All women are basically communists/socialists

[mylifeistrash]

I'm embarrassed it took me this long to figure this out at my oldcel age.

Women are just tools used by the governments to get votes for communism / socialism orientated governments and gain more power.

Single, heterosexual working males pay almost all the taxes and keep everything running, yet society is trying to fuck them up at every opportunity.

 

[iKillCucks]

 

[Deleted member 4159]

They are natural parasites.

 

[mikepence]

Communism is fine when you’re the one running the show.

Enslave females to pay for state-mandated NEETing for all sub-8 males.

 

[znbox]

I am all pro-capitalist, but I fucking hate when people use the words "communism" "socialism" or "Marxism" interchangeably.

Go back to school, idiot. Or fucking google what it means. You are one of the reasons SJW are taking over.

 

[mylifeistrash]

I am all pro-capitalist, but I fucking hate when people use the words "communism" "socialism" or "Marxism" interchangeably.

Go back to school, idiot. Or fucking google what it means. You are one of the reasons SJW are taking over.

feel free to explain

 

[Remyx]

They're all self entitled sociopaths

 

[Honeypot]

I'm embarrassed it took me this long to figure this out at my oldcel age.

Women are just tools used by the governments to get votes for communism / socialism orientated governments and gain more power

And that's a good thing, if you want more elaboration on this tell me

 

[Michael15651]

They are natural parasites.

And a parasite must be stopped.

 

[mylifeistrash]

And that's a good thing, if you want more elaboration on this tell me

why is it a good thing?

 

[Disillusioned]

Women aren't even really socialists since they don't share and only care about themselves. They just hide behind marxists and socialist ideals to steal from others.

 

[Deleted member 4159]

And a parasite must be stopped.

We need a cure.

 

[Honeypot]

why is it a good thing?

foids voting socialism, if they turn capitalist or any sort of non economic damager ideology we will be more fucked

 

[Gyros_Pretcel]

Socialism is evil m'kay. Be a good goy and keep slaving for me.

 

[Deleted member 60]

Women aren't even really socialists since they don't share and only care about themselves. They just hide behind marxists and socialist ideals to steal from others.

exactly, they're just parasites.

 

[Insomniac]

Women aren't even really socialists since they don't share and only care about themselves. They just hide behind marxists and socialist ideals to steal from others.

High IQ tbh..

 

[Mainländer]

They are only communists/socialists when it comes to the money earned through men's hard work. When it comes to the value they have (their bodies, sexuality and fertility) they are radical anarchocapitalists.

 

[Honeypot]

why is it a good thing?

The most wealthy a civilization is the more cucked it is the more hypergamy will have, the more poor the more based and less hypergamy will have, we have nature examples and human civilization examples, what do you want first?

Socialism will always eventually destroy your economy and we want that if you want to have more sexual market or be respected by your hability as a male to produce wealth.

 

[znbox]

feel free to explain

It would take several volumes to explain. And I'm not even equipped to talk about it since I took 1 class that briefly covered 18-21 century philosophy. There are more nuances to these terms that I don't know about that involve social, economic, ideological and other aspects.

In general, communism is like a typical family unit — everything belongs to everyone, no money, no class, and everyone work as much as they can. Completely utopian and unrealistic for humans.
Socialism is kinda complicated, in general, it's about people owning means of production. Meaning, that you working at McDonald's will own a share of what you sell, not a salary. And no CEO would get a two-million dollar salary.
Marxism is a theory about class struggle, which is the one and only hierarchy that has to be abolished. Marxists believe abolishing them would solve all the societal problems.

These are very simplified explanations. In general, they have many things in common, mostly a view of what's beneficial to the community at the expense of an individual. Which I agree is more a female trait. But I, for instance, support free healthcare like in Canada (which isn't free at all but is still better than fucking bullshit that's going on in the US). It is a socialist opinion. I also understand that if capitalism was let to develop freely with nothing stopping it, there would be more pieces of shit like Martin Shkreli going free, and I don't want to live in that society.

So, some ideas make sense, other doesn't. It is practically impossible to implement pure socialism, or pure communism or pure capitalism due to human nature.

But using these words as a red-scare is dumb and it is diminishing your credibility because it shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Henry de Montherlant]

I am all pro-capitalist, but I fucking hate when people use the words "communism" "socialism" or "Marxism" interchangeably.

You are one of the reasons SJW are taking over.

Real communist in Europe have nothing in common with libtards from America.

Their struggle is to make a more productivist and egalitarian society by seizing the means of production, make some head rolls, and establish the real dictatorship of proletariat. Who in the end is supposed to benefit from that ? The male workers who are obviously the most efficient, productive and reliable parts of the working class, and thus becoming the new elite.

Feeding the 8th children without a dad of Lakeesha has nothing to do with communism's historical battle. In fact, such situations are pure products of our current liberal capitalist societies, favoring this kind of irrational behavior. You would be surprized to see the high level of morality and abnegation in communist states despite the fact they were secularized.

 

[Pinkett Mouse]

They eat kids.

 

[hamiltoncel]

If you're using "socialist" and not mentioning the dictatorship of the proletariat you're doing it wrong. Social programs does not mean socialism.

 

[iKillCucks]

They eat kids.

*They eat chad penis.

 

[AncapFAG]

Ancom are my enemy

 

[Ticcel]

They are only communists/socialists when it comes to the money earned through men's hard work. When it comes to the value they have (their bodies, sexuality and fertility) they are radical anarchocapitalists.

 

[StaroRavager]

The Democrats are hard at work

 

[Deleted member 1780]

They are natural parasites.

 

[micropenis29]

It would take several volumes to explain. And I'm not even equipped to talk about it since I took 1 class that briefly covered 18-21 century philosophy. There are more nuances to these terms that I don't know about that involve social, economic, ideological and other aspects.

In general, communism is like a typical family unit — everything belongs to everyone, no money, no class, and everyone work as much as they can. Completely utopian and unrealistic for humans.
Socialism is kinda complicated, in general, it's about people owning means of production. Meaning, that you working at McDonald's will own a share of what you sell, not a salary. And no CEO would get a two-million dollar salary.
Marxism is a theory about class struggle, which is the one and only hierarchy that has to be abolished. Marxists believe abolishing them would solve all the societal problems.

These are very simplified explanations. In general, they have many things in common, mostly a view of what's beneficial to the community at the expense of an individual. Which I agree is more a female trait. But I, for instance, support free healthcare like in Canada (which isn't free at all but is still better than fucking bullshit that's going on in the US). It is a socialist opinion. I also understand that if capitalism was let to develop freely with nothing stopping it, there would be more pieces of shit like Martin Shkreli going free, and I don't want to live in that society.

So, some ideas make sense, other doesn't. It is practically impossible to implement pure socialism, or pure communism or pure capitalism due to human nature.

But using these words as a red-scare is dumb and it is diminishing your credibility because it shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

LMAO. Socialism never works. Give it enough time and eventually, it always results in this:

But I, for instance, support free healthcare like in Canada (which isn't free at all but is still better than fucking bullshit that's going on in the US).

Canada's healthcare is a dumpster fire. It's not unusual for Canadians that have serious health conditions to come to the U.S. for treatment because otherwise they'll be put on months-long waiting lists.

I also understand that if capitalism was let to develop freely with nothing stopping it, there would be more pieces of shit like Martin Shkreli going free, and I don't want to live in that society.

Nope. You've been fed leftist propaganda. Shkreli's situation was a direct result of government retards trying to regulate capitalism and creating much worse, basically mutant markets such as the one that Shkreli "manipulated." Such markets would never be possible under unfettered anarcho-capitalism.

 

[RickyFitts]

Communist economically
Liberterian sexually

 

[Kirito3]

Women are the exact oppsite really. Women are the largest capitalists on earth.

Women are the biggest and easiest to fool group of consumers.

Women are all about the strong (Chad) gets all and feel nothing but hatred and disgust the weak and downtrodden (us)

Women marry for LMS

Women vote in a more communist and socialist leaning way, but only for selfish reasons, as these movements are often tied to feminism or something

 

[PaulSmenis]

Precisely. Leftist sentiment is inherently backward.

 

[Blacktarpill]

anarchocapitalists

@AncapFAG

 

[Solitarian_Walker]

 

[znbox]

LMAO. Socialism never works. Give it enough time and eventually, it always results in this:

View attachment 70525



Canada's healthcare is a dumpster fire. It's not unusual for Canadians that have serious health conditions to come to the U.S. for treatment because otherwise they'll be put on months-long waiting lists.



Nope. You've been fed leftist propaganda. Shkreli's situation was a direct result of government retards trying to regulate capitalism and creating much worse, basically mutant markets such as the one that Shkreli "manipulated." Such markets would never be possible under unfettered anarcho-capitalism.

Well you clearly don't understand the concepts I mentioned above, because you just repeat the alt-right bullshit.

Socialism can't result in anything because socialism is a fucking umbrella term that nobody ever tried and will be able to try. The idea of socialism can't go without democracy, in theory, while on practice socialism was never implemented without some levels of tyranny, due to fucking human nature. So you can never talk about "socialism" by itself, it's always socialist ideas, social democracy.

And Martin Shkreli is just a dude who wanted to make more money because he could, controlling the supply of something that had huge and neverending demand. The government interfered and arrested him.

Basically, read a fucking book about socialism or capitalism before you open your mouth. The alt-right boodie man shit is made for losers. It's fucking embarrassing to fall for it.

 

[micropenis29]

Well you clearly don't understand the concepts I mentioned above, because you just repeat the alt-right bullshit.

No, I fully understand what you're saying, and it's simply incorrect. The "alt-right" has nothing to do with this topic; stop trying to poison the well.

Socialism can't result in anything because socialism is a fucking umbrella term that nobody ever tried and will be able to try. The idea of socialism can't go without democracy, in theory, while on practice socialism was never implemented without some levels of tyranny, due to fucking human nature.

You couldn't be more wrong. Socialism has been implemented, and it has resulted in catastrophic levels of corruption and mass starvation every time, since it causes perverse incentives among other things.

So you can never talk about "socialism" by itself, it's always socialist ideas, social democracy

These are still closer on the spectrum to socialism than they are to capitalism and so it makes sense to use the term "socialism."

And Martin Shkreli is just a dude who wanted to make more money because he could, controlling the supply of something that had huge and neverending demand. The government interfered and arrested him.

The government created the very situation he exploited by over-regulating a market to the point where it was too expensive for potential competitors to Shkreli to even enter. This is basic economics.

Basically, read a fucking book about socialism or capitalism before you open your mouth. The alt-right boodie man shit is made for losers. It's fucking embarrassing to fall for it.

I've read plenty of economics texts. You're spreading nonsense and you should stop.

 

[znbox]

No, I fully understand what you're saying, and it's simply incorrect. The "alt-right" has nothing to do with this topic; stop trying to poison the well.

You can claim alt-right has nothing to do with it (or republican, or american conservative) but you are repeating their rhetoric word by word.

You couldn't be more wrong. Socialism has been implemented, and it has resulted in catastrophic levels of corruption and mass starvation every time, since it causes perverse incentives among other things.

Show me a single example of DEMOCRATIC socialism in history.

The government created the very situation he exploited by over-regulating a market to the point where it was too expensive for potential competitors to Shkreli to even enter. This is basic economics.

There are reasons why the market is regulated. It isn't without bureaucracy and corruption, sure, but you can't be seriously arguing that the government shouldn't regulate fucking AIDS medicine. Do you realize how much water diluted piss would be sold to desperate sick people, if the government left capitalism to decide the outcome?

These are still closer on the spectrum to socialism than they are to capitalism and so it makes sense to use the term "socialism."

Oh, now you use the term "socialism" to call everything that has anything to do with social programs? You are a fucking retard changing his mind with every message after being caught in bullshit. "I've read plenty of economics texts" yeah right. Go back to school, boy.

 

[micropenis29]

You can claim alt-right has nothing to do with it (or republican, or american conservative) but you are repeating their rhetoric word by word.

Then, in this particular case, "their rhetoric" happens to be correct.

Show me a single example of DEMOCRATIC socialism in history.

Democractic socialism is just socialism-lite. It still has all of the flaws of the socialism that was practiced in Soviet Russia and that we now see in Venezuela. Namely, it results in rampant government corruption and massive economic inefficiencies (the welfare state, minimum wage, free college, public healthcare, and public education are outrageous wastes of money). And it's a slippery slope to more extreme socialism, as we've seen since World War 2 in America.

"Democratic socialism" is so much closer to full-blown socialism than it is to anarcho-capitalism that it makes sense to just call it "socialism." Bernie Sanders, for example, is a socialist.

There are reasons why the market is regulated.

Yes, and the reasons aren't logical.

It isn't without bureaucracy and corruption, sure, but you can't be seriously arguing that the government shouldn't regulate fucking AIDS medicine.

Yes, I can, and I absolutely am arguing that the government shouldn't regulate AIDS medicine (or any other medicine).

Do you realize how much water diluted piss would be sold to desperate sick people, if the government left capitalism to decide the outcome?

This is textbook feelz over facts. "Oh no!! People will be scaaaaammed!!"

You fail to realize that you're asking the wrong question. What matters isn't the number of people that will be scammed, but the overall costs and benefits of regulation vs. deregulation. And the benefits (less regulatory capture, less bureaucratic waste, more medical innovations, cheaper medicine across the board) far outweigh the costs (more dumb people maybe getting scammed, although I don't even think that's true).

Oh, now you use the term "socialism" to call everything that has anything to do with social programs? You are a fucking retard changing his mind with every message after being caught in bullshit. "I've read plenty of economics texts" yeah right. Go back to school, boy.

Social programs are socialist, yes. That's not bullshit--that's common sense.

 

[znbox]

Then, in this particular case, "their rhetoric" happens to be correct.




Democractic socialism is just socialism-lite. It still has all of the flaws of the socialism that was practiced in Soviet Russia and that we now see in Venezuela. Namely, it results in rampant government corruption and massive economic inefficiencies (the welfare state, minimum wage, free college, public healthcare, and public education are outrageous wastes of money). And it's a slippery slope to more extreme socialism, as we've seen since World War 2 in America.

"Democratic socialism" is so much closer to full-blown socialism than it is to anarcho-capitalism that it makes sense to just call it "socialism." Bernie Sanders, for example, is a socialist.



Yes, and the reasons aren't logical.



Yes, I can, and I absolutely am arguing that the government shouldn't regulate AIDS medicine (or any other medicine).



This is textbook feelz over facts. "Oh no!! People will be scaaaaammed!!"

You fail to realize that you're asking the wrong question. What matters isn't the number of people that will be scammed, but the overall costs and benefits of regulation vs. deregulation. And the benefits (less regulatory capture, less bureaucratic waste, more medical innovations, cheaper medicine across the board) far outweigh the costs (more dumb people maybe getting scammed, although I don't even think that's true).



Social programs are socialist, yes. That's not bullshit--that's common sense.

You are full of shit.
Soviet Russia? Venezuela? Democratic socialism? Seriously? If you believe that, then I have bad news for you.

 

[Atavistic Autist]

Women are capitalists. They are most engaged members of corporate culture, accounting for ~75% of consumer spending.

As an Italian industralist once said, "I put the woman first, the horse second, and the man last." Gynocentrism is a component of capitalism.

 

[micropenis29]

Women are capitalists. They are most engaged members of corporate culture, accounting for ~75% of consumer spending.

Except capitalism is about earning and spending one's own money.

Women just spend mens' money or the government's money (incels' tax dollars).

 

[Atavistic Autist]

Except capitalism is about earning and spending one's own money.

Women just spend mens' money or the government's money (incels' money).

While women do benefit from social programs/wealth transfer, this ultimately serves the interests of capitalism.

Consider the case of welfare in the Black community, for example, and how it decreases the militancy of Black people who would otherwise be rioting and looting stores much more than they already are. This is something that many revolutionary leftists have bemoaned.

Black women are the main recipients of this welfare, of course, and while it does encourage violence because Black women select for thuggish men and reward them, the welfare money redirects their violence away from capitalists and keeps it focused inward. That is, instead of raiding stores and hanging the bosses, Black men are made into conspicuous consumers who buy Jordans and tire rims while shooting at each other.

 

[micropenis29]

While women do benefit from social programs/wealth transfer, this ultimately serves the interests of capitalism.

Yeah this gets said often. I don't buy it. Women getting social programs/wealth transfer is not good for capitalism--it's good for economic stagnation. That wealth could be invested in new businesses and new technologies, but instead it's transferred to women who consume it all away.

It's just bad economics.

Consider the case of welfare in the Black community, for example, and how it decreases the militancy of Black people who would otherwise be rioting and looting stores much more than they already are. This is something that many revolutionary leftists have bemoaned.

Again, this is a story that gets told, but I'm not convinced that welfare "decreases the militancy of black people." In fact, I think there's good reason to believe the opposite is true.

Black women are the main recipients of this welfare, of course, and while it does encourage violence because Black women select for thuggish men and reward them, the welfare money redirects their violence away from capitalists and keeps it focused inward. That is, instead of raiding stores and hanging the bosses, Black men are made into conspicuous consumers who buy Jordans and tire rims while shooting at each other.

Again, we have no reason to believe that welfare is doing anything beneficial at all, including reducing violence. Before welfare and other public and social programs (and the ludicrously high taxes required to pay for them) ever existed, people gave much more to the needy. Now people give much less since "it's the government's job to take care of the poor." The government of course has only made the problem worse, though.

Under anarcho-capitalism, you'd at least have "all ships rising." Welfare ensures that there's a permanent underclass--one with no incentive to do anything even remotely productive--that everybody not on welfare resents.

 

[diogenes]

Real communist in Europe have nothing in common with libtards from America.

Their struggle is to make a more productivist and egalitarian society by seizing the means of production, make some head rolls, and establish the real dictatorship of proletariat. Who in the end is supposed to benefit from that ? The male workers who are obviously the most efficient, productive and reliable parts of the working class, and thus becoming the new elite.

Feeding the 8th children without a dad of Lakeesha has nothing to do with communism's historical battle. In fact, such situations are pure products of our current liberal capitalist societies, favoring this kind of irrational behavior. You would be surprized to see the high level of morality and abnegation in communist states despite the fact they were secularized.

High IQ Frenchcel.

Are you participating in the protests?

 

[Atavistic Autist]

Women getting social programs/wealth transfer is not good for capitalism--it's good for economic stagnation. That wealth could be invested in new businesses and new technologies, but instead it's transferred to women who consume it all away.

Capitalism as a system is interested in short-term profits, not long-term sustainability. That's why it promotes things like mass-immigration - which is another great example of how the welfare state and capitalism are in a symbiotic relationship. Cheap labor is subsidized by the state, making capitalists very happy. The long-term consequences of mass-immigration on the viability of a society (both economic and cultural) are just ignored. That's for another generation to deal with.

we have no reason to believe that welfare is doing anything beneficial at all, including reducing violence.

It's not reducing violence so much as it's redirecting it (or redistributing it, if you will). Leftists who think of Black people as perfect revolutionary agents implicitly concede that Black people are innately violent; they're merely frustrated that the violence isn't being driven in the way they want.

Before welfare and other public and social programs (and the ludicrously high taxes required to pay for them) ever existed, people gave much more to the needy. Now people give much less since "it's the government's job to take care of the poor."

You have a point here, of course - but another factor to consider is that capitalism increased social alienation and corroded a sense of community. Why give charity to people you have no organic connection to (like immigrants from Mexico)?

Under anarcho-capitalism, you'd at least have "all ships rising." Welfare ensures that there's a permanent underclass that everybody not on welfare resents.

How would the Black community fare under anarcho-capitalism? I suspect that 75% of the population would sink into the ocean, but perhaps the remaining 25% would rise.

 

[1984cel]

Galactic level IQ post

 

[GoonCel]

They are natural parasites.

 

[Henry de Montherlant]

Are you participating in the protests?

A little bit. Honestly, I really don't know what will come out of it. One of the main particularity of the yellow vest movement is that it doesn't recognizes leaders.

No ideology can really match with it, even if it seems that the upholders of the more "extreme" (according to centrists) ideologies are attracted to it.

People often make parallelisms with the revolts of peasants called the "Jacqueries" during the Middle Age. They were also revolting against their lords to protest against unfair taxations, and doing so, claiming a kind of independance of the hinterland against the domination of cities. The hinterland of today is the peripheric belt of smaller cities tending to get absorbed into bigger megacities, as contemporary town planning goes by.

Some also like to play with 1789 symbols and want to take the Palace of Elysées the same way the French people took Versailles during the Revolution. It's kinda vain because Macron was elected by this same people that is now defying his authority, and his authority which backed by the constitution is technically less arbitrary than Louis XVI's. Who knows what could happen in the coming weeks though.

 

[micropenis29]

Capitalism as a system is interested in short-term profits, not long-term sustainability.

This is a common misconception, but it's not based on any evidence. Companies don't just seek to maximize short-term profits; long-term profits matter as well. And capitalism itself is no less "sustainable" than any conceivable alternative.

That's why it promotes things like mass-immigration - which is another great example of how the welfare state and capitalism are in a symbiotic relationship. Cheap labor is subsidized by the state, making capitalists very happy.

Anarcho-capitalists don't believe in "cheap labor being subsidized by the state." They believe the state should keep its hands entirely off.

The long-term consequences of mass-immigration on the viability of a society (both economic and cultural) are just ignored. That's for another generation to deal with.

They're not ignored at all. They're simply weighed against the benefits. And the benefits (increased free trade, a bigger supply of labor, a bigger, faster-growing economy overall) far outweigh the costs (people having immigrants stealing their jobs and thus having to switch jobs in the short-run).

You have a point here, of course - but another factor to consider is that capitalism increased social alienation and corroded a sense of community. Why give charity to people you have no organic connection to (like immigrants from Mexico)?

Well since it's charity, I don't see any problem with that. Charity is optional.

How would the Black community fare under anarcho-capitalism? I suspect that 75% of the population would sink into the ocean, but perhaps the remaining 25% would rise.

Any race would fare okay under a system with no welfare state as long as they're willing to be minimally productive. If they're not willing to be minimally productive, it begs the question: why should they be entitled to the fruits of others' labor?

 

[Deleted member 15737]

Ancom are my enemy