The dysfunctional state of relationships...

communal upbringing implies even less freedom, since you will have to be an upstanding adult to multiple children in your care if you actually give a damn, no?

no, you dumb ass

Plus, if you have to take care of multiple kids you'll need the maturity to deal with all their antics, insecurities and other kid things, and this will all be service you need to do (since it is a communal upbringing and you will need to put in your contribution in this aspect) and not something you can opt out of (in comparison to parental upbringing), so in a way there is even less freedom

communal parenting just multiplies the parents to fit however many adults are in the community

did your parents drop you on your head when you were young or what

2852714 isnt me lol

whats wrong big guy

Japan blows the fuck out of every non-class based talking point on relationships. They're a conservative society that frowns on sex and has a low divorce rate, and yet none of them are fucking or having kids. In fact, it's worse there than anywhere! What Japan has in common with the West is late-stage capitalism. The relationship problems we see today are solely from capitalism, not from the sexual revolution or feminism or no-fault divorce or porn or any of the bullshit spooks get trotted out to avoid this fact.

Japan still has a dating market, most people are holding back on having kids to fulfill their careers, ambitions and dreams etc. And they still have market-based expectations of their partners

the sexual revolution and feminist movement occurred in capitalist societies, and has no problems cooperating with capitalism: see pushing women to be ceos, bosses, managers, employees that pursue the growth of capital in potentially very imperialistic means like raytheon, lockheed martin etc.

my problem is that the sexual revolution and feminism has become okay with the market, so as long as they are also the consumer, women and men are being led into a future where both of them are considered mere products on a tinder list to be rated and exchanged, and yet somehow this is considered 'progressive'

Under such a free sexual market that leftypol seems to be okay with, people that inherited enough looks and attractiveness could effectively coast through life no differently from a capitalist system, with little contributions at all to society.

The plain proletarian janes and joes would be objects to be toyed with by the attractive partners they desire, such a system would allow for arguably useless or even reactionary people to continue to exist so as long as they remained attractive enough for the average prole.

your brain is leaking out of your nose

please tell me, why would people in a socialist society not end up being biased towards some people out of very reactionary reasons (beauty, fame, charisma and status), and that such a development is something leftypol is ok with?

Explain why people would be more baised towards these things than they are now.

1. Beauty is defined by the ruling class. Proletarian beauty will likely be quite average and attainable, rather than the beauty standards of today.
2. Fame is a factor of unequal distribution of communication - some people get heard and others don't. Proletarian fame, too, will likely be quite average and attainable.
3. Charisma, once separated from beauty and fame, is a learned skill. The ability to speak, tell jokes, sing ect. are things you can learn - and you'll have the free time to do say. All I can say is git gud.
4. Status, as much as possible, will be abolished. Certainly there will be some people who try to leverage "oh my father was president of the such-and-such committee" but in a proletarian society that won't really be respected.
Any questions?

I suspect such a proletarian society would probably receive alot of accusations of sexism, since you would need to contain reactionary beliefs of 'beauty standards' that both men and women believe they deserve in the current capitalist system

I'm not implying they'd be more biased, but rather that this bias would still exist unless a new proletarian culture is enforced, and this enforcement runs in conflict with the whole sexual-revolution/free sexual market

The sexual free market needs to be regulated.

Except those reactionary beliefs are imposed upon us by the ruling class. It wasn't us who created the beauty standards. It was Hollywood, it was the fashion industry, and it was pornography - things we had no say in creating. It's not like I'm proposing the creation of something by the socialist state. Just remove capitalist propaganda and proletarian beauty standards would assert themselves naturally.

Fair enough, but the removal of such entities likely would attract alot of ire from the kind of feminists that support Hillary clinton

lurk more tbqh

Lol it's the retard from the locked thread back again. Strange how you're now posting bait despite pretending not to be a shitposter before. It's almost like you don't want to actually engage in discourse. Big thonk.

This is literally only a problem with the "nuclear family" which is one of the worst forms of familial development possible.

its actually the logical conclusion with the development of mass produced houses

low-density suburbs, specifically
mass produced high-density housing wouldn't have done this

Feminism is a spook.

Liberal feminism has so thoroughly infected the US that hard raw facts about the state of young males is now seen as controversial and people are doing everything they can do blame it on men themselves.

I've seen everything from "It's the video games doing this" to "It's toxic masculinity" to explain the massive rise in sexless, poor and socially isolated young males.

*Abolished. Workers and their production will be part of the planned economy.
t. feminazi
The superstructure determines the fashion of the week and some minor nuances. People however inherently know how to recognize beauty, across ages, sexes, ethnicities and cultures. Even babies spend looking at faces longer that are considered attractive by adults.

Attached: ray-the-rapist.jpg (3300x1840, 427.2K)

Women are hypergamous. Given freedom to participate openly in the sexual market, they will do so. Nothing to do with capitalism, everything to do with open sexual market. For species propagation, it makes sense. For maintenance of stable societies, not so much.

Men with wives and children will build societies that protect their family. Men without, will not care about building and will turn their attention to something else, destructive.

"Minor nuances" like weight, height, coloration, proportions, and all manner of things which add up to change radically based on the makeup of ruling class and the available technology at the time. And ALWAYS those minor nuances just-so-happen to be the ways that the ruling class looks different from the lower class. Biological impulses do not exist in a vacuum. They are, themselves, strongly shaped by the superstructure.
Beauty will obviously exist without a ruling class to dictate it, but it will be fundamentally democratic in nature and thus reflect the new ruling class - the proletariat.

People are tripping over themselves to give an explanation that is absolutely anything but that though. Like I said before, you even have liberals/feminists unironically blaming video games. That's straight out of the 90s when republicans were blaming video games and rap music for everything, except now it's the liberals doing it.

As soon as women became more "liberated" and technology made it even easier to treat people like commodities, women immediately started gravitating towards the top 20% of men. What's hilarious is that the rate of marriage has gone down massively. These women are literally just being passed around by the top 20% of men and these women are completely fine with that.

Yeah because that never happened before the internet.

You'd have to go back thousands of years. What is your point? Do you think this is alright or healthy for a society? To have millions of socially isolated and disenfranchised young men?

No, not really, but we won't know if liberation is really the problem without destroying capitalism first anyways. As user said, Japan still has traditional relationship values to an extent but they're even more miserable than the west.

These societies have embraced and done everything they can to create and encourage these conditions to expand and engulf these men. The societies are already past the point of no return. It isn't healthy but it is extremely useful to have millions of disenfranchised men. If you want to smash the society and then rebuild it because they have nothing left to lose and the society cannot every work for them if they don't destroy it.

I'll tell you what I wrote in the last thread. It's similar to the concept of neoliberalism and the fairy tale of regulated capitalism. All neoliberalism did was expose the underlying toxic relationship between the wealthy and their employees. All "feminism" has shown is the underlying toxic relationship between men and women in capitalist societies. What we known know is that a majority of women were only with a majority of men for resources. Again like I said previously the nuclear family is humiliating and exploitative for both parties. Wishing that it was still possible for men to bribe women into relationships doesn't put the genie back into the bottle. We know how they feel about being in relationships with most of us. It just makes you pathetic. Men in pre modern societies use to have deeper relationships than they do now. We need to learn how to care about each other and have more rich friendships before we worry about sexual relationships with women.

Fuck this bullshit. This nonsense about women being some taming force is a modern concept that coincidences with late feudalism and early capitalism. If anything it's the opposite. Men in modern society, will ravage the earth and civilization to "provide for their families" at the expense of everyone else. It's sociopath and bad for civil society at a whole. Children should be raised communally not be individuals.

I wish this was acknowledged more, most of the horrendous crimes in history were probably committed by loyal 'family men'.

Isnt naturalism a reactionary tendency?

It nevers is. Even most leftists fall for this crap. The media perpetrates this stuff like crazy. A man basically has no worth in western society if he isn't providing for a wife and kids. The only media I've ever seen that have confronted this crap is The Sopranos and Breaking Bad.

This sounds like a whole lot of wishful thinking. These women are rejecting men due to material reasons. To be specific, because they now have an unprecedented level of access to good looking and high status men. Society as a whole has gotten much more feminist and catering to women's feelings and desires yet this has done absolutely nothing to deter women from chasing the top tier of men while denying low status men to the point where the rate of sexless young men has tripled in a single decade.

What kind of "deeper relationship" do you think is needed to change this trend in women?

Environmentalism not naturalism ok.

What you and that other user are engaging in isn't environmentalism. It is clear cut naturalism, and it is pure reaction.

It's not about trends and women. It's about problems with how men treat each other in capitalist society. We need to care about each other again. Our friendships should matter more to us than romantic relationships do. Western Society makes romance the center of a man's life that he needs a woman to complete himself. A man should be focused on improving civil society and being kind to each other.

Not all industry is bad, capitalist industry is bad. We are perfectly able to provide for our needs while preserving the Earth.

You seem to glorify the past as being a time where men were more in tune with women, and that modern ideas of providing for your family ravages the earth despite "being close to the earth" also implying all its dangers like dying from childbirth, etc.

You seem to be inferring way too much from one sentence.

Women will continue to be sluts for the most attractive of men while they are young as long as the reward is greater than the cost. This is the natural order that exists with other animals as well, it is up to society to counteract this tendency for the common good. Why should large swathes be deprived of basic needs to that a couple of lucky greedy elites can live in luxury?

There is nothing wrong about exposing the failures of liberalism. Society has been following the advice for more freedom for decades now and the problems are getting worse and worse.

pure idealism

Not an argument

Preserving the earth isn't an exclusively anti-capitalist thing, if need be BP for example could easily fling money at RnD to switch over to biofuels

Externalities will never be a consideration for capitalists so yes, it is an exclusively anti-capitalist thing. Biofuels are shit for the environment too so you just prove my point. BP will wring the Earth clean of petrofuels then move on to the next energy source to aggressively exploit.

...

I'm not talking about using cash crops

biomarketinsights.com/waste-to-fuels-technology-for-biofuels-licensed-by-bp-and-johnson-matthey/

I said that children should be raised communal not by family units. "Homeless Orphans" is a problem with a society still centered around the vile nuclear family unit. The soviet union was a reactionary shit hole that abandoned communism why would I care about one of their numerous failures?

So which meme tier society are you going to point us to that was existing socialism

Attached: 1553959092674.png (500x704, 275.22K)

The ussr was state capitalism. I don't know of any countries that have been socialist for more than a short period of time. Still doesn't change the main point. You can only have homeless orphans in a society still organized around the nuclear families. This isn't even a problem in traditional extended family structures.

I guess we should just abandon studying history then and not try to change existing society towards something better, after all it will not live up to your utopia.

Attached: soviet_boomer.mp4 (640x480, 1.53M)

I fucking hate feminist so that meme doesn't apply to me. Yeah we should learn to not follow in the footsteps of the USSR and turn into a reactionary shit hole.

The extended family still requires something akin to marriage

This is why feminists by definition cannot be left wing. You cannot abolish class if you place Chad in a higher sexual class to normies.

>>>/liberalpol/

So you're a therapist? that's even worse. "self care" and other bullshit feminist doubletalk isn't going to fix or even alleviate this problem and the repercussions it is going to have on future generations.

I don't support the extended family the point is it's still more stable and less pathetic than the nuclear model. unwanted bastards would be raised by their extended family members. It's a more stable structure if you weren't an idealist you'd support this family model over your fantasies about playing house with a woman. People still get married under extended family however it isn't the essential thing that binds the unit together.

It's not " self care" it's not about men learning to love themselves it's about men learning to love each other. This isn't feminism I'm talking about. These are ideas spread by the mythopoetic men's movement which were anti-feminist and anti-traditionalism.

Men are just as whorish if given the chance, miss me with that bullshit. Also who cares about alienation.

"oh no I can't socially connect with people as miserable as I am anymore, wat do?"

Buncha fags, son.

>>>/liberalpol/

Maybe not have unwanted bastardy?

Also how are orphanages not already communal upbringing? Or are you saying that there should be enforcement where only communal upbringings exist

They aren't raised by a community. Their care takers aren't suppose to care for or love them. They aren't suppose to live or work in or near their orphanages as they grow up. They got thrown out into the cold on their 18th birthday and most of the time their owners of the orphanages could care less.
Yes it should be. Parents should not be allowed to raise their biological children.

Everything you just said for orphanages could easily be same for a communal system, not taking into account you cant force somebody to love children that arnt theirs

Than why were they so common in the eastern Block?

Attached: SovietFamily.jpg (769x550, 112.27K)

Attached: p04l5dds.jpg (720x405, 36.8K)

Here’s the thing, Orphans are people who are raised communally in an orphanage, they almost always are worse off than life than those who are raised in Communal families. The truth is that the Nuclear Family is an intuition that works. Also the communal family as you image it didn’t exist. Parents have always been supremely responsible over their own biological children. The difference between than and now is that in communal families one extended family lived under the same roof, in the same home. However the death of this isn’t due to capitalism, but due to technological advancements that enable people to move around easier and change location. This has lead to people moving away from where their extended family live, thus the creation of nuclear families.

Not to mention the fact that interracial relationships are at an all time high. It's no secret Zig Forums is almost completely white, as soon as white countries have similar demographics to Brazil it's game over for the proletariat. We'll have no core identity, basically be just genetic mud ripe for the bourgeoisie to exploit.

Attached: 1552974839562.png (475x360, 305.95K)

Interracial marriage is more of a maturity problem then anything, it takes alot of dedication to keep one together

Nothing wrong with this. I’d rather marry a black women than die alone. Any sane man would.

lol no

They most certainty did exist. My dad was part of one. His dad wandered off from the communal home because my narcissistic grandmother demanded it. Like all nuclear families it was an unstable hell of fighting and social problems. My dad ran right back to the communal family where he was welcomed with open arms. He's the only one of his 5 siblings that isn't a complete basket case as a result. Don't assume everyone on here is some larping white guy. I know what a real families look like not that degenerate nuclear family nonsense. Any society that views a man "providing for his family" is a goal is a worthless anti-male society.

No see this post.

People love children that aren't there's all the time. Even in our sociopathic society what is adoption? In many cultures, men were expected as a group to raise the boys and women as a group were expected to raise the girls. All of this bullshit about individual families is capitalist propaganda of the worst kind.

DARNT TOUCH MA DICK AGAIN YA WHITE DOG!

Attached: abbott.jpg (840x629, 93.14K)

Seeing cute kids do silly things in public is very different from having to deal with it as a parent, and the people taking care of your dad probably had experience with kids either of their own or through a long life, so it likely isn't your meme dream about banning parents from taking care of their biological kids lmao

You should definitely lead with this line when speed-dating :^)

India, too. It's still a traditional, conservative country with a caste system (muh hierarchy) and arranged marriages. Yet it has the highest amount of lonely males in the world, which is where all the show bobs and vagene memes come from.

Literally everyone I know grew up in a nuclear family and everyone grew up fine, and had little fighting between parents in their household.

The anarkidie idea of parents not having supreme authority over their children didn’t.

But you said that he’s the one who ran off.

And here we see the real reason why the communal family fell apart, people move. As agriculture becomes more efficient the amount of people who work in agriculture decrease, thus causing urbanization and migration to the cities, which causes the breakup of communal families as different people deicide to go their own ways. I’m not saying the communal family is bad, but to blame the breakup of it on capitalist alienation is wrong.

What is with all the retarded Incels in this thread.

The decommodification of sex, the emancipation of women and the collectivisation of childcare is the solution to women pursuing relationships with high status men.

Blaming feminism, even liberal feminism, as lame as it is, for problems that blatantly rest at the feet of capitalism is just Incel idpol of the likes of Jordan Peterson.

books.google.co.uk/books/about/Why_Women_Have_Better_Sex_Under_Socialis.html?id=gsmauwEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

Take a look at this book that observes the social differences in relationships that arised in East Germany before and after reunification with the west.

Modern feminism does defend the commodification of sex, so as long as women get the best

Feminism is just female sexual nature unrestricted, pushing a dual matting strategy and trying to gain power over the male sex.

And it's not a problem of capitalism, it's a problem of industrialized society devaluing male labour (Main one) and couple of other software that is no longer running that allowed monogamy, an already unnatural state of affairs to produce more serfs by letting more beta males have access to sexual reproduction than ever.

I don't know why it's so difficult for leftypol to handle these bait threads.
No, dysfunctional relationships are not caused by generalized commodity exchange. Capitalism did mean the gradual elimination of the family as an economic and political unit, but that doesn't explain the act of procreation itself and the particular dysfunction of the late modern era. It would be entirely possible to form healthy relationships within the boundaries of capitalism without the family as it existed in feudal times, without patriarchy as it were. Capitalism didn't cause the NEET on bux to have no success with women and socialism won't cure him. I don't know why this is hard to understand, because I talk to rather dull normgroids who can understand why people become incels and the thought processes of such persons.

The current situation is not a "sexual marketplace" and doesn't have a whole lot to do with capitalism. Liberalism as a wider system, maybe, but even then not so much.
We live in a society with population control and eugenics as formal policy, and the results of that are apparent. Nearly everything that has followed from that has defined everything we know of as the so-called "sexual revolution", and its imposition from above should tell us everything we need to know. That there was a sharp increase in reaction since the 1970s when population control and austerity were imposed is telling, because people are not reacting to ghosts or illusions, and they're not reacting to commodity exchange (because drawing a line from generalized commodity exchange to the so-called sexual revolution is really obtuse thinking when a simpler answer is known and can be verified with the vast information we have, and the lived experience of those who were around when the population control started in earnest).

Feminism, and specially LIBERAL feminism, is one with capitalism.

The very second that society became more sexually liberated, less misogynist and more catering to women, women started to instantly gravitate towards the top 20% of men. Feminism has wholly integrated the commodification of sex, people and relationships.

Fuck off you retarded radlib

but Capitalism did create the conditions of existence for the NEET.

are you implying that the social order has no effect on the relationship between men and women? you are incredibly wrong, and you don't need feminism to see that - marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm

Nigga I read Origin of the Family in full.
Capitalism does have certain effects on the relations of men and women, but it did not create out of nothing the relations that we see today.
The "sexual marketplace" only exists for men buying porn or whores, and pornography and prostitution are the equivalent of men lighting money on fire for nothing. If you're looking at procreative relationships in the same terms, you're fucked from the start. Maybe that does happen, but such relations are dysfunctional, and that dysfunction predates capitalism by quite a bit (we're talking about a time when alcoholism was normal and sobriety was seen as utterly weird). There is no "sexual marketplace" as incels describe it, which is why a good number of these incels are rich corporate or financial workers who are only able to buy a bitter lie from women (whether from whores or women who are interested in their money). Increasingly, the women are closed off to anyone but the elite men, as a reflection of the ideology of population control and its necessarily rigid stratification of society into effective castes.

If you mean by that, that capitalism amplified the productive forces to allow for a NEET class to exist, then yes. Capitalism isn't some force that's trying to be as mean and evil as possible. It's just a stupid system, not an evil one.

Again that western European nonsense. The parents in real families do not have "supreme authority" over their children. For you information the eldest members of the family unit control the finances and make major life decisions for ALL members of the family which is why my grandmother wanted to leave. All the money my grandfather made was suppose to go into the family coffers. You larpers don't now anything about how actual families work. The only fantasy is this idea that nuclear family is stable or has existed outside of late feudalism and industrial capitalism. It hasn't and isn't. It's a toxic, degenerate and sociopath form of social organization with zero redeeming qualities.

Yeah? And he's the only one that doesn't have severe emotional problems. All of his siblings beat their spouses and children. I can't recall my dad ever spanking me once.

Fuck off with that nonsense. Women have zero interest in fucking the vast majority of men. All this feminist ally shit is just as worthless as this trad con nonsense from the ☭TANKIE☭ losers in this thread. Men need to stopping giving so much of shit about having romantic relationships with women period.

people adopt non-biological children all the time. And again many societies have had the men/women ,as a group raising all the boys/girls not just their sons/daughters.

Sounds pretty shity
brainlit.png
I do, I grew up in a very functional family
No one is claiming this.
No it isn’t, it’s a model that has been very successful for raising people to do well in society. This isn’t a bad thing. The nuclear family is a perfectly functional model that people should be free to pursue if they wish.
Your dad is the only one who ran away from the communal family. At least according to you.
“Women” isn’t a singular. Most guys have at least one women who is into them.
Fuck off, people can like what they like.
Like half of a percent. Sure some people are fine with it, but most aren’t. Their is nothing wrong with wanting to have biological kids. In fact evolution makes people want to have biological kids.

Do you have an actual argument or are you just shitposting

I could ask the same question for you.

No he was the only one who ran away from his nuclear family back to the family estate. My grandmother and grandfather were constantly fighting and berating each other. My dad was the only one smart enough to get the fuck out of there. In a society built on the nuclear family, he would have been a homeless youth but because the true family still existed at this point, he had a place go with people who loved cared for him.
I never said it was a good model for post capitalist society. I told you that children should be raised communally not by families in a post capitalist society. My only point is that real family units are far more stable and functional than nuclear families not that their the best option out there.
Not for the majority of history. The current population is only descended from 40 percent of previous men and like 80 percent of women. Women have and will never be into the majority of men. Notice that 20 percent of women would rather die alone with no heirs than fuck 60 percent of men. If that doesn't put this into perspective I don't know what will. Men need to get over it and learn to care about one another; instead of being depressed about not being able to bribe some whore that was never into them in the first place into playing house with them.

Not me.