys who mine the contents directly into a truck while sitting in the said mining machines

welfare class is mutually exclusive with the worker class, welfare hurts the honest workers who work for a living
same with people who are in debt yet alive: someone is bailing their ass out of starvation and that someone is the working class
same with these new trendy weird haircolor uselessness studies students who go 6 digits into debt to be useless, and then proceed to leech from the workers for all their food, shelter and medical needs without ever giving anything back in return

we have an ever increasingly tiny fraction of the population carrying much much bigger cancer population of non workers on their backs, both rich and poor non workers

Welfare is fundamentally required to prevent small, temporary disruptions from becoming large, permanent ones. Especially under a system such as capitalism that inherently requires the existence of a surplus army of labor (i.e.: unemployed)
And that someone is their own future self. Without debt and borrowing, entrepreneurship (the real kind) would be impossible without the patronage of angel investors, and civilization would've stagnated.
Who determines that? What about the responsibility of the universities and lenders for misleading these people into thinking it's a viable career? What about the responsibility of employers not training their own recruits?
[citation needed]

well stupid people are responsible for their own stupidity, if you remove all the moralisms from the equation you cant blame wolves for eating sheep, you cant really even blame sheep for being eaten by wolves
same when a art/linguistic university sells you a story that you will be employed #intellectual(tm) when you get one of their worthless degrees and you buy into it

and i do honestly believe that the ever increasingly small fraction of the population who are in the working class are carrying this much larger giant ball of cancer population on their backs of people who do not perform socially necessary labor in society, and while this includes lots of rich people it also includes lots of poor people

Nice moralism
Lul.

well who is responsible? materialistically its a closed system: you have a wolf and you have a sheep and that's it, there are no invisible floating judges passing judgement
so no one is 'held' responsible, you simply have the consequences, and i guess it is in the interest of the one suffering the consequences to not suffer the consequences, therefore you can argue the sufferer holds himself responsible for his suffering in that way

Just as your earlier deserted tropical island example, that's not how modern civilization works.

The situation is not a given, the system we live or suffer under is not "nature", let alone "human nature". It is something made by man, to be accepted, adjusted, or replaced by man.

Humanity are not animals, nor individuals. We are an entire artificial, consciously self-perpetuating ecosystem unto ourselves.

Why do you so desperately need a scapegoat? Why not make a structural analysis of society and change what leads to poor education and general stupidity? If we say it's herpy derpy wolves and sheep lol, then with the help of our smart human brains we figure out we should give the wolves meat so they don't eat the sheep.

yes, man created classes that do not perform socially beneficial work, and man can remove them too
i dont get why no one bats an eye when you want to shoot the rich parasites, but everyone goes full moral panic when you want to shoot the poor parasites as well
a parasite is a parasite, explain the double standard

and where do you find the said meat? there is no lunch in the animal kingdom unless you murder something first
i think you have this weird nonsensical rosy picture of reality without any consideration of the costs of anything, you think you can just pull solutions out of your ass and that these solutions will be free
well in the real world these "free" solutions of yours such as 'just give meat lul' might be more costly than the problem you had in the first place, something you'll figure out when you grow up a little probably

Luckily we don't live in the animal kingdom, so I can say we get the meat from farms.
The poor parasite is a poor parasite because the capitalist doesn't want to employ him. If you want to kill whoever the capitalist doesn't need, then go suck that porky dick real hard.
For me, a person who writes a piece of music and puts it up for free is far more valuable than someone who mixes cement for a skyscraper for porky. Judging people by their ability to accumulate capital is pure capitalist ideology.

Because systems free of opportunities to amass and abuse excessive amounts of power, while also being at least as efficient at sorting through scarcity as capitalism, have been proposed in IMHO plausible outlines. Also, the evils of capitalism greatly harm all people all the time.

Systems that would eliminate crime, shirking, and other noisome or antisocial misbehaviors and character flaws haven't been strongly and coherently described. And such ills mostly just effect a small number of people on an individual basis occasionally.

Also, we don't "want to shoot" anyone on a permanent basis, beyond temporary violence needed to change the system if and when it is stubborn.

Who are almost all temporarily in that position, mostly resulting from failings in capitalism.

Good one.

Look at the Democratic Party in the United States. It’s a reactionary mess that uses identity politics to push unfettered capitalism. It is literally the party of middle class women.

More than half of the worlds women do not wear makeup
Though capitalism is making it more widely available to more and more people, I still say more than half of them don’t wear it at all or only semi regularly

Source? It would seem like it's a Eurasian concept then.

Deductive reasoning. Or do you not count old women, poor and working poor women as women?

But that's not how it works.
Old women can wear make up.
Depends. Even then some might, the one's that can afford to at least.
Depends but my mother and multiple other women who were still working over 50 wore make up to work even if it was a shitty manual labor job that ended up being the death of them. Deductive reasoning can't apply to broad categories because most women are working women regardless of the job.

Attached: (u).png (916x910, 47.47K)

Why are first world males so useless?

Attached: 28127ecc1db3cd61b5bcdc8b29b603a5d43a5429.jpg (1252x560, 369.78K)

No it's a sign of sexism. Just sexism. Learn what the fuck words mean.

Okay, and male chauvinism. But not "misogyny".