But it is not true that a socialist revolution necessarily establishes sexual equality...

why do you still believe in utopian class reductionism where gender equality magically happens once capitalism gets overthrown, when history has shown otherwise. not very materialist of you, comrades

Attached: a02d6ced1bb4bb2210a8a812980b2c62.jpg (340x510, 34.98K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pzQZ_NDEzVo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Only a retard would believe this. A society emerging from capitalism, especially immediately afterwards, will bear many of the flaws of capitalism

Except Soviet women worked prole jobs and participated in the government on a scale unprecedented anywhere else, even today. Yes, there was no instant destruction of all gender barriers but the October Revolution liberated women MASSIVELY.

Well, she isn't wrong here at least. Unfortunately.

Lenin said they weren't ready to overthrow capitalism yet.

When was this quote, OP? (not the one in the pic; which I can only half agree with)

Attached: wings.png (1198x900, 256.67K)

I think it's the dwindling ex-gamergate population on this board that is 100% class reductionist.
Almost nobody here posits socialism as a silver bullet, but it's without a doubt the biggest bullet, and you can/should be suspicious of anybody who tells you that it isn't.

And both Russia and China were huge for women.

Attached: 566db2a50a67886c75217808776ec4b838e54eccc079059ec31cb5e89384716c.png (500x340, 330.54K)

Base superstructure blah blah.
As the economic makeup of society shifts so too will the culture of that society.
Why would a society based upon meritocratic principles exclude women for no fucking reason?

Nobody gives a shit about gamergate.

Attached: Laugh_Color.png (480x480, 106.77K)

Certainly better than tsarist times but women never had much power in government or industry or in the home. Only 4 women ever made it to the politburo. Hell they even gave out medals for having lots of children.

No one believes that anymore, I'm not aware of anyone who ever did. Emma Goldman thought the USSR was trash after she got deported there.

Rojava has good gender politics from what I know

She's talking about who led "the proletariat" in those countries and how its depicted (always a man swinging a hammer instead of a woman sewing). The proletariat has always been majority female in every country.

That’s not even fucking true tho, like the USSR and other socialist states did have some sexism issues, but only very slightly when compared to their capitalist counterparts.
But like the stereotypical representative of the working class was always that buff guy with a hammer next to a big woman with a bag of bread or oats, sometimes some agricultural tool. Sometimes it was even the man holding a hammer up while the woman held up a sickle. Which I think is a very interesting symbolism, that both men and women wielded the phallus.

Some could argue that authoritarian-socialism is as much an oxymoron as anarcho-capitalism.

But at least you guys keep insisting it's a phase that must be slogged through.


Which is why I'd like to know when she said it. She may have changed her mind. Her and JP supported Castro, yet he didn't address mistreatment of homosexuals till like 1979 I believe.

Attached: 0.jpg (480x360, 16.06K)

no.

Attached: friedrich-engels-revolution-is-certainly-the-most-authoritarian-thing-quote-on-storemypic-220d4.png (600x600, 44.82K)

Tbh the "anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron" is mostly an anarchist meme. For Marxists it's no surprise that such an inconsistent tradition as anarchism would have such a retarded offspring.

I've never read Beauvoir before, but thanks for clearing it for me beyond doubt: she is irredeemably retarded.

what a load of dismissive ignorant bullshit
the soviet revolution was largely carried on the shoulders of women and they gained all the same rights
what a shitcunt

ummmmm sweatie ur wrong

Is there anything worth reading from Beauvoir?

ummmm sweetie, you are retarded

Not surprised.


It's an offspring of the liberals. A rebranding term for their "free market" drivel.
Just remember, ML are capitalists.


He must be referring to all those anarchists they had to execute after they helped them defeat the Whites and the invasion.


The Second Sex is a fine book.

My point, basically.
Yeah, man, like, capitalism without a capitalist class is a thing, bro.

Attached: the beautiful soul.png (790x492, 720.6K)

ah yes, the ideology that fought against capitalism and inspired revolutions in every single continent, and was constantly being targeted by the U.S. and basically every single capitalist country from it's conception were the real capitalists all along.
truly 4D chess at it's finest.

Attached: 3b95625f0e7bbe3243e4e3a79960c663.png (262x894, 49.35K)

read Engels

Libertarian-socialist want no state and no capital.
Breath fire all you want about it not being tenable, but don't tell me I'm a capitalist, you ruble smoking twit.


State-authoritarian centralized capitalism.
"Socialism" by way of a word game.
I'd link something, but I suppose you hate Richard Wolff Sleeps

Attached: We exist.png (500x377, 289.56K)

I forgot to add. No suggestions from Anarcholib Butterfly user, please.

You're by far the most offensively shitty poster here. At least brainletitude is expected from nazis, and they're amusing sometimes. But you spend 24/7 on this board shitposting about le ebil M-Ls, you are always surrounded by leftist theory, yet your posts betray such an abyss of willful ignorance that it boggles the mind. You are a caricature of M-L dogmatism flipped on its head. "I haven't read Lenin, but I condemn him all the same". For your own sake, I hope you are either very young or a dedicated troll trying to discredit anarchism.

capitalist countries get coalition-raped too.

Stop replying to the butterfly retard.

t. misogynists

This board always put a direct focus on class and woman being granted equal rights and opportunity to work is literally the most you can give any person in a socialist society. What is missing outside of that?

This is something we mock liberals for, in what way is this socialist?

Which text are you referring to?

He should have been given a "cool off a little, kid" ban months ago.

Sex based distinction and discrimination obviously predates and will endure beyond capitalism.

What does that have to do with anything?

A movement in any other direction than natural law will lead to a never ending number of women getting mentally destroyed, raped and killed. Always.

Feminism is when women don't have children

I doubt. I know too many of his kind (adults, for fucks sake). A generation of misfits grew up in individualistic subcultures that congregated around lowest common denominators like
- not reading
- drugs
- various consumer choices (fashion, music, eating)
- social ineptitude
- lack of critical skills
- accepting cold war era propaganda at face value
- "social" media
- willful infantilization
- (need I go on)

Now as the crises of capitalism become more frequent and severe they emerge from their lairs as the dysfunctional and broken monsters they are, and bestow upon us their wisdom of yonder: "like, fuck lenin, bro."

Attached: dorno_n_wife.jpg (995x1200, 457.81K)

Anti-Duhring

which part?

you gotta stop focusing on means rather than ends, maybe seizing the state is gonna lead to authoritarianism or eventual liberal reforms but what is opening another chapter of food not bombs or minor property damage gonna do? I always though anarchism was the only way because people can't be trusted to be benevolent but I'd rather risk that than wait until basically everyone on the planet agrees with us

Music existed long before capitalism and consumer culture.

So did eating. Yet these things have been commodified and marketed as lifestyle choices. What a meaningless statement

Gender equality =/= capital equality.

Though you can argue that capital of women should be equal to men, I would agree if they would perform the same labor as men. Often women chose to do part time work to spend time with kids. This isn't patriarchy it's just that mothers are more naturally inclined to do this than men in human societies.

Though you can twist this in a way that the state would take care of the kids and thus the parents would be useless in parenting. This is to ensure state values come before individual values. Then indeed men and women would be on more or less equal footing. That is of course if internal bias would disappear. Men are just more likely to take risks (increased testosterone), and therefore will naturally be more prone in leadership positions including a revolution.

Not surprised
I'm ignorant of the brain-rot cult of MLism, and judge it harshly because 1. I have see the results, and 2. none of you have done a thing to salvage it. It is a collectivist nightmare with aspirations to Zamyatin's We. The complete opposite of the goals of the revolution.


I was born into a Christian-conservative household, a quiet and dumbly dutiful closeted lesbian girl. I considered myself a "progressive for about eight years of my life but have been a Chomsky level reformist anarchist up until early 2016. I'm shopping around for stronger stuff, but not ML free-will believing revenge with a global return to medieval juche.
You need to back the fuck up.


I'm weary of the reactionary, but we cannot get the majority to go along with this 19th century plan. We need to fill in the collapsing economy as it happens, arrange for whole communities to become dependent on themselves and neighboring communities. We have to be far more attractive than the DC/pentagon, oligarchy, "deep state" whatever. Resist them, drain them of their power but not replace them, not with a traditional centralized power "vanguard" which will only breed more pawns of them.
Just what I'm thinking these days. Bottom line is that the masses need to be inspired to emancipate themselves and replace all the previous status quo states. Of course we can do Not sure if we have enough time left anymore


Who buys music anymore?

shoo shoo liberal

Biggest cringe of the week so far

and simulatenously repress any desire to rise above another, these communities are chock full of racists, misogynists and self-serving misanthropes.
If the 20th century has taught us anything its that socialism will not emerge organically, it must be imposed. We can't wait for collapse.
I quite recently gave up on anarchism, I think that the ☭TANKIE☭ line that its a bourgeois utopian socialist deviation is pretty accurate. It can only be adopted by people who are willing to wait indefinetly for the revolution.

youtube.com/watch?v=pzQZ_NDEzVo (9m)

Egalitarians btfo

Wow user, you fell for the first trap of neoliberal justification of capitalism. Everything that happens is cause people voluntarily choose to :)

If you can't deliver the revolution, the people are going to resist it and the bloodbath you dimwits crave will lead to nothing else but the strengthening the neoliberals as we march into the climate disaster.
So by retaining power structures you invite them all in. I mean they will join you if you were to gain power you know? They'll join the neolibs if they gain power. See the problem yet?
The anarchist model of challenging all unjustifiable hierarchies leaves the worst of them cold. Spot them and fire away till they're the tiniest minority. Yes, you get people peace, freedom, prosperity, –food, a roof over their heads, decent healthcare, and a sense of community, you will convert the majority. This isn't utopian. The following generations can work on that.

jesus christ lads stop wasting your time

Not if you fundamentally exclude and exterminate them on principle. The problem with historical and contemporary marxist and anarchist organizations is that they don't have any moral and legal theory and consequently don't have any quality control and allow (indeed appeal to) the worst kind of scum because of lack of standards.

But you need a justifiable hierarchy to take down unjustifiable hierarchies by defeating those who wish to maintain them or restore them.

You need a paramilitary with a chain of command to achieve that.

People like you, who are wary of power in the hands of the average person and who don't wish to have power themselves are the ones who ought to have power.
Also do yourself a favor and leave this reactionary shithole and never come back. There is nothing for you to learn here except for the fact that pure orthodox marxism is a trash ideology that attracts even more trash people who don't even understand their own ideology. Trust me.

what, like they resist now?

who holds power does make a difference, the soviet union didn't function the same as china and definetly didn't function the same as the US

alright, pol pot, calm down. But how are you going to achieve this? endless war against everyone who isn't an anarchist? is that a battle you can win?

how are you achieve this? How are you going to provide health care before you converted the doctors and nurses? how are you going to create a sense of community amongst people who are yet to be on board?

What does the emancipation of women mean to de Beauvoir?

we got a new worst poster, everyone

shitty blogposter

How am I "normal" and you "abnormal"? Is this even a good thing?


But they're both pro-nation-state and authoritarian.
Anarchist moral and legal theory is liquid and highly adaptable. The thug who fights with the fascists till his side is losing will not gain any more power than anyone else if he were to join the anarchists. Whereas if he were to join the ranks of some authoritarian-socialists he could become general secretary.
The worst kind of scum is safer in anarchist arms. The vetting process, as intermittent as it is/would be, won't allow him to do too much harm.
Easily enough done. Hierarchies, like class, are amorphous, but we have two basic levels. The teacher and the student, the parent and the child, the expert and the novice.
Bookchin/Rojava comes to mind
I feel you.

Yeah. The liberals will convince them easily enough, even in the midst of a huge depression and ecological disaster, they'll make some moves to fix this, clean that, and they point to the communist terrorists and everyone will run back to them.
Hand the power, ever-growing, over to the masses. Being careful to make it clear that we as a species have to pull this weight together, and it will inspire millions.
I'm not eager for violence, no one has the stomach for it, but I expect it.
>How are you going to achieve this?
I personally don't care what it's called in the end. Just as long as the masses become self-governed and decentralized, and abandon money and most if not all laws. It's a huge task, but I feel the time is coming and we'll only have one shot at it.
A shared economy. One town at a time? One aspect (free dental?) at a time? Get everyone "of the grid" and start growing our own food, divest from the banks into credit unions (till the dollar is worthless) for a start. Can you think of anything else?

As someone who has been away for a long time and has gone over the catalog of the last few weeks I have to say this butterfly tripfaggot is a gigantic cumsock illiterate who is incoherent to the point of changing their meme flag every other week.

Just fuck off to a reading thread for a couple of weeks, reading your shit is fucking intolerable.

this is utterly delusional, you've only furthered my conviction that anarchism is useless as an emancipatory ideology

On leftpol I have a Stirner head. I'm not changing flags. You're changing boards.
How was prison?


An even more useless post.


Socialism for women.
Been a while since I read the Second Sex.
I'm still wondering when this quote was made.

I mean, yeah, if you want to build a socialist society, you have to avoid getting curbstomped by counterrevolutionary forces with the full power of their respective states behind them.

Just read some fucking books and stop making 8left miserable.
Read up on the dissolution of the First Internationale, Lenin, and Why Bakunin Is A Faggot.

Why do liberals exist?

and what the fuck is that

It means "Not only will I not read the plethora of books spammed at me but I won't watch the under ten minutes video I was told to watch because I'm a dyke from a conservative family in North America therefore it's my fate to completely fucking destroy this board with my insufferable bullshit, also I post on SA"

you really are new

Attached: 3711B40F-9D32-409A-A2B5-9BA0EC241284.png (250x293, 50.65K)

Than do that without resorting to authoritarian states. I think we can do it.


And you read some Stirner and Bookchin and learn why you're a faggot.


Fascist oaf.


It's different from place to place.
So you're an autistic incel and you think I'm a "Stacy" boomer, is that it?

Attached: Sloshed at night club.png (765x568, 566.49K)

the fuck

**I'm a woman. And "Gen-X"
**

ok who fucking cares i never said you were a stacy boomer gen x or whatever you're trying to make a point of

––>

Ok

Attached: d1b7e84c5981e1fe0aa6c00067a31e615d60815b.png (780x1200, 760.06K)

Your pretty damn old for someone old acts like a teenager.

yeah, did i call you a "stacy boomer"? no, i called you a normalfag.
because you are one.

FML

Seriously though, why do you keep recommending bookchin? He's one of the worst "anarchists" out there. He's basically a liberal.

because butterfly is a liberal

He was a ☭TANKIE☭ turned anarchist, turned back towards ML and came up with the next chapter. A socialism that more fits the century we're in.
Why are you still stuck in the 19th century? As embarrassing as being a Mormon.


I want to live in a world without money or states, and you would live in one with them both. You're more liberal than I.

"Class reductionism" is a useless and purposely ambiguous critique that is redolent of idealism, a critique against a position that we are supposed to believe someone at some point believed. It's a strawman to attack historical materialism without saying that you're attacking historical materialism.

strawman
i want to live in a world without both of these, but unlike you i understand the necessity of a transitionary period.
you are the liberal because your idea of socialism is nothing more than "brooo kill the beast inside of you mannnn just get rid of the state its that simple everything will immediately become communism"
you don't actually care about revolution, since your whole ideology is dooming the working class.

You need to move on.

Attached: You tryna collectivise me?.jpg (385x640, 45.5K)

He's literally a class collaborationist; not to mention everything decent that he has to say has already been said by other theorists - mostly in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

As for contemporary theorists - Paul Cockshott is a million times more relevant.

Private property is a PRE-REQUISITE for male domination.
In order to prove that socialist societies where patriarchal, either you have to give evidence of private property existing within socialist societies, or you have to refute my thesis.

literally just making assumptions about me

Is this a shitpost? If it is, does it really count as a shitpost, since so many people actually believe this?
Anyways, the more I come on here, the more clear it is how much work there is to be done. Even the Socialists (they are on the internet, to have some perspective) do not know what they are talking about. Socialist education is so far in the gutters that we are all stuck here, educating ourselves in our free time, and then, at every turn, a failing student comes to us, insisting their way is the true solution. We are in a bad way.
Firstly, the expectations of Simone here are so ridiculously, disgutingly liberal. You have a literal empire, ruled over by a collection of autocratic Tsars. You have a famine in the 1890s that kills a littles less than half a million people, and then in World War 1, another 1.7 million Russians die. It isnt a good time, and they live in a ridiculously authoritarian nation. But, of course, the great shame here are the women's rights, right? The literal autocracy is just a little class reductionist bump in the face of the patriarchy, right? You know all those prasant women were just chafing at all of the LIMITLESS peasant opportunities blocked off to them.
I just cant imagine how liberals picture the revolution. Do you really think most women even wanted equality? Equality for what, even? The voting they can't do? The voting for a bourgeois democracy that most of us dont believe works?
There are no conditions for women's liberation that make sense in the slightest!
Furthermore, so what if the class struggle doesnt immediately liberate women? Like I already covered, the conditions for it are in the shit, and the "class struggle" (I am starting to hate that fucking phrase) is just opening the conditions for women's liberation, which came about LARGELY because of industrialization and the reordering of societies along Capitalist/Socialist lines. The advent of Capitalism and Socialism has, undoubtedly given women equality. Machinery is more accessible to physically weaker people. The large amount of labor, and the need for "specialized" (I use quotes because it is sort of ironic to me) labor for the markets gave every incentive for women to leave the house and work.

But, I am going to depart from all this and rant now. I am tired, and it is late. I no longer have the time to spend on ordering an argument.
I hate the liberal image of the Societ Union. When Simone bemoans the revolution as a failure, she is a liberal ally. When Simone simplifies the revolution as as "the class struggle" vs "the sex struggle", she is a liberal ally. When Simone says these things, and repeats any number of things from the infinitely deep repetoire of anti-Socialist "socialist" comments, she is doing God's work for the liberals. This is mainly because of the implications of what she is saying. She is saying that revolution should be ignored in favor of the "sex struggle". She is making the stupidly blind liberal comment that the Societ Union just is not good enough for her. But if you asked her, Capitalism is not good enough for her either. (It shouldnt be). How can she do this? How can she spit in the eyes of all systems that look upon her as unworthy? It is because, to the infintely wise "Socialist", materialistic history does not exist. The Soviet Union could have been anything. It could have been a paradise. It has failed in doing so, not because of its history, but because of the failure of some idealistic notion (in the philosphical and common sense) to come to pass.
.

In the flip side of this sort of genesis, come-from-nothing belief, where anything can transform into anything, you have the most disgutingly unclean, unsaid, and unseen trick of the infinitely wise "socialists", of which Simone is definitely a part of. This trick is that it is now the Capitlaist countries who will come in at the last hour to save the "socialist" cause. The (insert revolution) has failed in its metamorphosis. Everything was not done right enough or fast enough for their tastes. Who now, will carry the torch of womens liberation? What now, shall the women do? What now, shall the infinitely wise "socialists" do? They are going to throw their lot in with the "only" "acceptable" parties left, the Capitalist nations. Paradoxically, every time a revolution happens, these "socialists" find every single fault in it, and then, seeing every fault reflected back at them in a Capitalist nation, flee headlong into it, because this one they will fix. This is the society they will change. They are idealists and utopians, and every word from their lips calls to abandon a "failed" revolution so they can start the "real" revolution in a Capitlaist country. This is that unseen force that covers all "socialists". It is what glues them together into polite society, wherein they can endlessly perpetuate Capitalism through an endless Socialist infertility.
This infertility is hardwired into "socialist" beliefs, because they do not understand the reality of things, and they can not change the reality of things. People like Simone and the liberals on this board are among the chief enemies of Socialism.

Real proletarian culture is sexist.

how are we supposed prepare them? zines and graffiti? maybe step things up with some ritual property damage? that'll inspire the masses