/lit/ - Literature

>>15431226
>what's the correct Marxist view of the incel problem?
Use them to clear minefields.

>>15431239
cringe

>>15431261
Have sex.

>>15431226

>Correct
>Marxist

Pick one and only one

>>15431277
it's ok if you don't accept the truth of the Marxist doctrine, it will prevail with or without your support however I was asking about the analysis of the incel problem and how to solve it within the Marxist doctrine

>>15431226
>no one has the right to love and intimacy, kys incel

You are talking about that math professor, right?
Watching that unfold made me realize that the "liberal feminist blogosphere" is made of complete sociopaths.

>>15431313
>You are talking about that math professor, right?
I just made it up desu but generally their takes on the incel problem are in that vein, I don't know if I read it on some math professor's blog. Do you happen to know where I can find it?

>>15431226
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm
In short, basically all human relations are reified to relations between commodities under capitalism and this includes sexual relations. Incels are seen are commodities of less "value" and therefore are less likely to receive "exchange" aka sex
I'm not much of a marxist so if someone is better read than me, correct me

>>15431226
Just clap prostitutes dude. Literally everyone throughout history has been clapping prostitutes even literary figures (Nietzsche, Schops, Musil, and so on).

None of the points you mentioned are Marxist. Feminism has no tie with Marxism either. Marx made it a point to expel all early feminist that tried to join the young communist movement. Feminism is intrinsically a bourgeois ideology.

>>15431226
Send them all to the gulag

>>15431226
the answer is communism

>>15431239
Based

>>15431324
The math guy was the victim, actually
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/

Incel is a term made up by twitter blue checks

Incels don't exist because there is always a fat bitch to fuck.
these people just don't want to fuck the nasty ones so they whine about being incels

>>15431226
>if you want to overthrow private property because you think it's not conducive to the fullest satisfaction of human needs then why would you not think the same about woman's right to her body when this right is at this point clearly impossible to reconcile with the satisfying life of men?
If a woman's body isn't her property, where do we draw the line? It seems like at some point you have to draw an arbitrary line or you draw no line at all, in which case, are a man's urges his property? Is his subjective experience? Why could his urge, his subjective need to have sex, not itself be property of the state to do with what it pleases? In this vein he could be compelled to act (his actions not being his own property) in a certain way contrary to what he believes are his desires for love and sex.

>>15431333
you know that incels are more about love and intimacy than mechanical sex, right?
>>15431338
>None of the points you mentioned are Marxist. Feminism has no tie with Marxism either.
that's what I meant, read my post once again carefully
>>15431342
clearly that can't be the answer to everything
>>15431329
okay but how can Marxism solve the incel problem?

>>15431372
Honestly I'd rather be a virgin then fuck some massive hog. I say let the niggers have 'em.

>>15431387
>okay but how can Marxism solve the incel problem?
By noticing the contradiction and solving it by structuring society in a way that's not centered around commodity exchange and eliminates the value-form solving the issue of incels at its source. (Hint. The way to do this is through communism)

>>15431239
this

>>15431451
outline very briefly how a communist society would solve the incel problem.

>>15431226
>what's the correct Marxist view of the incel problem
Liberal economics inevitably create an alienating system where all things, including sex and relationships, are commodities. We can see this in the digital hookup culture.

>>15431510

Gulags. Obviously.

>>15431510
being on the politburo, in a position of power with access to all resources, would serve as an aphrodisiac. those men would have a lot of sex.
as for the proletariat, a good comrade would be proud of serving the revolution by not having sex, which would mean he was not an incel.
and if any incels should be discovered by citizen police craving fulfilment of desires beyond their material needs (as centrally planned by the committee), they would naturally be sent to the gulag for being bad comrades with psychological problems

>>15431533
Yep and it is plain as day too in the West. Literally even referred to as the "sexual marketplace" etc.

>>15431533

>I know nothing about history: the post.

As expected of Marxists. Everything is because of muh evil capitalism, never mind the fact that people have been doing it since the dawn of history.
People have always married (mostly) within social class, which spouse you got was always dependent on what you had to offer (be it financially, politically, socially, emotionally, sexually, whatever).
Digital hookup culture exists because of contraception and the internet, not the liberal capitalist boogeyman.

>>15431226
>all those talking points are completely alien to Marxist doctrine, according to Marxism if the material reality (men's need for love and sex) comes in conflict with ideological forms (women's right to their bodies) then it's generally material reality that emerges victorious and not the other way around. in a similar way, if the idea of private property comes in conflict with the material reality of relative impoverishment of the proletariat, prolonged recessions and economic polarization then it's the idea that's supposed to yield to matter.

This is all mega retarded.

>>15431605
While it is true that contraception and the internet have effectively ended marriage and traditional families as any sort of meaningful social force (and they should be, as Engels pointed out), the idea of the "sexual marketplace" is clearly downstream from capitalist society. As capitalist society degenerates into late-stage capitalism, commodified sexuality degenerates alongside it.

>>15431372
Even fat girls think they're entitled to Chad nowadays

>>15431226
Something something glass of water theory.

>>15431708
>and they should be
Brooo just destroy the family, free love brooo
t. Kollontai

sex, love, and attention aren't money. incels aren't synonymous with workers. this is all dumb as shit.

you being horny isn't "material reality," and it isn't "winning" over the "ideology" of women not wanting you to fuck them.

10/10. being out of school for the last few months of your education must have ruined you

>>15431796
>no argument
it was a mistake to expect any better

>>15431839
the argument is that the OP's analysis breaks down because he's misusing the framework like an idiot.

>>15431796

Its weird too since leftists seem to change their tune one whether sex is a "need" too, especially when this issue is brought up

>>15431850
>I am correct because I am correct
how is he misusing the framework? both wages and satisfaction with love life belong to material reality

>>15431226
What you're hinting at is crude communism. Here's Marx:
>As such it appears in a two-fold form: on the one hand, the dominion of material property bulks so large that it wants to destroy everything which is not capable of being possessed by all as private property. It wants to disregard talent, etc., in an arbitrary manner. For it the sole purpose of life and existence is direct, physical possession. The category of the worker is not done away with, but extended to all men. The relationship of private property persists as the relationship of the community to the world of things. Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism. Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes – and the latter’s abomination is still greater – the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. – Note by Marx] so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man’s objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism – since it negates the personality of man in every sphere – is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation.
>... In the approach to woman as the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is expressed the infinite degradation in which man exists for himself, for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived.

The problem of incels wouldn't be solved by letting them rape. This is a much broader problem of social isolation, lack of genuine connection with other people, lack of direction in life, the status of intimacy as compensatory, which in the mind of an incel can appear under a false guise of a simple problem of undersupply of a resource of satisfaction. Framing it in this way is their way of coping with their lack of satisfaction with life in general: it gives them a simple explanation and lets them derive a secondary gain, a pleasure from self-pity and from hurling accusations at very definite targets. This framing also derives directly from how capitalism treats women (see this section: https://archive.is/7MSGV#selection-325.0-325.23).). It's no less ideological than the concept of women's rights.

>>15431226
This is why we should become Fourierists.
But seriously, the way the modern 'left' demonizes incels is counterproductive. Perhaps they, these unproductive bachelors, are closer to the dangerous, bohemian swamp of the lumpenproletariat, and thus in league with the reactionary emperor (Mistah Drump), something a Marxist cannot accept (which has always been to the detriment of Marxism); but then again, who is the true proletariat (sexual or otherwise)? Too many modern leftists have already abandoned these, displacing their concern onto an identity-politicked other, not even as revolutionary subject, but as traumatic subject in constant need of protection. Perhaps celibacy (voluntary or in-) still has something transgressive and outrageous to it, to the extent it denies (re)production; while all kinds of nonreproductive forms of sexuality have been accepted, sexual morality still deems these as vitally 'healthy', either capable of taking up in addition the normal reproduction of the life function, or else offshore them elsewhere (adopting gays do not define themselves as sodomites in a death-affirmative way, merely as consumers of pleasure, while assimilating to the normal crowd). In any case, a cogent analysis of inceldom is more than needed. That the left fails to account for it is ridiculous; while the phenomenon itself only proves that political economy is already libidinal economy (Lyotard). With the hypercommodification of bodies and postfordist sexual-economic relations (OnlyFans), whether as (mediatized) living currency (Klossowski) or not quite, the surplus of celibate plebs, at once denied a 'right' to sexual intercourse (for it can't be a right! say our new liberal priests, whether they really care about such other rights as education or healthcare or no) while the normal bloc of the populace *does* affirm the humanity and need of sexuality for healthy functioning, is thus in a thoroughly marginalized position. A critique of such economy is needful.

Women have seized the means of reproduction

>>15431710
Most don't, you have to find the insecure ones

>>15431226
>correct
>Marxist

>>15432112
>In any case, a cogent analysis of inceldom is more than needed.
No, it's actually completely irrelevant. Those who explicitly identify as incels and cling to this identity are bored middle class losers who are absolutely of no consequence because they will never do anything except shooting up a school once or twice a year and producing internet outrage material for hysteric liberals.

>>15431226
marx argues against something analogous to incels in the 1844 manuscripts
>Finally, this movement of opposing universal private property to private property finds expression in the brutish form of opposing to marriage (certainly a form of exclusive private property) the community of women, in which a woman becomes a piece of communal and common property. It may be said that this idea of the community of women gives away the secret of this as yet completely crude and thoughtless communism.[30] Just as woman passes from marriage to general prostitution, [Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes – and the latter’s abomination is still greater – the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. – Note by Marx [31]] so the entire world of wealth (that is, of man’s objective substance) passes from the relationship of exclusive marriage with the owner of private property to a state of universal prostitution with the community. This type of communism – since it negates the personality of man in every sphere – is but the logical expression of private property, which is this negation. General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed re-establishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to a common level, so that this envy and urge even constitute the essence of competition. Crude communism [the manuscript has: Kommunist. – Ed.] is only the culmination of this envy and of this levelling-down proceeding from the preconceived minimum.
basically inceldom is analogous to things like proudhonian market socialism where instead of abolishing the categories of a self-contradictory ideology it tries to 'redistribute' things in terms of 'fairness'. for instance instead of aboloshing private property it tries to redistribute it; inceldom takes the same approach with liberal (read: capitalist) relations of sex and love. marxism is opposed to this for a number of reasons
commusm would likely see a number of changes to the way people go about sex and love. the exclusivity of relationships under capitalism, or the liberal atomization that characterizes many people's sex lives, would likely be gone. the problem with inceldom is that it grants these premises as eternal and natural categories of life instead of seeing them as products of the capitalist superstructure. like i said, it is analogous to movements that grant the desireability of markets and private property and then seek to 'fairly redistribute' it, ignoring that these notions of 'fairness' are products of ideology

>>15432668
oh this guy beat me to it: >>15432082

>>15431226
>what's the correct Marxist view of the incel problem?

Incels happen because of two things that work in synergy with each other : contraception making it possible for a woman to only have a child when she wants to have one, and the state taking on the role of the beta husband of yore, with zero repercussions for the woman's irresponsible behavior, effectively eliminating the need for direct contact between beta men and their looksmatch women, because the results of the labor of beta men are now provided to women by proxy of the state, instead of women having to directly get it from beta men.

Solution : Either ban contraception (can't see this happening, and the economy couldn't take economically net negative minorities increasing at an even higher rate), or introduce policies that punish irresponsible female behavior very severely, instead of encouraging them by saving women from the results of their irresponsible behavior, like current policies do.

>>15432407
Read Twitter

>>15431387
>okay but how can Marxism solve the incel problem?
In a classless society, there would be less differences between males. In Capitalism Between the spectacular hollywood celebrity and the street hobo, there is a gigantic gap. In classless society, the gap would be smaller. No to say the gap between males in sexual value would disappear, but it would be smaller.
Also, tradcels will probably be horrifyed at this, but in classless society, nuclear family and enforced monogamy throught law (which isn't enforced anymore since a few decades due to the necessity for Capitalism to promote feminism because Capitalism wants to put women into the labor market in order to make more profit) won't be necessary anymore. If the children are taken care of by society, monogamy won't be a strict necessity anymore, since their is no cucking possible, if it's not the father who provide for the children, but society as a whole.
My take on sexuality on superior communism, is that it will be something like it was in primitive communism, for example like it was in aboriginal societies (perhaps the oldest types of human, the original living condition of homo sapiens, untouched by civilization for tens of thousands of years).
In aboriginal society, women are married to a man, usually a mature male, of 35-40 of age. The women is kind of the property of the male (don't know if she will be the property in the future). The women, in adition to her husband, can have, if she wants, an official lover, named piroru. She can have sexual intercourse with her lover, but only when the husband is not at home. (Source: Hans Fehlinger: sexuality in primitive tribes).
So, i think in the future, sexuality might ressemble to something like this.
It seems homo sapiens is not polyamorous, nor is it strictly monogamous (pretty obvious). It's something in between. Since civilization, monogamy is enforced, so the males who don't have the property of means of production, won't rebel and be motivated to provide for their family.
Monogamy is a result of civilization, and feminism is a result of Capitalism (women must be put in the labor market). It kind of goes full circle.

>>15432772
>fighting capitalism with cuckoldry

Why must every leftist theory come down to this?

>>15431226
>all those talking points are completely alien to Marxist doctrine, according to Marxism if the material reality (men's need for love and sex) comes in conflict with ideological forms (women's right to their bodies) then it's generally material reality that emerges victorious and not the other way around.

Literally never read Marx

>>15432695
I really must emphasize that reading twitter is about the worst possible thing you could do to get a sense of what people in the real world are saying and doing

Twitter, like many other social media platforms, is overwhelmed with the internet addicted and lonely

>>15431226
>Young men no longer can afford to start a family
>People become atomized "singles"
>Media promoting "sex for fun" instead of love
>Socmedia arrange people according to their social standing and desirability and men then feel bad above going below certain threshold
>Omnipresent advertisement full of perfect people
>Sedentary, low-activity, high-stress job and lack of sleep (!) deprives men of testosterone
>Profit-driven pollution and agriculture increases the amount of endocrinal disruptors in diet and enviroment; those disruptors tend to shift hormonal balance towards estrogen
>Only some men can afford high-quality nutrition, while others are fed with crap and market always finds a way how to create cheaper, less nutritious crap for increased profit

Few ideas, but basically capitalism makes men into sissies on both psychological and biochemical level.

>>15431387
>okay but how can Marxism solve the incel problem?
Back then under the reds people married early because they didn´t have to worry about economy fucking shit up for them; so the problem was solved on simply economical level. Of course there were men who couldn´t find a mate, but they were loners and weirdos who didn´t even want one.

>>15432650
What about the original unable-to-get-sex incels?

>>15432841
If all you want is sex, you shouldn't be able to find a mate. You're not ready for one.

>>15432804
Cognitive dissonance about reality won't get you far.
By the way, Capitalism is life cuckolding. But i guess you are okay to give your life to the owners of the means of production, you cuck.
Civilization took away the life of the working males, so in exchange, it gave them an exclusivity to their women.

>>15432866
try to figure out why you haven't been able to achieve what you want and fix it.

do people like you? do you have an attractive personality? how do you dress? what's your personal hygiene like? do you have friends? do you socialize with people? are you trying to have sex with women who don't want someone like you? etc etc etc, and try to develop yourself in such a way that you become a better/more likable/more social/more attractive person. might take a while, but i believe in you, etc

>>15432928
Everyone tells you to try, everyone tells you to man up, to work on yourself, to learn to throw caution to the wind, etc. But no one anticipates that a woman can always let you try, let you apply for the job, without any real intent of hiring you unless you absolutely blow her away. She can screen a thousand candidates like you, all throwaways, until one manages to "wow" her despite initially seeming average. And obviously, she can use this process just to feel good that so many people are interested in applying.

The problem isn't success or failure. It's the cost of success, even when you do succeed. That's the real pain of being an average dude. These days, there is no sure road to a relationship with a woman. You are either in the upper echelons of men who can breeze right through the line, or you are in the teeming mass of men waiting for their pathetic little grovelling interview, a one-in-a-thousand shot that they're willing to wait weeks or months for.

There are only so many strategies you can use to avoid or manage this dynamic. You can obviously swear off women and stop trying, stop "taking your shot," stop lining up to take your shots, on the understanding that you will only ever take a shot if the woman says "hey, you seem neat, I'm interested in you taking a shot! Are you interested in taking one?," and the exchange is equal and reciprocal. This is the dignified choice. But for an average guy, this will realistically never, ever happen. Women are kids in candy stores. Even if they are inclined to look for a good guy, and not a basic bitch Chad with an iron jawline, they still have the mentality these days that they can look for the good guy AFTER "having fun" for 5+ years.

So your choice is essentially: Be dignified, keep your pride, but accept that you will probably be dateless and/or sexless, possibly forever, OR, keep lining up to take your pathetic little shots, you grovelling "haha that's cool :) so what do you do for fun?" little milquetoast bitch. Keep trying to match that pathetic trickle of girls on dating apps that you actually get, that small fraction of girls who just got out of bad relationships so they're just BARELY willing to countenance a physically unremarkable guy like you for a brief window, that is, willing to permit a slew of guys like you to line up and each take their unlikely shots, in rapid succession, so that even if you do get picked in the initial match lottery, you still have to actually GET PICKED in the date lottery. And even when you get a date, hell, even when you miraculously get to a serious stage, she's so spoiled for choices that she will reveal she's still "sort of seeing" another guy or she'll ghost you for someone who impressed her more.

>>15432866
Those who don't identify as incels and don't subscribe into the worldview associated with that? They might off themselves, they might sublimate the impulse and fulfill it in some other way, they might start coping by watching every anime ever made, they might join their class if they're potential proletarians. There are many possible scenarios for different individuals.

>>15432985
yeah, sure. everything is temporary. enjoy the relationships you have while you have them. yeah, women are generally the 'gatekeepers' to sex. yes they can change their minds. yes they might like someone else more. yes you can get rejected a lot. women are just as fickle and fucked up as men. people are a mess.

oh well. tough shit. you're either fine with the human reality or you're not. part of being a man--part of a man being attractive to women is emotional stability in the face of troubling situations. you have to look at the ugly truth and find some peace in it.

dating apps are fundamentally trash, and you shouldn't use them. the process of relinquishing control and serving yourself up for judgment with the best/most interesting photos of yourself is deeply dehumanizing. don't subject yourself to that. but you should (quarantine permitted) invest deeper in in-person relationships. make friends who are girls (who you don't want to fuck) and have them set you up with their friends. join clubs. whatever. But do what you can to forge organic in-person human relationships with people. that makes the whole process much less horrible.

>>15433107
women shouldn't be living hedonistic bohemian lifestyles of infinite validation and sex if men are forming an incel underclass

sooner or later this is going to break

>>15433130
Nobody owes men sex, love, or affection. Stop being entitled.

>>15433130
> hedonistic bohemian lifestyles of infinite validation and sex

how many women would actually describe their lives this way? so many women are miserable. validation from sex and unhealthy relationships are fleeting. this is true for men and women. trust me when i tell you to stop putting so much value in it.

>if men are forming an incel underclass

this isn't happening. a small group of lonely men are getting together and getting mad online. the 'incel underclass' is just a pity party of men in narcissistic love with their own misery.


>sooner or later this is going to break
how? to be honest, you're being very dramatic. ugly dudes and fat dudes and skinny dudes and dudes with bad skin and balding dudes and short dudes get married all the time. i see it on my facebook page. if you really want to change your conditions, you're going to have to change yourself. don't wait on some inclel revolution

>>15433130
Capitalism is going to break, but it won't be because of frustrated virgins who refuse to leave their basements in protest against some women having fun.

>>15433168
What are you talking about? If a man espouses more independence for women he certainly is owed sex moreso than other men taller, or more attractive, than he.

It is indeed how and why this threesome I am in perpetuates itself :3

>>15433168
that's stupid, if you want to be a nihilistic egoist discussions of "owing" or what people "ought" to do are pointless anyway obviously

>>15433176
women are miserable despite engaging in bohemian hedonistic lifestyles. you are giving the "let them eat cake" response, the kind of response rich people give to their poor friends when they say "you know, i'm depressed too :( having all this money from daddy doesn't solve that." yeah but it sure solves all your medical problems, it means you don't have to worry about quitting your dream job to move across the country to support your parents because they get in an accident not covered by insurance that changes the entire structure of all your lives for decades, etc. why shouldn't everyone deserve the security of a reasonable, non-invasive welfare state? for the same reason, why shouldn't society/culture care that women (despite being depressed) have a stranglehold on the distribution of sexual capital?

the rest of your post is victim blaming, typical for normies and for rich people justifying continuing their parasitic lifestyles on the backs of underclasses. your ideology necessarily includes its own justification whenever criticized by someone like me, your condescending ad hominem response is practically reflex for you at this point so it's not much use trying to convince you.

>how?
as i just said, by no longer trying to convince you. "incels" have spent a long time wondering why they don't fit in normal society, wondering why baseline existence is so painful for them and why they're expected to trudge through it for no reward, with no sympathy and no assistance from people who are better off by birth. so, like i said, they have stopped trying to convince you.

i'm not waiting on an incel revolution. i'm waiting on what happens when a surplus of young, unmarried males get together and start feeling resentment for the established classes. you know, like happened in the century and a half of civil wars in greece that ousted all the oligarchies, or in the 1920s when the petite bourgeoisie was massively overrepresented in voting for fascist and right wing autarkic governments (like they are doing now), like in every revolution in the 19th century, like in the developing world where the slightest instability can immediately be used as a pretext for recruiting young futureless men as paramilitaries, like in 19th century russia where the term "superfluous men" was created for nihilistic and perpetually frustrated parvenus who had no hope of a successful life except by breaking down or exploiting the current system (which favored classes other than them), like niggers who are nihilistic from birth and passively resist integration into society because of it becoming borderline paramilitary in their violence themselves

>>15433196
who do you think carries the rifles, retard? men with no prospects, no future, "nothing to lose"

>>15433196
You can exclude only so many men in a society from a normal, average life before either the economy crashes because none of them have any reason to leave their mother's basements, or worse, take up arms to support a populist leader who promises them what the other side chastised them for desiring.

I’d assume that Marx would think that the hoarding of resources makes it so that fewer men are able to provide adequate lives for their families, which makes them inherently unattractive to women. The idea of “state mandated GF” is laughable from every ideological standpoint. incels are incel for a multitude of reasons, usually because of their own choices and their socialization.
If a person can be convinced to wear a furry suit in public, at a hotel, and shit themselves in it, then go back to the room and have copious amounts of degenerate sex, a below average male can get their dick wet. It’s not hard. Women aren’t difficult to figure out.

I knew an Incel irl. Lives with his parents, 28, no degree, no job. He started going MGTOW and I called him a faggot and told him to stop watching porn.
You want a woman? You need something to offer. Being a “nice guy” isn’t enough. And protip, you’re not a nice guy. Nice guys don’t feel entitled to sex, because they actually have it. Because they have other things to offer.

Learn something and make something of yourself. You’ll become more attractive.
If that doesn’t work out, >>15431239 is correct.

>>15433266
R*ddit always leaks so badly on weekends, man.

>>15432772
>If the children are taken care of by society, monogamy won't be a strict necessity anymore, since their is no cucking possible, if it's not the father who provide for the children, but society as a whole.
this doesn't create very good incentives. Parents are likely to care way more about their kids than any other random adults will

>>15433176
>if you really want to change your conditions, you're going to have to change yourself. don't wait on some revolution
I agree 100% except this also applies to socialists

When even the most pathetic and beta oriented ideology doesn't care about incels, you know they're just doomed

>>15433251
this, it's a good litmus test of how fucking "marxist" the self-proclaimed marxist really is these days that his devotion to marx's thought doesn't help him at all to notice 1) that the incel phenomenon is to be expected under marx's critical philosophy, or at least that its explanation is a perfectly valid extension of it, and 2) that sympathy for incels is perfectly in accordance with marx's compassion for the downtrodden, and especially his willingness to be iconoclastic and tell bourgeois sentimentalism to go fuck itself when it tries to shame workers into accepting paternalistic bourgeois pseudo-solutions to their problems.

instead, what do you get when you ask a "marxist" about incels? the most bourgeois answer possible, that "everyone is responsible for his own happiness and they ought to buck up and stop complaining! we're all responsible for our own 'success' in 'private life'! and things like family and gender relations aren't structured at all by the bourgeois weltanschauung!"

the very first thing a real marxist thinks when he sees incels is that these are pöbel and pöbel are very dangerous, they are a sign that something has gone terribly wrong in raising consciousness. actually the very first thing a marxist should see when he sees an incel is "i bet this guy would execute oligarchs no problem."

>>15433282
>understanding women makes you reddit
Go back to wizardchan

ITT: Marxist virgins with rage

>>15433308
While I find your sentiments mostly valid, I don't think Marxism has anything to do with "sympathy for downtrodden". What a marxist would do though, is ask himself "what material conditions caused this phenomenon", instead of complaining about people having wrong ideas about women and stuff. 99% of modern leftists are filthy idealists.

>>15433363
it depends what you mean by material. most half-decent marxists of the 20th century were hegelian marxists, not "scientific" dialectical materialists.

i don't know what you mean about complaining people have the wrong ideas. that's what critique is, at least initially. marx:
>Reason has always existed, but not always in a rational form. Hence the critic can take his cue from every existing form of theoretical and practical consciousness and from this ideal and final goal implicit in the actual forms of existing reality he can deduce a true reality. ..
>Nothing prevents us, therefore, from lining our criticism with a criticism of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real struggles and identifying ourselves with them. This does not mean that we shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for the world new principles from the existing principles of the world. We shall not say: Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you with true campaign-slogans. Instead, we shall simply show the world why it is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether it wishes or not.

critique necessarily works with the present moment of immanent "actuality" to uncover its virtual possibilities. present-day social conditions are far, far worse than anything marx could have ever imagined, he'd probably shoot himself if he saw how subhuman the average person is now. and granted, marx hated the rabble, which is a major weak point in his philosophy that is still argued about by marxists and scholars today. but he would at least see what incels are, as a product of capitalist/bourgeois structures now much more submerged than they ever were in his time, like you said.

and he would probably prefer a bunch of totally deracinated young men, willing to try out anything and be iconoclastic for the sake of iconoclasm, because of their exclusion from the all-swallowing blob of 21st century consumer capitalism, willing to reject consumer capitalism because it rejects them and tries to crush them, to the LITERAL FUCKING TRANNIES now degrading every communist movement.

have you been on left wing forums online? it's a running joke that they all became tranny dens 10~ years ago.

>>15433240
> for the same reason, why shouldn't society/culture care that women (despite being depressed) have a stranglehold on the distribution of sexual capital?

Because money isn't sex. Your whole metaphor breaks down because money isn't sex. You can survive and be happy without sex. But, in this society, if you have no money at all--no access to purchasing power whatsoever--you will starve and die.

> victim blaming

you aren't a "victim" because you don't have a girlfriend. Come on, dude.


> for no reward, with no sympathy and no assistance from people who are better off by birth.

you put too much emphasis on sex and relationships. people have lived and died and been happy without ever being in a relationship or having sex. you can't find true validation in something as fleeting as another person. as i said, people are fickle. they come and go. you're going to have to find happiness in something more enduring or you're going to be miserable forever.

>i'm not waiting on an incel revolution. i'm waiting on....

i'm trying to think of the best way to address this, but the best i can say is that you're being extremely theatrical. you're being a drama queen right now. pussy really isn't this important, dude. if you're having a hard time or hate being alone, find something else to fixate on. as a man, that's your responsibility. you have to build stability for yourself. just don't fucking kill anybody, ok?

>>15433520
>You can survive and be happy without sex

Maslow begs to differ. Who are you to argue?

>>15433520
>But, in this society, if you have no money at all--no access to purchasing power whatsoever--you will starve and die.
We have welfare, so this argument collapses the socialists perspective as well. Many people live and die being quite poor while being happy enough

>>15433533
not me, but the assorted enlightened sages of the world religions, whom I respect the views of more than Maslow, have shown otherwise

>>15433533
Brother, Maslow's hierarchy is a 1940s construct that has been picked apart to the point of near irrelevance by academics for the past 80 years. It's a cool little diagram to think about and have class discussions about or whatever, but the reality of human needs/wants are more complex than this.

>>15433533
>sex
>physiological need

Never post that image again. It's literally refuted by lifelong virgins.

>>15433240
>who do you think carries the rifles, retard? men with no prospects, no future, "nothing to lose"
Yes, but not whiny incels. Those will at most support the counter-revolution by posting anti-communist memes of 4chan. That will be entire extent of their role. It's pretty obvious that a man who can't get a woman and whines about it on the internet is not a soldier material.

>>15433251
Most of them are still working, buying shit and paying taxes. So much for the economy collapsing because of them. And when something more is needed then this tax money from incel cucks will be employed to import niggers and such. There will even be extra tax on imports from Japan if need be.

>>15433308
>instead, what do you get when you ask a "marxist" about incels? the most bourgeois answer possible, that "everyone is responsible for his own happiness and they ought to buck up and stop complaining! we're all responsible for our own 'success' in 'private life'!
No, the answer is communism and abolishing the mad society. But the retarded portion of incels rejects this because it's way too fixated and disconnected to see its problem as a particular mode of appearance of a much broader problem of an inhuman society and because it formulates its problem in a hopelessly idealist bourgeois manner, as something that could be fixed through a reeducation of a bunch of women and/or their orbiters.

>actually the very first thing a marxist should see when he sees an incel is "i bet this guy would execute oligarchs no problem."
This is a power fantasy, but in reality timid virgins who throw tantrums because they don't have a second mommy are of zero utility for communists. There are a few individual psychos who are ready to shoot people, yes, but those are even less useful because they're fucking bonkers.

Marxists may have sympathy for incels to the extent that they understand that "just get your shit together lmao" will not help most of people, but that doesn't change the fact that incels are objectively hopeless as in they can't be systematically helped within bourgeois society as well as objectively worthless, as in they're of no use within the proletarian movement. Obviously I have in mind those who make inceldom the main problem of their lives. Good news is there will be less of them as political and economic conditions deteriorate. You quickly forget about such trivial nonsense when the lonely but comfortable life ends abruptly and you face genuine financial danger.

>>15433533
Why would you expect Marxists to care about what psychologists of all people have to say? What powerful arguments are coming next? A quote from Milton Friedman?

>>15433917
>It's pretty obvious that a man who can't get a woman and whines about it on the internet is not a soldier material.
You want to look up this thing called Islam, most recent large scale example being ISIS, you probably heard of it

>>15433251
>a populist leader who promises them what the other side chastised them for desiring.

lol a fucking rape dictator? are you stupid? why would you follow a leader who would let me rape your mom or sister?

>>15433956
Look into Mazdak, he started a whole religious revolution fueled by proto-incels. The Zoroastrian priests were forming giant harems and leaving a significant amount of men partnerless.

>>15433956
Very based interpretation, but i don't that that's what he implied.

>>15431226
I through it´s been accepted that incels are a fascist demographic. Commies are those deeply resentful about their economic situation; while far right people come from demographics resentful about their social situation.

>>15431239

Women deserve rape

>>15433956
>why would you follow a leader who would let me rape your mom or sister?

Because I have nothing to lose but my chains.

>And a man's foes shall be they of his own household

>>15433977
>>15433935

>ancient zoroastrians
>radical wahabbists

not possible in the west. god is dead, etc, etc.

>>15433990
I mean generally speaking no one should be a fascist or a communist, and to be honest, in the ways the different regimes have erupted and conquered, they are extremely similar :3

>>15433990
Shouldn't far-right incels consider themselves subhumans because of their situation?

>>15433990
It's been 'accepted' by the progressives you read

>>15434012
>>15434013
see
>>15434008

You need to fix how you view reality. :3

>>15431226
I think it's pretty obvious: this is just another example of Capitalistic alienation. So, the reason for incels' anger isn't a lack of sex, it's the unhappiness that is institutionally created by Capitalism.
This unhappiness is then subverted by bourgeois, who make incels blame women for their unhappiness and women blame incels for their unhappiness, thus managing to get out of being blamed by both groups for their respective unhappiness.
As to the question of why sex is so common among such a small demographic, the basic answer is that sex is commodified as a way of distracting people from the deep-seated derealization they feel as a result of Capitalism. Thus, a huge amount of sex occurs among only a small demographic of largely proletarians. Meanwhile, those who cannot buy do not.

>>15434008
Fascists come to power through coup and democratic process, communists through bloody revolutions. Fascists were conquered by force, communists by subversion.

>>15433520
>just don't fucking kill anybody, ok?
Nobody is entitled to being alive

>>15434080
edgelord cringe

>>15434012
No. Who is subhuman is decided at birth. When you are a high-IQ man from decent middle class family you are entitled to live a good life. If you don´t get a good life, it means something went terribly wrong with society. You have to remember that right wing people (maybe with the exception of some liberals) tend to have highly fatalistic worldviews.

>>15434098
Brainlet-tier take that missed the point

>>15433520
>What is libidinal economy?

>>15434075
>Fascists come to power through coup and democratic process
I think you need to re-read history buddy.

My point is not necessarily that though, even a tyrant can be benevolent, as Rousseau states, my point is that the regimes are typically based on government interference and control. And that is what you generally see, the Nazi party, for instance, was generated as a worker's party movement.

I've literally had this discussion with people on this board over and over again for the last two years and they still don't learn -- people are still coming on 4chan trying to be Nazi sympathizers.

It's just such a lazy thing... I mean it's a fucking Japanese website so the retarded thing to do would be to treat this like some kind of axis hangout.

>>15434141
I should say it's based on a Japanese website.

But I disagree that wars are what define us, as human beings. We are much more than physical domination.

1. This is clearly a bait thread that isn't on the topic of literature. It has nothing to do with any books, and it doesn't cite a specific work of Marx that we're talking about. By all definition, this goes against the rules of the board.
2. Can we just appreciate for a second that Kant, probably the greatest philosopher of all time, never married, never had any kind of sexual experience, and even took the position that sexuality in general was wrong.
Y'all are literally being handed an ascetic lifestyle on a silver plate. You don't even have to resist any urges. Stop complaining and recognize that everyone who engages in sex consistently, especially when young (that is, earlier than 25), ends up regretting it.

>>15434141
Japan was literally a part of the axis though.

>>15434185
>Y'all

>>15433310
Tits or gtfo free love whore

>>15434192
Yeah that's why I'm saying it's fucking retarded. It's just lazy.

Like, if there were a Vietnamese forum I'm not going to spend all day on there talking about how shit America is, I'm going to be thinking about ways to improve society for the benefit of my own country.

>>15433266
>>Nice guys don't feel entitled to sex, because they actually have it. Because they have things to offer.
>Sex is a reward for good boy points
Why does it seem that the only people who follow the same dipshit logic as incels are Reddit women? The idea that people have sex proportionally to how good a person they are as if women evaluate people based on a completely rational appraisal of their character is one of the funnier ideas I've ever heard.

>>15433917
You're counter-revolutionary because you're a useful idiot for the milquetoast bourgeois faggots you claim to critique.

Enjoy drinking Starbucks with trannies while bored young men continue to do dumbass Ted Kaczynski shit or shoot up schools and mosques because you refused to reach out to them. When you call those people losers, you make it fun for them to shoot women in the face and justify a bourgeois police state. You are the definition of a useful idiot.

>>15434098
Fuck off back to r.eddit

>>15433551
>>15433561
I have seem people criticize Maslow's pyramid my entire life, yet I never see what views/ideas/categorizations/theories have replaced it.

It's a meme to claim it's been disproven, but not actually show what's replaced it.

>>15434185
>Y'all

>>15434301
>The idea that people have sex proportionally to how good a person they are as if women evaluate people based on a completely rational appraisal of their character is one of the funnier ideas I've ever heard.
Uh... it is? Because that's how you get attractive women.

I would also start believing in God, that might help you be a better person as well, seems like you are a social Darwinist or something. :3

>>15434185
>Stop complaining and recognize that everyone who engages in sex consistently, especially when young (that is, earlier than 25), ends up regretting it.
>everyone
Great source bro

>>15434333
If you were to ever take a THRILLING course in Org Theory or Human Resources, you'd probably be introduced to McClelland's Theory, Herzberg's Theory, and Alderfer's Theory of needs.


to be honest, social/behavioral science is often a lot of bullshit sexed up to seem extremely important. don't put too much faith into any of these theories fo behavior. at best, they describe how some people work some of the time.

>>15431226
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqoEplBvXkI
Males are on the verge of solving their own sexual problems completely. Let them.

>>15434389
STOP fucking POSTING this shit. Keep it in /v/ for FUCKS sakes. i'm so FUCKIng SIcK of losers posting their LOSER shit on my /lit/

I've seen people actually have relationships on here man, what the fuck is this shit. Keep it in /v/ or /pol/ please, PLEASE. Ffsjfcsmdhngl

>>15434404
I'm a man on a mission. A mission to liberate the male sex.

>>15434404

Get raped you fucking whore

>>15434389
good song. what is it? some tranny shit?

>>15434407
>>15434421
I am :3

>>15434407
Please continue this and become even more radical so this is your main ideology in life. Make sure you're still doing shit like this in 10-15 years, don't back down from it, become even more intensely devoted to pushing tranny propaganda. Just keep doing it for another decade or two, really commit to it.

>>15434141
>I think you need to re-read history buddy.
Oh please, show me those fascist revolutions.

>my point is that the regimes are typically based on government interference and control.
As is every functional regime.

>and that is what you generally see, the Nazi party, for instance, was generated as a worker's party movement.
Wrong, workers were more loyal to socdems and commies. Nazis focused on small property owners.

>last two years and they still don't learn
And yet you still haven´t learn not to waste paragraphs, my little redditfriend.

>>15434457

This post reeks of historical revisionism a pot calling the kettle black

>>15434478
and a*

>>15434141
>I think you need to re-read history buddy.

Educate us on history, please. What happened in 1933 when the Nazis were on the ballot?

>>15434457
>Wrong, workers were more loyal to socdems and commies. Nazis focused on small property owners.
What's worse, is I've done this discussion over and over again for the last two years with people like you, I notice a non-Nazi trend until new people come on and start arguing in favor of the Nazis.

Are things completely materialistic determined to be simply based on historical cultural differences or something?

Anyway this is completely incorrect. I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. I'm very confused if you think that worshipping Hitler is going to be any sort of strategy this century, simply by depressingly fulfilling some sort of sick prophecy some elites might be giving about the cyclicality of history, I don't see how you'd be doing anything beneficial for us with this view.

The Nazi party is a worker's party. For the benefit of the workers.

Now please cue your snide, condescending bullshit attitude and attempt to make me think twice about what I'm saying with some sort of 'scientific', 'pessimistic' outlook on reality and German thinkers.

Fuck Hitler and fuck you retard, the good guys won, and if you want to change the outlook for blonde-haired Germans in this country you should join the ongoing movement happening under our noses, with no conflict involved, which is simply something that manifests itself intellectually, as opposed to physically.

:3

>>15434486
You see this post as well, newfag
>>15434496

>>15434348
>seems like you're a social darwinist or something
I think you misunderstood my point. The person I was responding to seemed to argue that people get sex for being a good person. If that isn't social darwinism, nothing is.
As for my point:
People do not look at how "good" a person is. There are plenty of perfectly good people who do not have as much sexual appeal as bad people. Ted Bundy had a lot of sex. Newton did not. What is "attractive" is not always what is "good" and people are necessarily subject to constraints when thinking about things based on their current knowledge. Do you disagree with that? If so, I'll argue with you, but I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

>>15434442
>>15434424
Tranny shit has nothing to do with it. Assign men wives, or let them have their waifus. The current bullshit ain't workin.

Or, whatever, let the majority of retarded males get chewed up by our current system, but if you do that, you'd better not touch VR/AR waifu-tech.

>>15434508
No, I had to open the thread in incognito to see whether it was you or Buttershit posting because I have your tryhard "notice me" reddit posts filtered.

>>15431226

Simps and white knights are the ultimate counter revolutionaries. Rape is the seizure of the mean of reproduction.

>>15434526
what if you get assigned an ugly, unattractive wife who doesn't like you?

>>15434357
Fine. Not everyone but a significant percentage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27366/

>>15431226
Gender redistribution, simple as.

>>15434496
>I notice a non-Nazi trend until new people come on and start arguing in favor of the Nazis.
I´m a Slav, my ancestors crushed Nazis. I can assure you I hold no sympathy for them.

>Anyway this is completely incorrect. I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom.
Done in high-school. Pretty meh.

>The Nazi party is a worker's party. For the benefit of the workers.
You are just repeating your assertion. But where is the evidence, Amerifilth?

>>15434526
My mistake then fren, I thought you were a tranny pushing that degenerate "life is like synthwave and anime if you're a degenerate faggot tranny :3" shit, I've seen some really aggressive shit on 4chan lately.

I don't think VR is the solution, the solution is fixing this broken society, but at least incels can tell the mainstream to fuck off instead of getting crushed under its heel for a change if they get their VR waifus.

>>15434519
>The person I was responding to seemed to argue that people get sex for being a good person. If that isn't social darwinism, nothing is.

However 'sexual selection' for Darwin isn't about being nice is it? For instance, in order for you to have sex with a woman you need her to notice her, perhaps you have to compete with others for her to get to notice you.

Sounds pretty aggressive right? It's this sort of aggression and the leaving of people out that makes and generates misery and contempt simply so people can get some fleeting pleasure which may or may not even be worth it in the end.

>People do not look at how "good" a person is. There are plenty of perfectly good people who do not have as much sexual appeal as bad people.
Now we are in social Darwinism territory! So the ends do justify the means according to you! According to you, simply being aggressive grants you sex.

>What is "attractive" is not always what is "good" and people are necessarily subject to constraints when thinking about things based on their current knowledge
Many very, very attractive women end up with unattractive men. This is because they are manipulative and play with feelings and different sorts of materialistic impulses. :3

It takes quite a spur to get rid of, or shake off these sorts of things in modern day, but when you come down to it, perhaps the most attractive, nice people are the ones left out very frequently. But not for any good reason.

It's not any good reason for those people to change. It's society that needs to change obviously, and people need to stop believing in 'social Darwinism'.

>>15434546
The fact that many different worker's party movements were happening at the time, like Bolshevism and Leninism, later.

I mean really, I think you underestimate how popular The Communist Manifesto is. It was obviously a huge influence for Hitler's entire movement. That and being burdened with a large amount of debt from WWI

>>15433168

How much you want to bet a female wrote this?

>>15434585
>The fact that many different worker's party movements were happening at the time, like Bolshevism and Leninism, later.
Bolshevism was Leninism, dummy and our revolution happened decade before Hitler became relevant.

>It was obviously a huge influence for Hitler's entire movement.
Negative influence. They didn´t sought to be inspired by it, but formed as the opposition against it.

>>15434594
i'm a man with a big, swinging dick, and i will tell you the same thing. the only people who think women owe them sex are desperate insecure faggots. they want to force a woman to make them feel like a man. dumb shit. just be fine with being unwanted. accept that shit and go beat off or whatever. the shit you think makes you manly really just makes you a little bitch. if you knew multiple women actually wanted to fuck you, one or two turning you down won't ruin your life.

>>15434614
>Bolshevism was Leninism
Many writers do not think so, or at least believe what Lenin intended was not what the Bolshevist movement became.

>Negative influence.
Absolutely not. There was incredible worker strife and Hitler was also very influenced by the Communist Manifesto

Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, I wish I could put a bullet through every self-professed Nazi's fucking forehead on here :3

>>15434629
Agreed to a certain extent :3

>>15434629
nice masculinity projection big strong hardman im really scared of u

Blah blah blah blah pee pee poo poo

>>15434634
>Many writers
Braindead mutts like you? I have never seen Bolshevism and Leninism listed as separate movements.

>There was incredible worker strife and Hitler was also very influenced by the Communist Manifesto
Again, you utter moron. That´s an assertion, where is evidence? I don´t see Hitler pursuing interests of the working class, I see him speaking about German nation as one organic whole.

>>15434629
No one thinks women "owe" men anything. You can only think individualistic terms because you're cognitively incapable of taking responsibility for the whole (of society, of world history, of anything whatsoever) because you're either a woman or low test enough to be an honorary woman.

Your revolutionary social philosophy of "that guy he complain, he say he want property?? he not EARN property like me by inheriting it lmao!!" is worthless. Keep it to yourself and let men talk. Or go be groupthinking white noise on Reddit where it's appreciated.

>>15434674
Try reading people other than Hitler. Have you read any Schumpeter? He wrote extensively on the Communist movements as well. :3

>>15434693
So you gave up on your bullshit? Good riddance, now fuck off.

>>15434692
If I believe all men should have access to your tight pink 18+ year old asshole for the good of society, you have no argument against it.

Men are going insane because you're witholding your tight pink 18+ year old asshole, and we're all going burn down civilization without it. Are ready to give up the goods for the good of society, old sport?

>>15434712
You don't want a recommendation from Schumpeter?

>>15434729
>18+
>18+

>>15434739
i don't want to get Chris Hansoned. I'm letting the authorities know that I'm assuming the young man I'm speaking to is a legal adult because this is 4Chan after all.

>>15434729
Men are going insane because they're entering their thirties with no family, no release for urges that are endlessly promoted and stoked by their culture which then turns around and mocks them for wanting to release those urges, and the only consolation prize they're being given is that they can keep playing the 8th sequel to a video game series they don't even like while working at an office job if they're lucky, while real wages have not gone up in their country since 1971 despite the GDP quintupling itself every three years.

Absolutely no one is saying "give me ur vagina thats socialism" unless it's as a joke, and then even the jokes are ways of sublimating the anger and frustration felt by these men because they really know that isn't an option, they know there is no option, but simply saying this out loud has caused them to be endlessly mocked by empty-headed status quo defending worthless retards like you.

Today they will joke about state-mandated gfs. Tomorrow they will vote for a populist party whose meteoric success in the polls will be (to you, but not to people who actually pay attention to the problems just beneath the surface of society) a massive surprise, the day after that they will stack the Supreme Court with anti-abortion judges, and for many days after that they will systematically dismantle liberal feminism. And they will have wives, and they will spread their ideology to their children, because now the institutions and laws of society will serve them as the majority ideology, and it will be two generations before their influence wanes and you can have another wonderful "sexual revolution" where your ideology of free love can be provided to you in prepackaged form by corporations who want to sell you a hedonistic degenerate consumer lifestyle.

>>15434574
This is the stupidest shit I've ever read. I'm actually trying to understand how you can hold these opinions.
>Bullshit about social Darwinism
Do you think Social Darwinism means literally that people act based on how Darwin said they would in nature. Are you that stupid? No, Social Darwinism is a doctrine stating that selection of the "best," that is, those who do what is valued and considered good, would automatically win the sexual and economic game, thus getting rid of those who are "bad" through natural selection. Your version seems to be extremely literal and wouldn't even include Herbert Spencer because he didn't say that in society the same people thrive as in nature. What you're arguing is that Social Darwinism is just Darwinism. Obviously that isn't true.
>ends do justify the means
What the fuck? I just said some bad people have sex, and you took that from it? What do you think I'm saying? Are you illiterate?
>simply being aggressive grants you sex
Never said that. A variety of traits are considered sexually attractive by different people. For instance, religiosity. Some people are attracted to the magnanimous, some the cynical. Is the magnanimous or the cynical good? One must be, rationally speaking. But, two people are attracted to different, often opposite, things. Applying this to niceness, it's very easy to imagine someone who prioritizes honesty over niceness to the point of believing meanness is positive. I have been arguing this entire time that nothing "grants you sex," that there is no good boy scorecard, that these things are controlled not by omniscient beings but by people who are subject to personal preferences and similar non-rational reasons.
>unattractive men end up with attractive women because of manipulation
Confirmed bait.
Is there even any point to discussing this part? Some guy pretending to be an idiot in his free time?
You didn't respond to my question. You just went off on a tangent. To recap:
Do you believe what is good is always aligned with what is attractive?
Do you believe that people, being subject to constantly incomplete knowledge, often mistake unattractive traits for attractive ones?
I would like a yes or no answer on these two questions. If yes, I would like to see how that does not imply "the good are not always deemed attractive by others." If no, I would like to see a reason why.

And also, this is a literature board. Read Social Darwinists before you pretend to understand what they believe.

>>15432650
>bored middle class losers
Bit of A contradiction desu, if you have a stable middle class job and a university degree you are highly unlikely to be identifying as an incel . It’s definitely a phenomenon of alienated lumpenproles with an internet connection

>>15434773
Today you will joke about me turning your tight pink 18+ year old asshole into a public good. But tomorrow the strong buck men of this country will vote in a Booty Party, much to your (but no one else's) surprise. Then, we'll take what is owed. And in case you haven't been paying attention, that's your tight pink 18+ year old asshole. And we will spread that ideology to our sons who, on their 18+ year old birthdays will celebrate by experiencing the same tight wet man butt their forefathers experienced. You can't escape you consumerist hedonistic, degenerate scum!

>>15434852
>>15434729

this is all parody. thank you

>>15434789
>Do you believe what is good is always aligned with what is attractive?
Yes

>Do you believe that people, being subject to constantly incomplete knowledge, often mistake unattractive traits for attractive ones?
Yes.

I think that people see the best in others, that's why both of those get a yes.

The good are deemed attractive by some, maybe not all. Eventually the Good gets realized. The problems I am talking about is the Evil properties being mistaken for Good.

>>15434629

Tits or gtfo

>>15434870

Projection

The day is coming when some reform-minded zoomer gets political power and slams the door so hard on feminism that it will never be opened again. And women, having just spent a century burning themselves out on the most irresponsible and self-destructive hedonism possible, will welcome it wholeheartedly.

>>15435075
i just don't want to get Chris Hansoned, hombre. gotta cover my bases and let people know that it was all a methaphor. all an allegory. i dont' even like anal, much less a man's rectum

>>15435090
yes. one day girls will want to have sex with you. they've spent the last century repulsed by your presence. but one day....

>>15435113
based hole

>>15435121
that imagemacro doesn't even apply. i just said the same thing you said but more honestly.

>>15435162
incorrect, retard.

>>15435176
nothing wrong with feeling a little lonely. just don't turn weak, catty, and vindictive about it. sitting around waiting for your zommer reformist daddy to make everything right and make women think you're sexy is a fool's game.

>>15435194
based hole, see >>15435121

in all honesty you are surprisingly stupid

>>15431226
Under a Marxist anthropology, man creates and sustains himself through labor. Under capitalism this gets a little complicated but I think it’s safe to assume that having sex is not necessary.

>>15435200
and you are tragically alone. but i want you to be happy. all the negative feelings are just holding you back.

>>15435229
you are wearing me down, i can only say "see holes.jpg" so many times before it starts to be embarrassing for me and to cause me actual sadness

you really, actually don't get holes.jpg do you? jesus, you things really are fucking doomed to be this way.

>>15435194
>just don't turn weak, catty, and vindictive about it
Why not?

At this point, the only way to solve the incel problem is genetic engineering and make everyone a Chad. We now know too much about sexual attraction to go back to our idealized view of relationships.

>>15435235
it's very feminine

>>15434852
Fuck off to reddit numale. We will build the phalanstery and you will be ousted. We will have our passional attraction.

>>15435333
oh you're good.

>>15431301
You sound like a zealot.

>>15434887
Okay. The original position taken was basically, "Just be good, then you'll be attractive." We have already acknowledged that the most good person is not always considered the most attractive person. My argument was that perfect aren't used by women and that being a good person does not necessarily mean you'll be able to have sex with someone. We agree on that. What we do not agree on is the second assertion I made, that the good and the attractive are not even necessarily correlated, that is, that to be "good" is not to be "attractive."

Let us imagine a situation where there are two people: "A" and "B." A wants to be in a relationship with B. A, therefore, does whatever they consider good. Unbeknownst to A, however, B considers the good A does bad because B holds different morals from A. An extreme example would be one in which A joins a charitable cause they believe in, but B does not believe in it. B wants to be in a relationship with A but, even if A is right about what is good, B does not think A is good. We can, of course, apply this to any trait, from niceness to rudeness.

A second scenario. In this one, A and B are imagined to have the same morals. A does good. However, this good is entirely parallel B. Thus, as B does not see this good, it never goes recognized, even though B finds good attractive.

So, we have a few simple conclusions:
1. The "good," in itself, is not attractive.
2. What is attractive is what the attracted values.
3. What the attracted values is not always good, merely what they deem good.
4. What is beautiful (in the Kantian sense) is thus what most people consider good.

From these, we can observe that what is generally good by most is not always what is good. Most values present in past times, we can observe, are pretty bad. Particularly those pertaining to the treatment of women. We can also easily observe that many values currently recognized as good by most are not in fact good. Trying to act as one ought, we can thusly observe, does not make you more attractive, rather, attractiveness is an entirely separate and unrelated value to goodness or niceness. Rather, to be attractive, you have to be visually what the current value system desires. To bring this back to old Marx, who is, after all, the point of this thread, a Chad is the epitome of an ideologue, following the common belief of what is right and wrong before even their own morality.

>>15435443
>A wants to be in a relationship with B. A, therefore, does whatever they consider good.
And let it be known that there is more than just this involved. Sometimes A wants to be in a relationship with B and has to do what A thinks B thinks is good.

Now generally speaking, this should be the same, since 'good' is one and the same, but sometimes this logical difference results in doing somewhat different things, maybe different but still good in each way, just not evil.

Regardless, obviously the situation is more complex than what you've portrayed here. AND ALSO, the 'good' is somewhat of an objective measure, and while interpreted as different things, the good that A does, if still good, would never be portrayed as the diametric opposite, evil, especially at extremes. After all color doesn't work that way does it? If someone says a shade of a color looks blue and someone says it looks green, someone else never goes 'THATS WHITE' or 'THATS BLACK'.

What YOU are referring to is what I referred to above, where the 'moral parameters' of how the individuals judge good and evil are faulty.

NOT GOOD AND BAD. Good and evil. (this renders most of the rest of your post, a rant about good and bad obsolete).

Come back to me when you adopt the principle of moral objectivity in the Aristotleian sense, not the Nietzschean.

>>15431379
Subjective experiences are internal properties, a woman's right to her body is merely a ethical conception arising from the fact that its beneficial to society, or has been at some point

>>15435484
I have not argued in this post that there is no objective good or bad. All I have argued is that what one deems good or bad is not always what is objectively good or bad.
>comparing morality and color as the reason for arguing people never have diametrically opposed moralities
What are you, fucking continental? That isn't an argument. Color is a simple perception based on coronas that everyone has. (That being said, of course, there are people who say "that is black" or "that is white." These people are color blind. On morality, I think it's fair to argue that nearly everyone is color blind, as barely anyone has ever read or understood philosophy)
As for the actual point, it's false. The statement implies "two people have never and could never believe opposite actions are morally good." That is obviously wrong. During the holocaust, some believed hiding Jews from the gestapo was good. Others believed the gestapo trying to root them out and put them in camps was good. These are diametrically opposed actions, no?
>good would never be seen as evil
The people who saved Jews from the holocaust are seen as evil race traitors by the Nazis during the Nazi regime. That is probably (if you are against the holocaust) the greatest thing you can do, and it was seen as evil. You are trying to make the complex world of morality into as simple as visual stimulai.
>good and evil, not good and bad
Okay, change every occurrence of bad to evil. Doesn't change my point. What some see as evil (the holocaust, holodomor, nakba, Armenian genocide, invasion of Chechnya, putting gays in asylums, etc.), others see as good. Stop being such a fucking poindexter over 4chan posts. The change in word doesn't matter. Address it as if I said evil.
>what you are referring to is when some people's understanding is faulty
If someone else is wrong, they will not find your correct morality attractive. Unless your morality is constantly changing with the times (if you'll hearken with me, lynching blacks was considered good just 100-200 years ago), your morality, I'm guessing, is not going to be the most common one.
>come back when you believe in Aristotle, not Nietzsche
Where'd you get Nietzsche from. I got from your earlier evocation of social darwinism you're not very well versed on philosophy, but what I have said is not at all Nietzschean. Everything I've argued has been contained within "Critique of Judgement." Maybe give it a read sometime, you'll find that philosophy didn't end in the 16th century, as you seem to think, evoking Aristotle as the paragon of philosophical thought.

>>15435664
Retina, not corona. I think I might be retarded.

>>15434315
Isn't he reaching out to you right now?

You need to wake up and see the tree from the roots up. It's not a problem with women not wanting to have sex with ugly, undesirable men, why would they? And more than sex, why would they want to construct a life in this harsh capitalist society with someone that is so unfit for the role they can't even present themselves in any desirable manner at all.

Yes, incels are a problem of the modern capitalist society but not because they are entitled to sex (as they are to food) but because hyper individualism has broken all their meaningful relationships to an extent where they feel the only way to be valid is to engage in the most primal needs. Have you ever questioned why do you feel so attached to this idea of sex and relationships? I bet you have friends, who doesn't? If you don't then have you wondered why? Sharing life with a partner makes capitalism a lot more bearable for now you are not alone but together, that is what you are really seeking. You're lonely in a very individualistic society but it is not women who are to blame, the women you blame are just trying to get by, much like you. They have their own struggles but ultimately it is all due to atomization and the loss of true communal living.

>>15436017
No, he's doing the opposite, and so are you. Why are you replying to my critique with the thing I'm critiquing?

>>15432082
Wow. This may be the most astute take on the incel phenomenon I’ve ever read. And on 4-Chan of all places.

>>15436476
It's a bunch of obfuscatory nonsense. Males want reciprocal love from a pretty woman. The pretty women won't (or more likely, can't) give it to them. Therefore, the market will begin to deliver solutions. Easy peasy. No theory needed.

>>15436476
don't samefag unless you know how to fit in.

>>15431226
>correct Marxist view

>>15436592
unironically this is the most profound and true post in this thread

/leftypol/ tourists go back, twitter faggots go back, chapo trannies go back

>>15435237
I know 5'5 literal manlet broke brainlet who are considered chad. This isn't even rational.

>>15436919
Fuck off tranny tourist.

>>15434315
>Enjoy drinking Starbucks with trannies while bored young men continue to do dumbass Ted Kaczynski shit or shoot up schools and mosques because you refused to reach out to them.
I'm not the kind of person you imagine I am. Also I already explained why there's no reaching out to be done. The communist movement is movement of the proletariat for specifically proletarian goals. It's not a charity for incels. It can't tackle inter-class problems other than through tackling its own class problem. And for that hardcore incels are useless because they simply don't have the traits that make for good militants. And most of the time they aren't even proletarian but middle class students or some shit.

>When you call those people losers, you make it fun for them to shoot women in the face and justify a bourgeois police state.
A bunch of women getting shot in the face twice a year isn't what sustains the state.

>>15436519
Various kinds of human connection are for the most part interchangeable, but it's hard to understand that when you're socially isolated. The latter is one of the reasons I think the "hardcore" incels are mostly hopeless. Because this is not something you can convince them of just by talking to them. It takes breaking their social isolation in practice, but the way society is arranged makes that hard.

>>15437654
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA RETARD

>>15435664
>What are you, fucking continental? That isn't an argument. Color is a simple perception based on coronas that everyone has. (That being said, of course, there are people who say "that is black" or "that is white." These people are color blind. On morality, I think it's fair to argue that nearly everyone is color blind, as barely anyone has ever read or understood philosophy)
So you don't get the point, okay
>The people who saved Jews from the holocaust are seen as evil race traitors by the Nazis during the Nazi regime. That is probably (if you are against the holocaust) the greatest thing you can do, and it was seen as evil. You are trying to make the complex world of morality into as simple as visual stimulai.
Because Good and Evil (which again, exist) are gradations like black and white. It's how Plato and Aristotle viewed morality, you are more of a sophist than a philosopher.
>What some see as evil (the holocaust, holodomor, nakba, Armenian genocide, invasion of Chechnya, putting gays in asylums, etc.), others see as good
I'm certain if you looked at reason itself, you would find the answers you seek: that when it comes to the big questions like murder, rape, etc. there are no 'opposites', that is IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR OPPOSITE MORAL SYSTEMS TO EXIST.
>If someone else is wrong, they will not find your correct morality attractive.
Again, it's not 'my correct morality' it is THE correct morality. And I'm not positing we actually know what this morality entirely is, but we certainly can see what the fundamental bedrock is by the commandments of God in the past.

I think the mainstream media and the "commies" hate for incels is hypocritical at best and scummy at worst
so they are whiny dudes that have massive mental problems , what do you redditers do ? exploit them for karma farming and cringe posting under the disguise of "i ridicule them because i wanna save them" be real nigglet you are exploiting them for cheap laughs ,you laugh at them to get with the stupid bitch that's laughing at them with you ,
and for girls ? you are hypocrites too ! basically if an incel did a thing it's cringe but if it's someone you "like" then it becomes sweet ! it's really subjective
for the commie scum (the reddit part also applies) you are just the epitome of irony , instead of showing love for your fellow human you are exploiting them for twitter points haha let's dunk on this mentally ill maladjusted people and make them even more isolated to the point where i see a furry trans man having better time than incels
please infect yourselves hypocrite niggerloving jews

>>15431226
>men's need for love and sex
False premise.

>>15437770
Is this what commie faggots really believe?

>>15437770
GOOD praxis, comrade! The working class will fall in line behind your noble leadership any day now!

Marxism is the worst thing possible that could happen to incels, can you imagine a world where there is no class distinctions or capital accumulation? Not only would prostitutes no lobger exist, but you will not even be able to seduce women with your bank account or social status to make up for being ugly.
It's basically the chad enabling ideology, women will be completely free from social and material constraints when choosing who to fuck, hence why most incels are far-right.

>>15437984
Why does anyone bother with relationships or sex after they understand love doesn't exist between men and women? It's better to just at least keep the fantasy.

>>15437984
You're not transhistorical. The incel mindset won't survive its basis, i.e. the bourgeois society, so the fall of this society is not really something that can "happen" to incels. In a communist society people won't be fixated on the idea that they deserve a recompensation for their miserable empty life in the form of a little woman slave, because their communal need will not remain unfulfilled, thanks to the assumption of the human functions that are currently alienated in capital.

>>15437984
>hence why most incels are far-right.
Pure meme, you have no actual solid data to back this up. Random images of the same 4 chinless uggos with no context doesn't count.

>>15438498
Try going to an incel forum and see which politicians/ideologies they support.

>>15438342
Having a fulfilling work does not substitute the need for intimacy.
If you believe all social problems are due to class conflict you are a literal meme.

>>15438665
All male feminists and trannies are incels and they aren’t right wing.

>>15438342
>In a communist society people won't be fixated on the idea that they deserve a recompensation for their miserable empty life in the form of a little woman slave
Why is it that incel hopes are always characterized in the most negative light possible?
Have you thought about why you chose to phrase it this way?

>>15431226
This is one of the most retarded things served as a "intellectual" take I've seen in my life. OP is cringe and should consider rope

>>15438691
They're definitely not incels, most of them get laid due to having no standards

These chapo-listening, reddit-loving, /leftypol/-browsing, tranny-worshipping, self-hating commies are hilarious.
>216 posts
>65 posters
Oh no no no no no no.

Reading this thread has convinced me that people still do not understand what incels actually are, even on a website that is comfortable with the fringe like 4chan.
It seems like no one can really figure them out as a social phenomenon, everyone just approaches the idea of incels with their own little agenda and unleashes furious projection onto them.

>>15438759
Redditfaggots have twisted the definition from “involuntary celibates” (a big chunk of the young male population which will have disastrous effects in the future) to “ugly white early-twenty-somethings that aren’t redditfaggots”.

>>15431708
It’s just an expression dude. You desperately pseudointellectual commie faggots need to chill.

>>15438682
I said none of those things.

>>15438714
I phrased it in many different ways throughout all the comments I ever wrote on the subject. You wouldn't know. In that particular comment I chose to phrase it the way I did because the point was to underline that the ideas that ideological incels have about themselves are deluded.

>>15438893
>ah yes you could never POSSIBLY know about all the things that you've never read that I just unilaterally claim to have written
Yes and I wrote many peer-reviewed research papers on anti-gravity propulsion systems. You wouldn't know about that though.

>>15431277
>>15432409
>COMEDY GOLD

>>15439193
Yes.

how can communist have faith in humanity even tho they are materialists ?
redpill me on that dear anons

>>15431226
In a true communist society there would both be people who were assigned community prostitution duties. This could be done in a fashion similar to how jury duty works, or done in a more lifestyle related way where there are official prostitutes. There could also be Chad's for women to breed with while they raise the chadbaby with their beta sweet husband who cooks and cleans so they can be strong and independent.

when the Chinese Communists came into power one of the first things that they taught in schools was not any thoughts about specific political ideology, but about evolution and that man was just an animal and if man was just an animal then we won't mind being herded and having masters who keep tabs on the animals and we're one big ant colony and we've got someone to direct traffic and...

>>15435207
This is funny and I’m ashamed of all of you.

>>15432772
>... and enforced monogamy throught law won't be necessary anymore. If the children are taken care of by society, monogamy won't be a strict necessity anymore, since their is no cucking possible, if it's not the father who provide for the children, but society as a whole.
Kinda naive to assume people just engage in monogamy out of necessity and women arent literally biologically built to desire to raise their kids.
Read the history of the kibbutz, they did exactly the same and right after the first generation of women was born they all started protesting that they wanted to raise the kids by themselves and have marriage. And they were raised in kid homes with zero pressure to engage in monogamy or domestic work.
>In aboriginal society, women are married to a man, usually a mature male, of 35-40 of age. The women is kind of the property of the male (don't know if she will be the property in the future). The women, in adition to her husband, can have, if she wants, an official lover, named piroru. She can have sexual intercourse with her lover, but only when the husband is not at home. (Source: Hans Fehlinger: sexuality in primitive tribes).
The oldest and most primitive hunter gatherer societies to have formed and are still alive today, like the San people, were all monogamous and even have divorce and marriage ceremonies.
The women in those societies had love affairs because their marriage was simply a diplomatic relation to the interest of two families agaisnt their will, marriage was a complete separate institution from love there. And the fact that she could only have the affair when the husband is not looking only further shows how you cant really separate sex from exclusiveness(possessiveness) and emotional investments in the human psyche.
This has also nothing to do with marxist theory or left wing thought, just because you have a society where you can get your dick wet more easily by having an affair with a married woman doesnt make you that much less lonely at the end, and the modern society you have today where people are more free to engage in ONS, swings and sexwork despite remaining the loneliest and depressive is only further proof.

Engel's works also support the same theory: "The social revolution which Engels believed was about to happen would eliminate class differences, and therefore also the need for prostitution and the enslavement of women. If men needed only to be concerned with sex-love and no longer with property and inheritance, then monogamy would come naturally."

If we take more recent post-modernist works like Capitalism and Schizophernia you would also reach the same conclusion that as soon as capitalism is abolished and so its schiziod affects on human codes, you would quickly shift back into a ""trad"" like scenario. Capitalism is actively trying to decode cultural codes into other codes that make it more efficient. And this is just your critique of capitalism 101.

>>15431338
super-exploitation of women proles is what is bourgeois. Feminism has been at the forefront of every meaningful revolutionary movement

>>15431710
Incels think they're entitled to a cute girl. What's the point

>>15439806
Chinese communists never came to power. They were destroyed by Chiang Kai-shek and Stalin in 1927.

>>15438691
holy cope

>>15432772
>Monogamy is a result of civilization
You have lots of animals that are monogamous even if they are raised alone without peers. This 60s and 70s new left treatment that makes everything a social construct and treats people like machines running lines of code that can be altered only futher helped capitalism.

>>15432804
Its the biggest stain that the 60s did on the left, and why their movement is a balkanized, unorganized shitfest. This image is the most reason people dont join leftist movements anymore, because they always assume the end goal is to make some utopia where we all walk naked, have massive bisexual orgies while high on acid. It has almost nothing to do with working class anymore, worker unions today are weak, always on the defensive.
Its also why they sided a lot with the establishment on the political correctiveness legalism that is always getting flak today and somany reactionary groups rose up.
The left ultimately was absorbed and used as a tool to further divide people and help capitalism.

>>15431226
Why haven't incels been absorbed into the socialist political fringes along with the trannies, feminists, immigrants, blacks, jews and so on? Incels want higher status too, and just like the typical leftist demographics they are biologically shafted from that by any natural means. Why aren't the left eagerly scooping them into their arms?

>>15440563
The left has been hijacked by Capital

>>15440563
They might get somewhere if they focus on it being a race thing, which they do to a degree already, ie. racism against indians, chinese, etc.

>>15431226

1/2

I'm not sure what the orthodox Marxist perspective of incels is - or rather, I'm fairly sure that, sensu stricto, there isn't one. But it is interesting to think about how a Marxian analysis, broadly conceived, might make sense of the phenomenon. To this end:

1. Women have, in traditional patriarchal forms of social organisation, not only been regarded as a kind of property, but the distribution of women & the distribution of property have been inextricably interlinked.

2. At the same time, there have also always existed forms of sexuality outside of traditional property relations... namely, prostitution - the oldest profession - proto-capitalist functioning. The prostitute offers their body, as a property freed from traditional family-bound property forms in exchange for commodities, which also exist at the margins of communal/familial/tribal property forms... the prostitute figuratively & literally in the margins of the community.

3. The history of the social forms of capitalism is in many ways a history of the social significance of prostitution.

4. A kind of paradoxical transformation occurred in the 20th-century, & especially w/ the sexual revolution. Prostitution, as the proto-capitalist form of sexuality, is seen as something that is not only amoral & criminal - not only as a disreputable trade for the prostitute - but as a form of sexuality that cannot possibly bring fulfilment or meaning to life. While prostitution certainly did not cease to exist, it ceased to present itself to most people as a legitimate way to get sexual gratification. The reason for this being so bad is that love/sex assumes the function of bearing the entirety of everything that falls outside of the capitalist order of relations. Money can buy many things - but it can't buy love.... Love, in other words, assumes the form of sex. & yet sex, since it supposedly shouldn't be bought, assumes the almost mystical form of a gift freely given: & for young men, the gift of recognition encapsulated in the phrase "You are a man now!". Loving virginity is the only rite of passage left for young men. The bar mitzvah, the confirmation, & the sweet 16 give way to inebriated, sad escapades... it is indeed as if society itself is no longer capable of acknowledging adulthood in the form of potentiality, but only as a "done deed" - the loss of innocence. Yet while sex is also what confers recognition, it remains, like almost everything else in our world, a recognition that can be achieved primarily by cunning & deception, if not theft. Anything, that is, apart from purchasing it for the fair market price.

5. The logic of late capitalism, in this way, allows neither pure love or pure sex... it mystifies the pure corporeality of love through the dream of love as a social recognition that cannot be conferred by effort or by status. & it mystifies the pure spirituality of sex through the absurd demand that true love disembogues from the most mindblowing of orgasms.

>>15440623
hyper-based (hyper-pbuh)

>>15440642

2/2

6. While it is hard to be sympathetic w/ incels, they deserve some sort of pity, however relentlessly they work to make themselves unworthy of it. Not because they are not getting the sex that they deserve - no one deserves sex, insofar as sex is a gift - but because they are trapped in a system that forces 'em to desire improbable things. & indeed, love in late capitalism is an unlikely thing, even many who think that they have found it have not; incels are merely suffering its unlikeliness more acutely than others.

7. The politicisation of incels is an ideological battle of no small importance. Reactionary forces will blame pop culture, blame women, blame SJWs & political correctness, blame everything that they can blame w/out getting to the core. They will promise incels a return to a proper social order in which women are kept in their place, divested of their almost magical power, & distributed to men based on merit. Yet the illusions to which incels are captive are of such vital significance that, in this example, ideological subversion may amount to something more....

8. Needed is a recognition that there is a need, maybe can speak of a natural need, for both love & sex. It is only when we recognise the need that we can begin to see how it has become perverted into an improbable thing.... The task of politics is not to guarantee the satisfaction of all desires all of the time, but to stop the almost inevitable translation of desires into impossibilities driving us towards individual & collective madness.

>>15440308
>worker unions today are weak
:'(

>>15431226
Read what Mike Crumplar has to say about incels. Not all left-wingers have shitty takes, you fucking idiot.

>>15431605
>the dawn of history
>People have always married (mostly) within social class
What about before the 'dawn of [written] history'?

Probably something similar to what Houellebecq wrote in Atomised and Whatever.

" Houellebecq's most crucial political insight, the one that provides
the foundations for his entire novelistic structure, can be found in the
well known thesis of Extension du domaine de la lutte: it states that
there exists a system of social hierarchy, parallel to that of personal
wealth, but based on sex and, in a context where free rein is given to
market logic, "sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pau
perization" among the undesirable, equivalent to long-term unem
ployment and economic and social exclusion (Whatever, 99). Indeed,
Les particules elementaires suggests that sexual success became the
main criterion of social superiority some time during the 1970s, before
being matched by renewed economic competition with the arrival of
globalization. "

>>15440235
cringe slide & misinformation

>>15431301
Marxism really is the worst religion

>>15431226
only an incel would think Marx himself would advocate unwilling women to be offered to lonely men who would otherwise throw a hissy fit

>>15431329
Commodification has 0 to to do with sexless men, at least directly. Women will always make value-judgements when choosing a partner. The Bedouins, landless, nomadic, classless, still have a few men with several wives, and many men with none.

Inequality and dominance hierarchy are realities that exist independent of capitalism.

>>15440563
Males refusal to have "class-consciousness" and "struggle" with women collectively is the final domino of cultural Marxism yet to fall. Fortunately, males are aware of this and can meet our collective needs in a way that saves capitalism. You failed.

>>15440308
>You have lots of animals that are monogamous even if they are raised alone without peers.
Humans closer relative is the bonobos. Humans are closer to bonobos than they are to chimpanzee.
Are bonobos monogamous? I mean it's not even promoting degeneracy, it's just observing facts.

>>15443182
Didnt mean to imply that there is some strict monogamous or polygamous nature running in humans. But it was just a cheap reply on his made assumption that monogamy is something that doesnt exist outside humans or civilization.

>>15437984
Perhaps who knows? The thing is, in Capitalism incels and beta male are already cucked. Betas because the wife is getting fucked by the boss, and incels because due to female work force, the time where men can seduce women with a bank account are long gone, or you need a really huge bank account.
It seems it is truly over for incels.

>>15431226
was marx a nigger?

>>15438759
Incels always existed. internet just gave them a voice.

>>15443182
>Humans closer relative is the bonobos. Humans are closer to bonobos than they are to chimpanzee.
No they are not. Humans are exactly the same genetic distance from Chimpanzees and Bonobos, who split after that lineage split from humans. Moreover we clearly more closely resemble chimpanzees in behavior.

>>15443391
It seems we are closer to bonobos.
https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/study-finds-bonobos-may-be-better-representation-last-common-ancestor-humans-common-chimpanzees-0
Moreover we clearly more closely resemble chimpanzees in behavior.
>Moreover we clearly more closely resemble chimpanzees in behavior.
Mode of production, living conditions > genetic. If humans have chimpanzee behaviors, instead of bonobos behavior, it's because our mode of production incentivize greed, dominance assertion, war (for profit).
Also, epigenetics have a strong inflence, and epigenetics are inherited thought environmenet. Ever noticed that western zoomers are less agressive than previous generations? To me, it's partly because the west is mostly at peace since 3 generations, and that it translate into non agressive epigenetics. Migrants, on the other hands, are more agressive, perhaps because their family is more violent and strict toward them, but also because they come from countries were violence still exist daily.

>>15443485
>https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/study-finds-bonobos-may-be-better-representation-last-common-ancestor-humans-common-chimpanzees-0
That is confirming what I said, that we are the same genetic distance from the two.

>>15437744
>Good and evil are gradations like black and white
I argued against that point. See above.
>It's how Plato and Aristotle viewed morality
Yes, I get that. I understand you're calling upon the Greeks. You just haven't given a good reason, and neither (in my opinion) have they.
>you are more of a sophist than a philosopher
You're trying to destroy the conversation here. Opposing the position that Plato and Aristotle held does not make me a sophist. Nearly every aesthetician since the Enlightenment has opposed their views. Are all of them not philosophers? If so, you might want to reconsider
>if you looked at reason itself, you would find the answers you seek
What is reason "itself?" Do you mean logico-linguistic assertions? If it were so easy to find the answer to every ethical question, everyone would have the same answer. No one does.
>it is not possible for opposite moral systems to exist
That is observably false.
One person asserts, "Raping a woman is good." The other person asserts, "Raping a woman is bad." One person says, "Killing Jews is good."
The other person says "Killing Jews is bad." You see opposite moral arguments made within this very thread. You can't just say everyone agrees that the positions you hold are correct and then move on.
>I'm not positing we actually know what this morality entirely is
But you are positing that. You must be positing that. You posited that everyone thinks the good is good. If not everyone knows what the good is, they can't think of it as good. If not everyone thinks of the good as good, as I've argued, not everyone thinks of the good as attractive. Thus goodness does not create attractiveness.
>we can see the fundamental bedrock because of a book someone (God or man) wrote
Well, now you're just completely betraying yourself. Your entire argument fundamental relies on "lol just read Plato" and then you say something like this. Why does the opinion of a few people in the past recalling their experiences (with or without Godly intervention) accurately describe the bedrock of a foundation of moral and ethical righteousness? Wouldn't, based on your belief that reason is the source of truth, a reason-based approach, similar to that of Kant in Practical Reason and Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals, make more sense as the origin of an ethics?

Also, you keep throwing around insults and assertions, but there's not one reason for an argument here. If you're just gonna say "My assertion is I'm right and if you disagree with me, you're a sophist," then you're no better than those poltards who shout nigger at people who disagree with them.

>>15437770
That's not very Marxist of you. Read the Economic and Philosophical Transcripts of 1844.

>>15443485
>If humans have chimpanzee behaviors, instead of bonobos behavior, it's because our mode of production incentivize greed, dominance assertion, war (for profit).
Meh, most egalitarian and democratic societies in our world were monogamous. In fact polygamy was the method mostly used by noble elites and prefered method at treating women as property.

>>15440563
Because most of them are depressed white males who are alienated by capitalism. Leftists only want people they consider oppressed to start rent-seeking so the capitalist elites can absorb them into the hegemony, and white men do not qualify. Literally that's the only purpose of the Left at this point

>>15432112
>Perhaps celibacy (voluntary or in-) still has something transgressive and outrageous to it, to the extent it denies (re)production

Funny that you should mention that. I once had a conversation with a friend pertaining to the subject. If I recall correctly, we were talking about the revolutionary power of sex and sex's role in revolutions. I claimed something along the lines that "every modern revolution was winged by a new conception of sex/sexuality, which holds even to this day". We ended up agreeing on the observation that nowadays almost any new positive take on sexual intercourse is met with applauds, sympathy and acceptance, hence making it not much of a transgressive (or: "revolutionary") thing at all. So my friend concluded that perhaps today's revolutionary conception of sex is to have none at all and, on the basis of Internet's general response to incels, it seems to be very much the case. It's pretty weird way of thinking about it, but I guess that's where we're at.

>>15432082
I agree with your broad analysis of intimate life or the process of precarious identity formation in the current "developed" capitalist societies, but i think it's too broad to tackle the incel problem in particular. I haven't read the article you linked, maybe it's treated there, but you have to take into account the problem of the changes on the paradigm of feminity and more broadly of sexuality and sexual relationships. There's first the problem of recognition and second the problem on the object of desire, both interwined. I'm not going to develop it but what can be seen in incel discourse and relationship to sexuality is one of objectification of womens body, women is a object of desire and between men and their body (sexual practice and affection) there's a obstacle, the obstace of women as persons that can't be just possesed as mere objects. What operates here is the classical heterosexual "right" to have the possesion of women: as a man you're supposed to, in order to fully be a man, to posses a woman, which no longer is possible through the old institution of corcerted marriage and this is the ideological form that persists. Of course this form of possesion is directly related to the notion of burgoise family, where the man is supposed, in order to be a man, to have a subject position through the possession of goods and the ability to "provide".

>>15443888
The alt-right is a left movement for unsympathetic disempowered groups.

>>15432985
Very good.

>>15433266
You're missing the point. It's not about sex, it's about being able to have a meaningful relationship and to make a family. Economic conditions today are less suited to this than they have been in the past. In addition, participation in the economy is increasingly alienating and exploitative.

Every male who is over the age of 18 who hasn't fucked should kill themselves prove me wrong

>>15439193

Yes.

>>15440183

cringe and citation needed

>>15440183
>Frumpy kikes have been at the forefront of every meaningful revolutionary movement

>>15431372
>Incel is a term made up by twitter blue checks
Literally not true. It was made up by the retards at Wizardchan. Go the fuck back to r*ddit you god damn tourist.

>>15431277
>>15431338

Amerimutt cringe

>>15431226
Because Marxism isn’t about satisfying men but supposedly providing a higher form of social production where we can directly allocate social labour and provide a space of individual fulfillment through labour. What does that have to do with angry virgins? Do you think Marxism is literally about making everyone happy by overriding our sexual impulses? Are you retarded?

>>15433266
Marx was a chad who cucked men and would probably laugh at incels for being pathetic and wallowing in their self pity instead of trying to make something of themselves and calling all attempts at self fulfillment “cope”

>>15435543
You don't think that a right to your own body springs from your own subjective experience of its ownership? How can subjective experiences be "internal properties" while the subjective experience of ownership of your body is instead an ethical conception?

>>15431417
Niggers only take the 10/10 white girls sorry pal

>>15445916
>Henry Ford was a chad who cucked men and would probably laugh at wagecucks for being pathetic and wallowing in their self pity instead of trying to make something of themselves and calling all attempts at unionizing “cope”
Marxism BTFO

>>15433266
Lol, loser bad boy dipshits with no prospects in life seem to be getting laid all alright probably because they are simply attractive

>>15446057
Except the situations are not at all comparable. Means of production are now humans manipulate nature to meet their material needs. Incels basically want state sanctioned rape because they are emotionally underdeveloped.

>>15446208
>Means of reproduction are how humans manipulate nature to meet their material needs. Marxists basically want state sanctioned theft because they are emotionally underdeveloped.
I dunno anon, I sure am seeing a lot of similarities here

>>15431269
Why can't you get up and do something with your life, paraplegic retard?

Aimee did nothing wrong. Her response to the incel issue is entirely right.

bump

>>15431277
>furry inflation
>sky is blue

>>15431226
as a fellow Marxist, you should be ashamed for your piss poor understanding of Marx lmao

how the fuck are you conflating property rights with bodily autonomy