Dat self-proclaimed "communist" dude who has an obsessive ideological fixation on feminism

How is this not condescending as shit?

There’s also this shit about renouncing the patriarchy or whatever, but yeah, I find the whole thing highly disingenuous when it’s coming from a man who isn’t a self-loathing flagellant.

I hope you're not saying that's a problem

I’m saying that a man would need to be that way to genuinely hold those views.

It literally is

stupid people of color I fucking hate their tiny baboon brains so much

fucking apes go back to the jungles where you belong so you can listen to reggaton music

Attached: i googled captain hook reaction image.png (174x188, 38.35K)

I know each and every one of those… things.

bonus:

at least use a shitposting flag if you're gonna shitpost

Lmao my reading comprehension is bad

Attached: wutwutwut.gif (460x258, 2.19M)

While reading through the comments in this thread I was sure I was on leftpol with the dumb stirner anarkids.

I find the whole thing highly disingenuous when it’s coming from a man who isn’t a self-loathing flagellant.
So if you bring up the patriarchy as a self flagelating dumb fuck, then it's totally okay? But if you recognize your male privilege and just work from there without thinking less of yourself for it, then you're a dishonest feminist probably trying to rape women?
Fuck this board so much.

Such as?

Proclaiming you are a communist when you don’t know what communism is should be a hanging offence

i managed to end up in a photo of a bunch of pimpled urbanite marxists doing that, i feel like a fool

please lad, you could have worded it any other way. Also I'm not sure you've interacted with the kind of people that poster was talking about, they're very far from what we'd agree is reasonable with regards to talking about how gender operates under capitalism. These guys are those who will use all the rhetoric of the former self-flagellating types in an effort to ingratiate themselves with various women whilst not really holding those positions. At least the ones who actually hate themselves are honest is what that poster was saying, so it isn't as insulting & misogynist when they metaphorically castrate themselves for their "sins".

It's a like a cooking! A little bitta this a, a little bitta that a!

Attached: images.jpeg (226x223, 9.03K)

fuck people of color

Where's boonposter when you need him, this faggot is an amateur smh

you sure triggered the libs epic style

I think "privilege" as a framework for evaluating the world is replete with self-loathing for many leftists, much like original sin is when taken seriously. When it isn't self-loathing, it's ressentiment, which is just as unproductive and vicious. That isn't even to mention that it's idealist.

what's it like having a skin tone darker than the turds that come out of you

I wouldn't know, why don't you enlighten us?

Yeah ok mutt

Such as being able to whip out your dick at a party and do the helicopter.
Yeah I havn't, which is why it bothers me even more that feminists are all thrown under this umbrella.
And here you go again, they are actually 'honest' about it, while us feminists who don't tear up everytime we mention the patriarchy, are just posers.

Aaaaand once more, it's either this or that, SOMETHING has to be wrong with those feminists, becasue it just HAS TO!

Attached: feminist on leftypol.webm (720x720, 984.96K)

Oops.

It literally doesn't exist.

When one disagrees, one typically explains the source of the disagreement, one reason being practical, the other theoretical in this case. This shouldn't be a new concept. Ignoring the practical considerations, "idealist" is hardly equivalent to "because it just has to."

You didn't even explain why it was this or that, how am I supposed to refute it without guessing what your thought process was? You sound kind of like Jordan Peterson, throwing around bad sounding words next to the word you want to connect to bad feelings and then just hope it sticks.
Igoring your vague comment about feminists all being bad people who just hate the cis white man, how is feminism "idealist"? Do you have any idea what that word means?

By asking, or by realizing that it was idealist on your own.

I didn't say that.

I didn't say that either. I said that privilege as a framework is idealist. It has no connection to historical materialism, or any dialectical framework of development for that matter. Privilege theory uses an idea of oppression with no fundamental connection to class struggle.

If you did, you wouldn't be valorizing the idea of "privilege" in the first place.

it does, but the oligarchy liberal feminists want wouldn't be much better

I'm LITERALLY not the same poster what the fuck are you talking about "here you go again", I was explaining what the other guy meant, his point was saying that both of those specific groups are retarded but at least one group believes it whilst the other group is cynically employing it to get laid, both are actually relatively fringe. You have a persecution complex.

I was talking about men who politically identify as women because of misandrist essentialism.

A lot of privileges still hang around from times where women and blacks, for instance, were literally bought and sold as commodities. They were expected to be submissive to the men and whites, respectively, and these social dynamics don't just go away because the economic foundation for them went away (which they havn't even entirely, women are still expected to give legitimate birth in order for inheritance to pass properly, blacks and other minorities still recieve less pay because their socioeconomic situation forces them to sell their labour at lower price), but continue to exist unless they are progressive for capitalism (women and children in the work force, which is a good thing).
What feminism and anti racism really is, is a fight against feudal remnants lingering in capitalist society.
We need to universalize the proletariat as much as we can; by giving the workers equal conditions under capitalism, we give them equal economic incentive to further the proletariat's class interests. If women or anyone else feel like second class citizens within the proletariat, their class consciousness will be muddied.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. All essencialists can obviously go suck a dick.

Dunno about most but they're common for a few reasons.

White women were never bought and sold lol

...

...

Attached: 4a3a3628d74f1c3b6cef695fe2831aab4062f1a662151b5b782174b49e0a4f49.png (545x481, 416.63K)

Stop abusing that flag.

I see nothing wrong with the first three tbh

I agree. Comrades are hating because they think you're espousing liberal idpol, but you make valid points.

It's what capitalism already completed 95% without your pathetic attempts at "helping" it and it will finish its job without needing you since it is propelled by its own systemic reasons and not by your moralistic/progressive delusions.

American young adults unironically believe in the ridiculous neoconservative straw man of communism that is prevalent in their culture.

Except that's not true at all. Feminism and antiracism are the superstructure created by the capitalist base. Attacking them is as fruitless as you claim their own crusade is.

Worked with this guy as a janitor for 2 years, and he was probably the worst part about it, I'm pretty sure his definition of communism is not having to go to work and being able to listen to street fight radio all day..

Attached: 1460894974250.jpg (255x233, 12.25K)

Camoon now if you have ever interacted with any serious leftist group you have done this at some point. Its not even that cringy IRL, it only gets akward after some "comrade" decides to make that picture public in FB.

Attached: 1288759336023[1].jpg (978x549, 40.34K)

Guess how I know your the poster from here?

Attached: 50c903f075a8caf3b8bf8ea3492c79d17e1d69ad16284d8cb7d7eb4bb14eec9f.png (1052x1251, 1.09M)

I'm not, but I agree with him.

How does it feel, Op, when that person is right here?

Perhaps in the first world yeah, but take a look at the Middle East, Africa, and such. Places where reactionary cultural values are encouraged by the seemingly more progressive, industrialized and imperalistic nations of the West. The British greatly respected the Hindu caste system under colonialization and did nothing to dismantle it. The champion of the free world America did nothing to criticize the Saudi regime and emboldens it. The French overthrew Sankara by promising power for the elite tribal leaders of Burkina Faso and a return to reactionary tribal relations. The transfusion of revolutionary bourgeois ideals occurred during the colonial process, but the point I am trying to make is that we know there a certain point where capital ceases its progressive nature in favor of its duplication. In that situation, are these cases not to be addressed? Pointedly so in accordance to the specific material conditions to resonate to those suffering under these conditions? It's not so much that feminism and anti-racism are separate conflicts, but rather by-products of the class struggle. user might not have meant it that way, but the point is there nonetheless.

There are thousands of "that persons" out there. There's nothing special about you, or you recognizing yourself in that image. Your pathology appearing to you masked as perverted pride and sense of moral superiority is what really makes you a disgusting monster, incompatible with communist circles.

Also, is this true?

Nice stripping of them of their agency.

I don't agree to this characterization. I'd rather say that there's an inbuilt limit to capital's progressive potential, that being the abstract market entity, the consumer, the boss, the alienated worker. From feudalism's direct domination and preordained roles to the market's abstract universalism and endless renegotiation of one's identity.

Therefore I find your notion that capital "duplicates" feudalism's nature historically inaccurate and incorrect (and theoretically being so laughably simplistic as pulling out a big "good bad" scale).

They can just as easily be (and one could argue that today predominantly are) a reaction against class struggle. This is the problem with your aforementioned "good bad" scale: from what perspective? Is modern feminism progressive from the POV of bourgeois democracy? Sure, that is, if you want to maintain it, to side with one flavor of capital against another flavor of capital.

Just please don't pretend that it has anything to do with class struggle, okay? "Socialist feminism" – an extinct species – never in its history held that you can have substantial or meaningful change for women under capitalism, never considered reformist fights proper fights, and it never bogged itself down to that infantile mess your kind holds as feminist praxis.

Privileges don't "hang around" in the air or exist simply; they're supported by the base, and even then the advantages only activate within certain situations within capitalism, often more in aggregate and most heavily weighing upon the poor (mixing thereby with the effects of poverty), while privilege theory is sloppy with evaluating "advantage" and "disadvantage," and as ideology benefits not those poor but mainly those who are already relatively well-off. Those for whom the effects of economic deprivation are the most intensely felt still feel those effects because the fundamental problem of impoverishment has had little connection to the "fight" made in their name.

Idealism, or, rather, an excuse for it.

It isn't, unless you're supposing that the Greek city-states were feudal as well. Disconnected from Marxism, it's a fight in the ideal against something regarded as "transhistorical," with little connection to any material basis. Battling against abstract, metaphysical phenomena is impossible, thus tending identitarianism toward forms of capitalist realism.

This isn't necessarily true. It depends both on which groups you're benefiting and how you do so. If this "equality" isn't equally distributed, benefiting mainly the petit-bourgeoisie and intellectuals for example, it only serves to intensify struggles along identitarian lines.

A dowry isn't the same as being "bought and sold".

Especially not as he says, "as commodity."

I didn't say that. I'd said that historically bourgeois, imperialist countries ENCOURAGES it and allies itself to reactionary vestiges of the area's past reason being it's easier to assert their hegemony that way. I never assumed that there wasn't reactionary values in those places beforehand. I wasn't clear about that so I suppose my bad.

You say that you disagree, but I find no difference in our position. You misunderstand. I didn't mean that the vestiges of feudalism are duplicated by capital, but rather at a certain point, capital ceases it's progressive effects in its mechanics to duplicate itself. This means reactionary bygones of feudal relations often times coincide or coexist with bourgeois society. Like I said in my previous post, the Middle East, and Africa are the most prominent examples.

There is nothing that I said that deviated from the analysis of socialist feminists anyhow. Only thing I advocated is the understanding that we must tie these struggles against false consciousness (anti-racism) and reactionary feudal relations (feminism) into our praxis in order draw in those affected by such. To do so with a materialist lense is a given, it just seems to me that often times comrades like you and others on this board who rightfully speak out against liberal idpol also lose sight of the pragmatic potential in addressing these issues from a Marxist perspective and letting bourgeois idealogues dictate mainstream discussion about it.

this is up here with a first world person saying they're a maoist; it literally makes no sense. its a meaningless statement.

So what are you, a Western feminist, actually "fighting?"

it's much less cringe when the elbow isn't bet.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (300x200 749.67 KB, 150.99K)

*bent