How we can learn from Marxist theory (Proletarians were the original incels)

[ShiiOfTheSPLC]

Blackpill theory: Female hypergamy will eventually cause incels to become 90% of the population and they will go on a killing rampage and take over society and oppress everyone else

Marxist theory: Industrial capitalism will eventually cause proletarians to become 90% of the population and they will go on a killing rampage and take over society and oppress everyone else

The thing is that Marx didn’t realize that the expansion of industry in the Victorian era wouldn’t just continue linearly forever and the West actually de-industrialized later and now in 2023 less than 10% of Americans are proletarians as defined by Marx

AI sexbots could be our version of the socioeconomic advancements that disrupted Marxist theory

 

[FastBlast]

AI sexbots could be our version of the socioeconomic advancements that disrupted Marxist theory

The sexbots can't get here fast enough

 

[Nikalas]

Blackpill theory: Female hypergamy will eventually cause incels to become 90% of the population and they will go on a killing rampage and take over society and oppress everyone else

Marxist theory: Industrial capitalism will eventually cause proletarians to become 90% of the population and they will go on a killing rampage and take over society and oppress everyone else

The thing is that Marx didn’t realize that the expansion of industry in the Victorian era wouldn’t just continue linearly forever and the West actually de-industrialized later and now in 2023 less than 10% of Americans are proletarians as defined by Marx

AI sexbots could be our version of the socioeconomic advancements that disrupted Marxist theory

True marxist communism still is anti-feminist. Fake "Communists" and socialists have integrated feminist ideology in modern politics. Communism is cucked as it is right now

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

How can we learn from the frame work that torpedoed every society that tried to implement it, which were, contrary to Marx's predictions, only poor 3rd world shit holes?

No idea, but I wrote some shit here.

The reason why this is great despite me thinking very little of Marxism in general, is that it's using popular leftist ideas and rhetoric to make it's case. In many instance, progressives won't be able to refute what is being said without contradicting what they already publicly stated before.

Honestly, Marxism might work better for the sexual market than the financial one:
In the financial world, Marx grew up witnessing exploitation and poverty around him and predicted the misery capitalism would foster among it's citizens would inevitably give birth to a desire to revolt amongst the downtrodden.

Instead, the workers became wealthier than ever, stopped working themselfs to the death side by side with their children and suddenly had enough money, they didn't want the whole system to be overthrown anymore. They themselfs would loose too much. Only the poorest, not yet industrialised countries had further revolutions and they all ended in slaughter.

But the sexual market does not allow for growing the pie in the way the financial market does. You can't just create more and more sex to spread around, there are pretty hard limits, the primary factors being the male to female ratio and the grade of control excercised on human behavior by the state.
So we do see things play out roughly as a Marxist analysis would predict.

I still am not optimistic Marxism has a solution to the problem it describes. Can't help but remember how the Russians abolished the banking monopoly and tried to get rid of money itself as currency, only a few months before they had to revert everythign because their country was collapsing.

Either way, this was honestly fun to read, the title made me think it was going to be retarded drivel but I will probably end up copy pasting some lines from here for future use in arguments.

A spontaneous idea that came to my mind:

-Marxism failed to predict reality, in part because how the money/value was divided became less important than how much was created because their was so much room for growth left, by the end of it everyone was better off, especially the poor, for whom having more money was the most important.

-On the sexual market, you can't easily create more and more value as you please. But there is something you can do that will have the same effect:

-Control the gender-ratio by controlling how many men and women are born. This allows for a higher number of women per man, which effectively means more value per consumer, which is in a sense value creation.

-Affecting this ratio is also not all that unrealistic. I mean, I don't see a good way and we have negative infinite political capital, but in theory it's doable.

 

[epigonist]

Accelerationism and industrialization are still a reality. The proletarian man sells his labor in exchange of a miniscule cut of capital, which he exchanges for basic needs and commodities. With industrialization, products are produced at an inhuman rate and more is created than can be consoomed; thus we have so-called "economic crises" which we see today and will continue to see, as the cost of living and commodities fluctuate wildly, which only affects the proletarian man, which is 90% of the world population.

Neetbucks and other benefits are only used to appease the masses, this is why you see people defending the bourgeoise as benevolent, and the system as acceptable, or at least they recoil in disgust when change is suggested.

As accelerationism and the dependence on technology advances, other areas of our social life are affected; the access to porn, dating apps, social media, etc warp our view of the real world, and as such, foids continue to overrate themselves and will never be satisfied with their looksmatch, instead opting for people entire points above them.

The solution to this requires radical change from a predominant country like France, Britain or The United States, after which other nations will follow. This will never happen because Jews control everything, what is happening is no coincidence: look at who owns the porn industry and social medias.

 

[epigonist]

How can we learn from the frame work that torpedoed every society that tried to implement it, which were, contrary to Marx's predictions, only poor 3rd world shit holes?

No clue, I wrote some shit in here though.

No country by itself could ever achieve communism. Even Russia: following Lenin's death, Stalin was an incompetent monster. They didn't even abolish private property, which was Marx's literal step one. It would take a revolution in France or Britain for the rest of the world to follow. China would never experience a revolution seeing as they're the most revisionist country on the planet.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Accelerationism and industrialization are still a reality. The proletarian man sells his labor in exchange of a miniscule cut of capital, which he exchanges for basic needs and commodities. With industrialization, products are produced at an inhuman rate and more is created than can be consoomed; thus we have so-called "economic crises" which we see today and will continue to see, as the cost of living and commodities fluctuate wildly, which only affects the proletarian man, which is 90% of the world population.

Neetbucks and other benefits are only used to appease the masses, this is why you see people defending the bourgeoise as benevolent, and the system as acceptable, or at least they recoil in disgust when change is suggested.

As accelerationism and the dependence on technology advances, other areas of our social life are affected; the access to porn, dating apps, social media, etc warp our view of the real world, and as such, foids continue to overrate themselves and will never be satisfied with their looksmatch, instead opting for people entire points above them.

The solution to this requires radical change from a predominant country like France, Britain or The United States, after which other nations will follow. This will never happen because Jews control everything, what is happening is no coincidence: look at who owns the porn industry and social medias.

No. We aren't getting minuscule cuts. I wonder if any marxist ever tried his hand at some angel investment.

This shit is non-viable and has been since the start. Most of the prediction the model made did not come true. Every nation trying it immediately collapsed in on itself. The original Russian attempt reads like a barbaric slapstick comedy scit.

It isn't scientific either, Engels and Marx called it "Scientific Communism", if that shit is a science I'm a roomba.

Oh jebus, reading this I'm actually relieved no one here has any power (no offense feds).

They tried getting rid of currency and take control from the banks and soon they could go back on their action or the people were gonna start fighting them to the death because they were starving. And so began a long back and forth of trying and failing and pretending to try again, all the while burning through human-capital like firewood.

Just tell me this: You get to go back all in time, you wanna be send back to any place soon trying out communism or would you rather live in a place that is functional and where you won't risk execution?

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Well, obviously no one is gonna read this, but I still felt the need to write it.

Wanna know why both incels and female college grads are into communism?

Communism is family management expanded to a larger scale. Everyone does his best, we share everything, no need for infighting or competition.

Women have no need to create value or improve, neither do they have the desire to. They know intuitively that they are valuable on a fundamental level and it's only about getting others to recognize how great they alreday know to be. They like everything being share becaused that means they don't have to try or exel at anything and they will still be the riches people around because they are women and they are wealthy since birth.

Incels on the other hand have no chance in the competition. So sharing everything become an attractive option for them as well. Again, no competition, without competition you can't lose.

Women don't want to have to fight, incels know they have no chance.


On the emotional level, communism is driven by envy towards the rich but disguises itself as being motivated by a desire to help the poor.

Incels are men and feel less desire to virtue signal, so the envy is a bit more on the surface here. But ultimately it's the same. Women are slightly more envious than men, based on the result of surveys. Even when brining it down to virtue signaling levels, they still envy more.

This also relates to why intellectuals are all commies. They are smart, but risk averse and generally have less power and welath than the politicans and businessmen. They envy the risk takers that are more successful than them and think they should be incontrol, being smarter and knowing better and all. Communism is the way these cucks try to get to power, by convincing others to fight by telling them it's in their own best interest. While they sit back and keep reasoning. Someones gotta do it.


But on some level, value creation actually requires competition. Until machines do our work for us, we need to motivate humans to do all the boring jobs. Break apart the fatbergs made from other peoples shit that fk with the sevage system. Spend years sitting in front of a screen to solve boring ass problems until you finally wrote code capable of doing w/e. Clean the streets, carry away the trash. The free market succeeds at this effortlessly.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(In communist Russia on the other hand:
The peasents weren't going along with communist politics because they supported the cause, from the very start, still under Lenin, they were starved and beaten into submission. The Russians lost more than 200.000 soldiers while putting down all the peasent revolts with weapons they imported. 200.000 men killed by peasents fighting mostly with farming equipment. After the last rebellion was put down in 1921, Lenin had to open back up the grain market and switch back to grain taxes. They were taking apart buildings in the depopulated captial to get access to fire wood. "The streets had not been cleaned in 3 years. The dirt and rubbish is in all places was at least ankle deep. All still warcommunism, all still under Lenin.

Being a 'prole' in a blooming capital economy meant switching from what was basically slave labor to owning your own flat or house. Being a peasent in communist Russia was watching your country tear itself down while hoping you make it through the starvation and the fighting and the yet to be realized gulags and secret police alive. )
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Even from a BP perspective, competition is driving value creation in the sexual arena. Not only on a genetic level, but directly through behavior. You might become a 3/10 instead of a 2/10 if you work out long enough. You are creating value, you just have no buyers for it, no one willing to exchange what value you have with.

When every normie is forced to gymmaxx because the standarts are so high, the competition so though, that every man is fighting for every .1 looks upgrade, value is being created. Just not value for us.
We would notice and appreciate the value creation if women were forced to compete for us as mercylessly as men do for them.


Communism appeals to those that want to avoid competition. Women because they have no need. Incels because they have no chance. Intellectuals because they are cowards and can't accept the risks.
But in the physcial world, without competition, we don't actually create much value to share around. We don't create enough to survive even.

That is why I said Communism might work better in the sexual domain than in the financial one. Because with sex
a) the value creation is hard capped anyways, both on the top and on the bottom,
b) there is a way to easily create artifical competition amongst one group (women, by having them be over represented in the population) and
c) the other group is innately strognly competitive.

That being said, there is still the problem that in the financial world it does not work, even less so once the motivating factor of sexual competition is reduced majorly for the sex that is capable of creating the value.