Late Stage Capitalism: The Thot Phenomenon

Attached: 50104967_372704943556403_6583718998255337472_n.jpg (920x960, 85.19K)

You've upset one of the seething chapo radlib feds with this take :(

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1009x588, 457.32K)

...

but dosent crapitalisim rob all of us of our agency do we even have agency isnt agency a myth by natalists to perpetuate the human race into oblivion

Attached: 56608832_836896926656161_2640374266687651840_n.jpg (720x884 61.98 KB, 49.03K)

I bet OP, that reddit poster and yourself, are one and the same.

well who says "the seething chapo radlib feds" and OP aren't the same person

lmfao chapo rad libs are the worst

Attached: 45077223_740987869580401_3744023691726422016_n.jpg (754x960 579.66 KB, 56.03K)

Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.

A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.

This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the foregoing analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them.

Dude, this was a shit fucking take made by some incel

As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, only because they are products of the labour of private individuals or groups of individuals who carry on their work independently of each other. The sum total of the labour of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things. It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility. This division of a product into a useful thing and a value becomes practically important, only when exchange has acquired such an extension that useful articles are produced for the purpose of being exchanged, and their character as values has therefore to be taken into account, beforehand, during production. From this moment the labour of the individual producer acquires socially a two-fold character. On the one hand, it must, as a definite useful kind of labour, satisfy a definite social want, and thus hold its place as part and parcel of the collective labour of all, as a branch of a social division of labour that has sprung up spontaneously. On the other hand, it can satisfy the manifold wants of the individual producer himself, only in so far as the mutual exchangeability of all kinds of useful private labour is an established social fact, and therefore the private useful labour of each producer ranks on an equality with that of all others. The equalisation of the most different kinds of labour can be the result only of an abstraction from their inequalities, or of reducing them to their common denominator, viz. expenditure of human labour power or human labour in the abstract. The two-fold social character of the labour of the individual appears to him, when reflected in his brain, only under those forms which are impressed upon that labour in every-day practice by the exchange of products. In this way, the character that his own labour possesses of being socially useful takes the form of the condition, that the product must be not only useful, but useful for others, and the social character that his particular labour has of being the equal of all other particular kinds of labour, takes the form that all the physically different articles that are the products of labour, have one common quality, viz., that of having value.

i know, but my point stands about the natalisim thing

Attached: 26733664_563050164040840_1167104244745822675_n.jpg (939x960, 58.28K)

Well that's just contrived.

I only recognise the reddit spaz from their adoration of the EU, OP is too coherent to be them.

Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. The recent scientific discovery, that the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production, marks, indeed, an epoch in the history of the development of the human race, but, by no means, dissipates the mist through which the social character of labour appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves. The fact, that in the particular form of production with which we are dealing, viz., the production of commodities, the specific social character of private labour carried on independently, consists in the equality of every kind of that labour, by virtue of its being human labour, which character, therefore, assumes in the product the form of value – this fact appears to the producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to, to be just as real and final, as the fact, that, after the discovery by science of the component gases of air, the atmosphere itself remained unaltered.

Show yourself, coward.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (500x93, 11.24K)

Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into relation with each other as values, it is not because we see in these articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. Quite the contrary: whenever, by an exchange, we equate as values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, as human labour, the different kinds of labour expended upon them. We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it.[28] Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social products; for to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language. The recent scientific discovery, that the products of labour, so far as they are values, are but material expressions of the human labour spent in their production, marks, indeed, an epoch in the history of the development of the human race, but, by no means, dissipates the mist through which the social character of labour appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves. The fact, that in the particular form of production with which we are dealing, viz., the production of commodities, the specific social character of private labour carried on independently, consists in the equality of every kind of that labour, by virtue of its being human labour, which character, therefore, assumes in the product the form of value – this fact appears to the producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to, to be just as real and final, as the fact, that, after the discovery by science of the component gases of air, the atmosphere itself remained unaltered.

LOL what a joke, Posados Thanatos, show your self

hahahaha he's fucking obsessed lads

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1193x163 329.93 KB, 29.45K)

What, first of all, practically concerns producers when they make an exchange, is the question, how much of some other product they get for their own? In what proportions the products are exchangeable? When these proportions have, by custom, attained a certain stability, they appear to result from the nature of the products, so that, for instance, one ton of iron and two ounces of gold appear as naturally to be of equal value as a pound of gold and a pound of iron in spite of their different physical and chemical qualities appear to be of equal weight. The character of having value, when once impressed upon products, obtains fixity only by reason of their acting and re-acting upon each other as quantities of value. These quantities vary continually, independently of the will, foresight and action of the producers. To them, their own social action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the producers instead of being ruled by them. It requires a fully developed production of commodities before, from accumulated experience alone, the scientific conviction springs up, that all the different kinds of private labour, which are carried on independently of each other, and yet as spontaneously developed branches of the social division of labour, are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society requires them. And why? Because, in the midst of all the accidental and ever fluctuating exchange relations between the products, the labour time socially necessary for their production forcibly asserts itself like an over-riding law of Nature. The law of gravity thus asserts itself when a house falls about our ears.[29] The determination of the magnitude of value by labour time is therefore a secret, hidden under the apparent fluctuations in the relative values of commodities. Its discovery, while removing all appearance of mere accidentality from the determination of the magnitude of the values of products, yet in no way alters the mode in which that determination takes place.

He also happens to be legitimately racist on top of being an incoherent idealist.

Attached: 318c020f72aa476b652f29ac09b8fb976c596e4b3adda594b14fd12ff80.png (928x376, 42.79K)

Attached: Thanatos.jpg (847x398, 84.67K)

@posadaosthantos on reddit.com

Attached: 39036837_321047241971542_8745207503815442432_n.jpg (640x519 27.86 KB, 68.27K)

that used to mean having lots of snow like Alaska, i wonder how the intense race tunnel vision entered the left discourse.

—-

Man’s reflections on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him. The characters that stamp products as commodities, and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities, have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life, before man seeks to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning. Consequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, and it was the common expression of all commodities in money that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values. It is, however, just this ultimate money form of the world of commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the social character of private labour, and the social relations between the individual producers. When I state that coats or boots stand in a relation to linen, because it is the universal incarnation of abstract human labour, the absurdity of the statement is self-evident. Nevertheless, when the producers of coats and boots compare those articles with linen, or, what is the same thing, with gold or silver, as the universal equivalent, they express the relation between their own private labour and the collective labour of society in the same absurd form.

The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production, viz., the production of commodities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities, vanishes therefore, so soon as we come to other forms of production.

Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists,[30] let us take a look at him on his island. Moderate though he be, yet some few wants he has to satisfy, and must therefore do a little useful work of various sorts, such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fishing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no account, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of his work, he knows that his labour, whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently, that it consists of nothing but different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another, depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience, and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences, like a true-born Briton, to keep a set of books. His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the relations between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And yet those relations contain all that is essential to the determination of value.

first one is truth

@FedTakes
This guy is really living vicariously through his 23andMe profile isn't he.

Sheeeeucks.

IT'S OVER FOR FEDCELS!

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (595x371, 40.68K)

how ? oh wait there is a new social hierarchy based on this stuff, wait wasn't getting social status through heritage a right wing political position, I'm confused.
—-

Let us now transport ourselves from Robinson’s island bathed in light to the European middle ages shrouded in darkness. Here, instead of the independent man, we find everyone dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, laymen and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the social relations of production just as much as it does the other spheres of life organised on the basis of that production. But for the very reason that personal dependence forms the ground-work of society, there is no necessity for labour and its products to assume a fantastic form different from their reality. They take the shape, in the transactions of society, of services in kind and payments in kind. Here the particular and natural form of labour, and not, as in a society based on production of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate social form of labour. Compulsory labour is just as properly measured by time, as commodity-producing labour; but every serf knows that what he expends in the service of his lord, is a definite quantity of his own personal labour power. The tithe to be rendered to the priest is more matter of fact than his blessing. No matter, then, what we may think of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in this society, the social relations between individuals in the performance of their labour, appear at all events as their own mutual personal relations, and are not disguised under the shape of social relations between the products of labour.

For an example of labour in common or directly associated labour, we have no occasion to go back to that spontaneously developed form which we find on the threshold of the history of all civilised races.[31] We have one close at hand in the patriarchal industries of a peasant family, that produces corn, cattle, yarn, linen, and clothing for home use. These different articles are, as regards the family, so many products of its labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities. The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, spinning, weaving and making clothes, which result in the various products, are in themselves, and such as they are, direct social functions, because functions of the family, which, just as much as a society based on the production of commodities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of labour. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour time of the several members, depend as well upon differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions varying with the seasons. The labour power of each individual, by its very nature, operates in this case merely as a definite portion of the whole labour power of the family, and therefore, the measure of the expenditure of individual labour power by its duration, appears here by its very nature as a social character of their labour.

Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution.

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.[note] And for a society based upon the production of commodities, in which the producers in general enter into social relations with one another by treating their products as commodities and values, whereby they reduce their individual private labour to the standard of homogeneous human labour – for such a society, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of production, we find that the conversion of products into commodities, and therefore the conversion of men into producers of commodities, holds a subordinate place, which, however, increases in importance as the primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their dissolution. Trading nations, properly so called, exist in the ancient world only in its interstices, like the gods of Epicurus in the Intermundia, or like Jews in the pores of Polish society. Those ancient social organisms of production are, as compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and transparent. But they are founded either on the immature development of man individually, who has not yet severed the umbilical cord that unites him with his fellowmen in a primitive tribal community, or upon direct relations of subjection. They can arise and exist only when the development of the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low stage, and when, therefore, the social relations within the sphere of material life, between man and man, and between man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrowness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature.

The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.

Political Economy has indeed analysed, however incompletely, value and its magnitude, and has discovered what lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the question why labour is represented by the value of its product and labour time by the magnitude of that value.These formulæ, which bear it stamped upon them in unmistakable letters that they belong to a state of society, in which the process of production has the mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him, such formulæ appear to the bourgeois intellect to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by Nature as productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bourgeoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.

To what extent some economists are misled by the Fetishism inherent in commodities, or by the objective appearance of the social characteristics of labour, is shown, amongst other ways, by the dull and tedious quarrel over the part played by Nature in the formation of exchange value. Since exchange value is a definite social manner of expressing the amount of labour bestowed upon an object, Nature has no more to do with it, than it has in fixing the course of exchange.

The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic manner as now-a-days. Hence its Fetish character is comparatively easy to be seen through. But when we come to more concrete forms, even this appearance of simplicity vanishes. Whence arose the illusions of the monetary system? To it gold and silver, when serving as money, did not represent a social relation between producers, but were natural objects with strange social properties. And modern economy, which looks down with such disdain on the monetary system, does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day, whenever it treats of capital? How long is it since economy discarded the physiocratic illusion, that rents grow out of the soil and not out of society?

But not to anticipate, we will content ourselves with yet another example relating to the commodity form. Could commodities themselves speak, they would say: Our use value may be a thing that interests men. It is no part of us as objects. What, however, does belong to us as objects, is our value. Our natural intercourse as commodities proves it. In the eyes of each other we are nothing but exchange values. Now listen how those commodities speak through the mouth of the economist.

So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond. The economic discoverers of this chemical element, who by-the-bye lay special claim to critical acumen, find however that the use value of objects belongs to them independently of their material properties, while their value, on the other hand, forms a part of them as objects. What confirms them in this view, is the peculiar circumstance that the use value of objects is realised without exchange, by means of a direct relation between the objects and man, while, on the other hand, their value is realised only by exchange, that is, by means of a social process. Who fails here to call to mind our good friend, Dogberry, who informs neighbour Seacoal, that, “To be a well-favoured man is the gift of fortune; but reading and writing comes by Nature

I'd bet my ass he's a fucking white washed Chicano, outside the US the only people using terms like those work for the census or are anthropologist.

Attached: WhPOYpn.jpg (923x1013, 108.51K)

An interesting development in the subplot of this thread, Thanatos claims to in fact not care at all actually, despite posting a thread about us every two or three days - and even making a funny maymay about us.

He posts pretty much all day so he's probably as pasty as he's going to get rn.

Who is this? Is this the legend himself?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (955x261, 45.36K)

Fuck didn't update my clipboard, MySQL is just a boring thirsty guy and I didn't want to satiate his thirst.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (768x122, 16.9K)

Seems likely. There was another more recent one but it looks like he deleted it.
t. redditfag

Incel take
muh free drinks
muh thots
muh asian women
muh cock carousal
muh camwhores

Future socialist society's will not have 1950's tier housewives and muh purity muh no sloots with Socialism and anyone who says otherwise is a reactionary brainlet unread on the role of women in the proletariant and their enslavement to the household and marriage.

That being said
Fuck libs
Fuck sex workers and the sex industry
Fuck bourgeoisie thots
and fuck incels

I think he needs to get a scrip for xanax or something and calm down that anger and mania and go the fuck outside lol. His account is like two months old so I was thinking he was some guy we made royally assblasted back when r/soc was still the big reddit sub but he's way too young for that.

Yeah he's not even that bad tbh in comparison to other posters on that sub. Could probably be brought around to understanding and accepting historical materialism if he could calm down and despook himself of the racist shit.

So it robs them of males that have been orbiting them for 10+ years that the thots themselves have sidelined so they could have a worker drone to deprive them of intimacy (again) later? Thots would gladly retire after they have kids and even treaten to leave their unfortunate husbands if they dont give them a "good life"

I suppose you await the unexpected call from Sally.

Interesting.

Late stage Capitalism contains many facets which may or may not be interrelated. I argue that they are more or less interrelated.

Chapotraphouse? Cacophonous by name and bad vibe. Not for me, but glad that the radlibs are triggered. I enjoy a great relationship with my gf.

Hypocritical regarding Ginsberg, yuck.
Interesting from the Marx poster. The thot sisterhood tends to advocate bettering yourself by making more money. Others speak of "selling yourself" and "putting yourself on the shelf"

Wrong, how many labour tickets do you owe?

Lets me guess Marx and Engels were the same person to you?

Nice

And still the thot isnt his girlfriend. Maybe one day she would reply to his facebook post on her wall.

Damage control

Respect

How much do you reckon he has bided for the twitchthot smelly undies?

I have a gf and I enjoy her company very much. Bootlick the thots at your own risk. Women's enslavement was far more pronounced by bourgies and traditions were less pronounced and merely ceremonial for the prols. Both the men and women worked the fields.

ONE MAN
ONE WIFE

Doesn't anyone realize the alienation of hyper capitalism is also due to the fact that people live in mass societies? Imagine a population of 150 people who all know each other. Where are your thots then??

Gas thread

Ban op

Attached: soviet_wrestle_3.png (491x679, 512.65K)

Threads like this make me question my communism. Legit who cares.

As part of urbanisation. Urban environments were quite liveable considering that there was strong sentiment of community and neighbourhood. In recent years there has been isolantion and alienation an extreme example being the "evaporating people" in Japan. It appears to me that the sentiment of community and neighbourhood returns incrementally.

The tread addresses an aspect of Late Stage Capitalism. Its not a "hit piece" and bias, it was merely their turn to be covered on the topic.

This is a bizarre effortpost, it looks like you just took the typical incel narrative and replaced some words to seem more communist-friendly. The reality is both women and men are taught to desire certain things, for men this is usually money and status (even if these things are only a means to reach women) and for women it is the attention of men. Our desires are never our own is the main lesson of psychoanalysis. At the same time, we are all working longer hours, have fewer spaces to meet people, less time to spend with each other, etc, all of these things break down relationships in general, romantic ones in particular because they require the most investment. This breakdown is accompanied by commercial attempts to cash in on the gap, through Tinder, e-friends (streamers and snapchat premium and whatever) which creates a general feeling of "all women are thots" in the men who can now only reach women through the commercial attempts. In reality, there are millions of women working two or more jobs who would love nothing more than to sit down with an average-looking guy who will listen to what they have to say, but they will not find the time or money or situation to do so.

In conclusion, OP is dumb and overcomplicating a problem because he fell for some shitty memes.

What if instead of PosadosThanatos, it was PosadosThotanos?

Ban thread
Gas OP

I clearly mention of thots and NOT females in general like mgtow patron collectors and you put words in my mouth and I am dumb?

Late Stage Capitalism has effected people in many aspects that is just one aspect. Were there twitch streamers in the 1900s? You might say that there were adult magazines and now women can represent themselves rather than a magazine bureaucrats. Even in the twitch scene there were agencies and advertisers involved. Then again I dont recall nude models leading on droves of their fan base for contributions and auctioning their underwear to affection and romance deprived men that had little to no other avenue other than the stream to satisfy it however temporary.

This is unreal. A leftypol thread that isn't pure cancer. I mean… most of the comments are pure cancer, but the OP is remarkably well written.

I don’t trust anyone who refers to women as “females”

i think you made alot of good points but with incels and the left its kind of like preaching to the choir so to say to adress another identity group this being thots we need to distinguish that not all women are thots and not all thots are women the way the dichotomy can be understood with inceldom. i dont think they are nessecarialy equivlent per se but i do think that lsc does manufacture this sort of individual that being the "thot" and the "incel", differentiating the two are how should i put this nesseacary people just usually jump to the worst possible conclusions in matters of identity in an online forum.

Attached: 44356064_363040004438932_7063200449872003072_o.jpg (800x600 47.12 KB, 47.31K)

To mods:
I dont understand the annoyance. Perhaps the way the thread was showcased on the chapo reddit thread and the opinion on leftypol as a result. The board gained exposure and stimulated discussion on an active board (despite the fact that I dont like forums like r/chapotraphouse).

Marx and other well known authors and thinkers had wrote about the circumstances of their times and interpreted accordingly to communism and socialism (as well as the variants) pages upon pages and books upon books and essays upon essays. We discuss the issues that have happened in late stage Capitalism.

Another thing I dont understand which I have noticed on the board is that its fine to outright denounce religion vehemently yet discussing an issue, two issues now on late stage capitalism is taboo. The "incel" thread was bumplocked and here discussing thots there was vitriol from the mods.

Demanding people to be sympathetic to leftypol, communism and socialist while ignoring the current affairs in society arising from late stage capitalism tends to be a conundrum and stalemate. Marx and the greats did not simply ignore their current affairs they addressed them in earnest.

Mobilisation and applying knowledge to current affairs would raise the sentiment towards leftypol not shying away from mere criticism.

Take that scientists! BTFO

Thanks. I distinguished between thots and their spin offs. There are women that value a great, happy and loving relationship, maybe they are the called the romantics (if that is the proper term but I understand). Thots and their spin offs as mentioned in the original set of posts tend to be, well, thots.

But he literally said the opposite of this you retard.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (500x297, 368.89K)

This is what outrage culture gives you. It's almost as if the thread itself was posted specifically so that some reddit liberal could screencap it for outrage on some liberal subreddit.

What about supporting open borders and encouraging more traditionalist men from Africa, the Middle East or the Third World to 'date' reactionary Thots or the ones with neoliberal viewpoints who also believe in making male workers follow exploitative gender standards in order to take care of the problem? Since they may most likely meet their 'standards', lets have them mixed with a wider gene pool in order to take care of the problem?

Go and advertise pictures of Thots to them and encourage those men to start chasing them.

The opposite of Reactionary Thots' positions while not being rightists would be the Mens Lib Movement I guess also?

Hahaha wtf

do you have a single fact to back that up?
you make a shit ton of claims but youre short on the evidence.
your argument relies on this point here as youre making this one of the first links of the causal chain that creates "thots"
im curious what experiences you've had in life with women that guided you towards your bizarre conclusions.

this is a pretty wacky analysis for someone claiming to be grounded in marxism. The people participating in streaming and caming are engaging in a type of labor. Technology has allowed greater access to a wider market and a more direction connection to the consumers of these commodities.
Your analysis is really lacking an idea of cooperation and agency.
why engage in ideology when you're admitted ignorant of sex work and its history?
There used to be a strong industry of sex work pre-internet were people were hired by companies to write romantic and erotic letters to lonely men to collect cash; also the popularity of phone sex hotlines.
there is even a precedent for this sent in roman times. i'll quote this for you from the book "love for sale"
literally roman incels competed to win the attention of sex symbols.

based

a quality and sane post

What's the issue with Gramsci? I honestly want to know. I thought he was fairly intelligent, not perfect or amazing but intelligent. Is it because he criticized Lenin?