Communists are effeminate and matriarchal

[Excalibur]

Communists are mentally women, as ideas like egalitarianism and utopianism are inherently feminine, in contrast to elitism and pragmatism, which are masculine traits. The foundation of Communism is that of the resentment of the inferior toward the superior, something that closely mirrors the underlying motivations of feminism. Just as feminists argue that women are exploited by men, Communists believe that the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeoisie. Historically, both patriarchy and capitalism (commerce) have been the dominant, natural systems in society, largely because they have proven to be the most efficient and rational. This success, however, breeds resentment. Communists and feminists being driven by jealousy, feelings of inferiority, and a sense of entitlement, projecting these emotions onto their perceived oppressors—the bourgeoisie and men respectively. Both ideologies are rooted in utopian and irrational beliefs, seeking to dismantle reality and replace it with an unattainable fantasy out of spite.

Male feminists aspire to a matriarchal society where men are submissive to and cared for by women, while communists envision a totalitarian society where the individual is submissive to and cared for by the state or collective system. In contrast, under patriarchy, men hold dominance over women, and in true capitalism, individuals shape their own destinies, building their own wealth and prosperity. The parallels are clear: matriarchy and collectivism are fundamentally intertwined, just as patriarchy and individualism are. These alignments are deeply rooted in the masculine and feminine psyches.

The connection between feminism and communism is not only ideological but also evident in the practice of communism. An example is the German Democratic Republic, where birthrates were significantly lower, female employment was higher, and more women held government positions compared to the capitalist Federal Republic of Germany. Additionally, statistics show that East German women has more sex and experienced more orgasms than their West German counterparts, suggesting that Communism is not only psychologically feminine and matriarchal but also manifests as such in practice, granting women more autonomy and control than they would have in a truly capitalist society. It is no coincidence that Lenin was the one to emancipate women and grant them the same rights and privileges as men for the first time in Russian history.

References:

Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism by Kristen R. Ghodsee | Issue 145 | Philosophy Now

Amber Edwards surveys the position of women under socialism.

philosophynow.org

Interrupted Emancipation: Women and Work in East Germany

This dossier looks at the history and unfinished work of women’s liberation in the German Democratic Republic, such as its achievements, legacy, and the challenges it faced.

thetricontinental.org

The Communist Women’s Movement – high point of first wave feminism

A century ago, an international communist women’s movement began to develop a perspective for women’s self-liberation that still resonates today. The record of those early struggles has been translated into English for the first time by Mike Taber and Daria Dyakonova, The Communist Women’s...

www.workersliberty.org

 

[Regenerator]

Communism appeals to people who have never worked a day in their life & greedy people who want other people's money.

 

[slavcel11]

Leaning towards powerful & totalitarian state is a female trait, foids feel more at ease under the protection of a giga alpha male who will cuck and fend off other petty males, essentially they marry state and become state-wives. A healthy society of free and independent individuals can't be totalitarian on the other hand.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

"By 1917, Russian "Bolshevism" had extended debauchery to an immeasurably greater standard. He officially declared marriage, marital fidelity and family to be a bourgeois superstition; proclaimed "free love" to be legitimate and moral. Through the mouth of V. Lenin's wife, N. Krupskaya and Bolshevik A. Kollontai even encouraged young people by giving them a "scientific" ambush of debauchery. They equated the need and ease of sexual relations with the need and ease of drinking a glass of water.

After such encouragement, young, middle-aged, old people have already officially "married" and "divorced" several times a month, changing 5-10 "women" or "men". According to socialist law, a man had to pay a divorced woman "alimony" - money for the maintenance of children. Russians rushed to produce as many children from as many men as possible. The children grew up self-taught on the street among small prostitutes and robbers. Naked, hungry, they joined the crowd of "homeless" child prostitutes, child thieves and even child bandits.
The lumpen proletariat, the basis of the Bolshevik power, was created from them."
An excerpt from a book by Pavel Shtepa, a White emigrant who fled Russia after the Bolshevik revolution.

 

[Excalibur]

Yeah but this applies to liberals much more. Liberalism is even more matriarchal than a women-led society.

Liberalism only became more and more socially progressive with the rise of marxism. The liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries was patriarchal, racist, nationalist, imperialist, etc. In liberal democracies such as the United States and, women were not allowed to vote and were only delegated to the private sphere. All this was to change at the beginning of the 20th century, when marxist ideas of progress and liberation became popular and more accepted in western society.

 

[Excalibur]

Leaning towards powerful & totalitarian state is a female trait, foids feel more at ease under the protection of a giga alpha male who will cuck and fend off other petty males, essentially they marry state and become state-wives. A healthy society of free and independent individuals can't be totalitarian on the other hand.

Exactly. Censorship, political correctness, hate speech laws, the surveillance state, the welfare state, etc. are all supported by foids because they gain more and lose less from it than men. Men who support all this are mental foids.

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

Yeah but this applies to liberals much more. Liberalism is even more matriarchal than a women-led society.

Liberalism changed in the 1960s, when Jews realized that white working-class men would not stage a communist revolution in the West, as they were happy with everything. Therefore, the Jews from the Frankfurt school decided to find a new audience in the form of: women, sexual minorities, blacks. Since the requirements of all the above-described groups cannot be satisfied and they are always insatiable, therefore they are a more convenient group to realize their goals, and not a white working man heterosexual.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

The general gist is that women will always value security and material comfort over freedom. Men are the only ones that prioritize freedom over anything else. Whores so readily sell out their freedom the same way they sell out their bodies. It is impossible for a foid to have any integrity whatsoever. It's deeply rooted in female nature to be willing slaves.

 

[blackpillednigga]

respectfully this take is low iq because you most likely saw a few feminists and soys in the west larping as commies and then decided to make an extremely vague connection with that and women. individualism did much worse in creating hypergamy and if you think socialism would do worse than thats delusional. none of the soviet countries struggled with inceldom, but after economic (((liberalization))) they now are. thats all I need to know

 

[blackpillednigga]

also what you define as "masculine" and "feminine" not everyone agrees with. because personally I think being submissive to the status quo and corporations is feminine af, and overthrowing them because they are infringing upon your life is masculine

 

[Excalibur]

respectfully this take is low iq because you most likely saw a few feminists and soys in the west larping as commies and then decided to make an extremely vague connection with that and women. individualism did much worse in creating hypergamy and if you think socialism would do worse than thats delusional

The audacity to call me low-IQ when you didn't even bother to read and analyze what I wrote. I made no direct reference whatsoever to Western communists and instead cited the German Democratic Republic, an actual socialist republic and member of the Warsaw Pact, as an example of how communism favored women both sexually and economically and pursued feminist policies, as well as the emancipation of women in Soviet Russia under Lenin himself. Degeneracy, hypergamy etc. came to fruition in the West thanks to cultural Marxism in the form of the New Left in the 1960s and 70s, before which the individualist West was patriarchal.

 

[Excalibur]

also what you define as "masculine" and "feminine" not everyone agrees with. because personally I think being submissive to the status quo and corporations is feminine af, and overthrowing them because they are infringing upon your life is masculine

Replacing corporate management with an even more invasive communist bureaucracy is not exactly liberating, but that's another topic.

The reality is that the current "capitalism" in the West isn’t truly capitalist as multinational corporations and Western governments are run by the same group: the Jewish oligarchy and its collaborators. Despite their influence on legislation through lobbying, corporations sacrifice their profits due to government regulations such as affirmative action and the ban on IQ tests in hiring employees and adherence to state-sponsored LGBT+ ideology (they don’t promote that nonsense in Saudi Arabia or China for instance). This shows that both corporations and the state serve as tools of power for Jews - corporations for economic control and the state for political control, the two being closely intertwined. Ideally, Jews and their allies should be removed from society, with the state being nationalistic while maximizing economic efficiency by allowing private businesses to make profits using the unadulterated forces of the market, as long as they remain loyal to the nation, of course. Corporate taxes should be high and taxes on small and local businesses should be minimized.

 

[AutistSupremacist]

respectfully this take is low iq because you most likely saw a few feminists and soys in the west larping as commies and then decided to make an extremely vague connection with that and women. individualism did much worse in creating hypergamy and if you think socialism would do worse than thats delusional. none of the soviet countries struggled with inceldom, but after economic (((liberalization))) they now are. thats all I need to know

 

[HotDogCel]

foids are communist when it's trendy to be communist and fascist when it is trendy to be fascist . They're always on the winning side.

 

[Excalibur]

none of the soviet countries struggled with inceldom, but after economic (((liberalization))) they now are. thats all I need to know

Lmao did you live in the Eastern bloc? How are you so sure inceldom didn’t exist? Even if it didn’t it can be argued that inceldom was also non-existent in the West before rise of cultural marxism in the mid 20th century.

Also, do you support women's liberation and full equality? The Eastern Bloc promoted this with legal abortions, full legal equality with men, and a high female employment rate. If you don’t you’re a reactionary clouded by bourgeois morality and notions of conservatism.

 

[AutistSupremacist]

Also, do you support women's liberation and full equality?

Depends on what this liberation and equality entails

 

[Limitcel]

true
psyche comes before before political ideologies

 

[based_meme]

Depends on what this liberation and equality entails

We all know what it entails. We're living through it today.

 

[DarkStar]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1hv4bkf/womens_rights_in_the_past_100_years/?utm_source=embedv2&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_content=whitespace


This backs it up also

 

[yeetbender_]

Marxism Rodgerism > Whatever OP is talking about (dnr + wnr)

 

[yeetbender_]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1hv4bkf/womens_rights_in_the_past_100_years/?utm_source=embedv2&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_content=whitespace


This backs it up also

Is this supposed to be a flex?

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

Communists and feminists being driven by jealousy, feelings of inferiority, and a sense of entitlement, projecting these emotions onto their perceived oppressors—the bourgeoisie and men respectively.

I generally agree with you post, I just wanted to say that communists are not only "driven by jealousy, feelings of inferiority, and a sense of entitlement", atleast not the historical ones, in the 19th century when tge idea of communism were become widespread among the workin class, a lot of them lived in conditions were they were nearly unable to keep themselve and their family alive, what you say maybe be correct for the majority of the big thinkers of communism, but not for the majority of the workers who supportet it, they simply wanted to stay alive which is why most of them weren't communists anymore after the workin hours were reduced and their wage high enough to themselve and their family

 

[Maikowski]

Marxism Rodgerism > Whatever OP is talking about (dnr + wnr)

That;s not even a real ideology you're so chronically online you can't even understand

 

[Maikowski]

I generally agree with you post, I just wanted to say that communists are not only "driven by jealousy, feelings of inferiority, and a sense of entitlement", atleast not the historical ones, in the 19th century when tge idea of communism were become widespread among the workin class, a lot of them lived in conditions were they were nearly unable to keep themselve and their family alive, what you say maybe be correct for the majority of the big thinkers of communism, but not for the majority of the workers who supportet it, they simply wanted to stay alive which is why most of them weren't communists anymore after the workin hours were reduced and their wage high enough to themselve and their family

We're not in the 19th century, it's all losers now who want to make it illegal to be a normal straight white man and want to kill normal straight men. They abandoned the working class long ago to bring in hoards of immigrants for cheap labour to benefit capitalists.

Our system is communists and capitalists working together to screw the common sub 5

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I generally agree with you post, I just wanted to say that communists are not only "driven by jealousy, feelings of inferiority, and a sense of entitlement", atleast not the historical ones, in the 19th century when tge idea of communism were become widespread among the workin class, a lot of them lived in conditions were they were nearly unable to keep themselve and their family alive, what you say maybe be correct for the majority of the big thinkers of communism, but not for the majority of the workers who supportet it, they simply wanted to stay alive which is why most of them weren't communists anymore after the workin hours were reduced and their wage high enough to themselve and their family

Communism won in Russia because there were many poor, landless peasants who had no chance of success in life. This was because the population was growing rapidly (6-7 children per family), but the amount of land does not increase
Where there were really a lot of workers (England, Germany, France), social democracy won there, and the former tsarist Russia, where 10% of the population was workers and 80% of the peasants were. Communism won there because the high birth rate deprived most peasants of owning land. They became farmhands who, having no land of their own, were forced to hire themselves to rich peasants. It was these desperate people, deprived of a chance of success, who became the striking force of communism. They had nothing to lose because they had nothing.

 

[DarkStar]

Is this supposed to be a flex?

No? I was shitting on communists since as you can see on the map, they gave women rights before most "cucked fascist" places did

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I generally agree with you post, I just wanted to say that communists are not only "driven by jealousy, feelings of inferiority, and a sense of entitlement", atleast not the historical ones, in the 19th century when tge idea of communism were become widespread among the workin class, a lot of them lived in conditions were they were nearly unable to keep themselve and their family alive, what you say maybe be correct for the majority of the big thinkers of communism, but not for the majority of the workers who supportet it, they simply wanted to stay alive which is why most of them weren't communists anymore after the workin hours were reduced and their wage high enough to themselve and their family

The west European/ American worker had something, so the communists in Germany (Western Europe) and USA didn't have a chance, but countries like the former Russian Empire, mainland China, or Vietnam, where the entire population was made up of impoverished, illiterate peasants, became communist because the small-landed peasant had nothing to lose, so they were easily persuaded to become a communist in exchange for a chance at social mobility.

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

We're not in the 19th century, it's all losers now who want to make it illegal to be a normal straight white man and want to kill normal straight men. They abandoned the working class long ago to bring in hoards of immigrants for cheap labour to benefit capitalists.

Our system is communists and capitalists working together to screw the common sub 5

I said smth about modern "communism", I adressed the origins of communist movements, so I dont understand what the context is with your post

Communism won in Russia because there were many poor, landless peasants who had no chance of success in life. This was because the population was growing rapidly (6-7 children per family), but the amount of land does not increase

There were massive landmass in russia, it simply hold by a very small group of landlords

and the former tsarist Russia, where 10% of the population was workers and 80% of the peasants were. Communism won there because the high birth rate deprived most peasants of owning land. They became farmhands who, having no land of their own, were forced to hire themselves to rich peasants

They werent farmhands for rich peasants, they were mostly servants, they werent free, they were property of their landlord. And if you look were the communists in russia were strong, it was mostly the big cities and industrial heartland + the communists weren't the majority of russian population, it were an armed minority which conquered the country after it collapsed multiple times in short timespan before

Where there were really a lot of workers (England, Germany, France), social democracy won there

Social democrats and communists wanted, until the beginning of the 20's century the same thing, they both saw communist utopia as their goal, they only took different approaches, the social democrats wanted to slowly reform the current state until they had communism, the communists wanted to start a revolution and create communism by force

The west European/ American worker had something, so the communists in Germany (Western Europe) and USA didn't have a chance

In germany atleast until world war 1 the social democrats were the strongest party within the working class, I would even say that if you add anarchists and communists they were the majority of workers and again we talk about the social democrats that wanted achieve communism too. And also within UK, France and the USA the socialist/communist movement were really strong, they never were able to take over the power because first, these countries were way more stable, Russia had within like 20 years 3 or 4 revolutions and 2 wars, one they lose and the other they were loosing before the communist revolution+ a massive famine

but countries like the former Russian Empire, mainland China, or Vietnam,

China were messed up too with a goverment which wasnt able to do anything so the biggest parts of the country were left in anarchy until at some point facist/ militaristic and communist groups were creating states within the state and again those were servants and not just pessants, they had no rights and were property of their warlord, also here in china the communists were the weaker party against the kuomintan, they could only win their revolution after the kuomintang drained all their men in a war with japan which also destabilzed the country more.
In Vietnam you had a former colony which were then occupied by tge japanese and then occupied by the soviets and the western powers and they created two countries, a communist in the north and facist/ military dictatorship in the south and those faught eachother, so there was no revolution at all it was simply a war were one country tried to conquer another and enforce their political system on them

The west European/ American worker had something, so the communists in Germany (Western Europe) and USA didn't have a chance, but countries like the former Russian Empire, mainland China, or Vietnam, where the entire population was made up of impoverished, illiterate peasants, became communist because the small-landed peasant had nothing to lose, so they were easily persuaded to become a communist in exchange for a chance at social mobility.

An english worker in the first half of the 19th century didnt had more then a russian servant in the early 20th century, they didnt had much to loose either

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

I said smth about modern "communism", I adressed the origins of communist movements, so I dont understand what the context is with your post


There were massive landmass in russia, it simply hold by a very small group of landlords



They werent farmhands for rich peasants, they were mostly servants, they werent free, they were property of their landlord. And if you look were the communists in russia were strong, it was mostly the big cities and industrial heartland + the communists weren't the majority of russian population, it were an armed minority which conquered the country after it collapsed multiple times in short timespan before

Social democrats and communists wanted, until the beginning of the 20's century the same thing, they both saw communist utopia as their goal, they only took different approaches, the social democrats wanted to slowly reform the current state until they had communism, the communists wanted to start a revolution and create communism by force


In germany atleast until world war 1 the social democrats were the strongest party within the working class, I would even say that if you add anarchists and communists they were the majority of workers and again we talk about the social democrats that wanted achieve communism too. And also within UK, France and the USA the socialist/communist movement were really strong, they never were able to take over the power because first, these countries were way more stable, Russia had within like 20 years 3 or 4 revolutions and 2 wars, one they lose and the other they were loosing before the communist revolution+ a massive famine


China were messed up too with a goverment which wasnt able to do anything so the biggest parts of the country were left in anarchy until at some point facist/ militaristic and communist groups were creating states within the state and again those were servants and not just pessants, they had no rights and were property of their warlord, also here in china the communists were the weaker party against the kuomintan, they could only win their revolution after the kuomintang drained all their men in a war with japan which also destabilzed the country more.
In Vietnam you had a former colony which were then occupied by tge japanese and then occupied by the soviets and the western powers and they created two countries, a communist in the north and facist/ military dictatorship in the south and those faught eachother, so there was no revolution at all it was simply a war were one country tried to conquer another and enforce their political system on them


An english worker in the first half of the 19th century didnt had more then a russian servant in the early 20th century, they didnt had much to loose either

Serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861, and from that point on, the peasants became free. However, they were forced to purchase land on credit, which was twice the market price of the land, and there was a significant surplus of people due to high birth rates. As a result, many people found themselves without land. In fact, Russia has limited land resources, as most of its territory consists of cold taiga forests that are unsuitable for agriculture. Western Europe got rid of this surplus population by sending them to the United States and Latin America, but the Russians were so poor that they didn't even have enough money to buy a ticket to Brazil. As a result, this surplus population, with no opportunity to find a place in life, led to a situation where large numbers of people took up arms and fought for the Bolsheviks, aiming to rise through the ranks of the Communist Party and eliminate or expel the previous elite. Social democrats and communists were different even during World War I, when social democrats in Germany supported the introduction of the ww1.

 

[Blackpill Monk]

Communism appeals to people who have never worked a day in their life & greedy people who want other people's money.

 

[BlackPilledNormi]

Social democrats and communists were different even during World War I, when social democrats in Germany supported the introduction of the ww1.

Yes because they took different approaches while aiming for the same goal, they both wanted a communist society and I already set that they choose different paths to achieve this goal, so ofcourse they are can have different views on a event.

In fact, Russia has limited land resources, as most of its territory consists of cold taiga forests that are unsuitable for agriculture

Even if you substract the forests Russia has still the 5th biggest agricultural land in the world, more then the UK, Germany and France combined while they have less population then these countries combined (this is for modern russia, russia back then would also have the whole agricultural land of the Ukraine which is again about as much as Germany, French and the UK combined), so sayin that there wasnt enough agricultural land is just not right there was then enough even with exploding birthrates which couldnt be exported (btw there was a pretty big community of russian emigrants in London f.e. which were goin there to work in the factories)

Western Europe got rid of this surplus population by sending them to the United States and Latin America, but the Russians were so poor that they didn't even have enough money to buy a ticket to Brazil.

The vast majority of surplus population werent migrating overseas they would flee to the cities and become workers, there was a migration to america but this wasnt the majority of people otherwise it would be hard to explain why those countries populations exploded too if they got rid of there surplus population by sending them over the ocean

As a result, this surplus population, with no opportunity to find a place in life, led to a situation where large numbers of people took up arms and fought for the Bolsheviks, aiming to rise through the ranks of the Communist Party and eliminate or expel the previous elite

Okay why were the communist party firdt became strong after the industrilazation of russia, if the communist party had their majority of supporters within the peasantry?
Why were the communist strong within the big industrial cieties and weak on the countryside? (For example the Ukraine should have been a communist melting pot since half of the country are agricultural land)