I feel like people underestimate the amount of politiccels here. What is politics?
If you support any changes to the government, such as less foid rights, congrats, you are a politccel!
I agree. But it's just to be expected I'm more class-conscious than normies. Changes in people’s social and material conditions will alter their consciousness. People who are more successful and socially integrated in society are going to approve of and defend its premises more. (to the extent they even critically think about them at all - most don't at all. Ted Kaczynski said: "Most people hate psychological conflict. For this reason they avoid doing any serious thinking about difficult social issues, and they like to have such issues presented to them in simple, black-and-white terms:
this is all good and
that is all bad.") Therefore, to say "my politics are a factor in my inceldom" is just misleading framing. Rather, I have the consciousness I do as a consequence of my social circumstance, which is itself a product of certain conditions which are historically conditioned.
I don't expect women and most men to be anything other than pro-system/politically moderate. (the first text I link to below explains why.)
But I support the abolition of governments, not "change of government." I am not an Anarchist and dislike Anarchists, Anarcho-Communists, Tankies, and most "Socialists"/"Communists"/"Marxists" as much as I do any other Liberal/Leftist/Democrat. (because that's all they are.) To make it relevant to the subjects usually discussed on this site, I totally agree
with and recommend this excellent essay, which I actually first heard about through the incel wiki. My mindset is the only way to really explain why Feminism is wrong. We of course know it's dishonest and wrong and works against us, but it's another thing to be able to explain why. The following articles do so:
Feminism, Against Feminism, and
this one which debunks the myth of the gender pay gap.
The best way I can describe Communism is asking someone if they think that, in a world with the level of industry and technology we have now, is there any good reason that humans in society can't utilize this efficiently to meet necessities and social needs? If someone were to respond: "No, we should." — and then proceeds to follow this to its only logical conclusion, they too, would be a Communist, which just means someone that advocates revolution to overthrow capitalism for the Communist mode of production. (and this need not come through a party, I don't think it will.) "To organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society."
-Engels
Unfortunately, most just hear "Communism" and think this means some authoritarian arrangement within capitalism, whereas people who understand the position like myself dislike the Soviet Union and all the other state-capitalist countries. Also, Communism isn't about "equality," an ideal Marx rejected: everyone's needs would be guaranteed by society as a whole, but not necessarily equally - some people would have it better than others, as has always been the case. It abolishes class society and class hierarchy, but this doesn't mean it abolishes all disparities between people, it just wouldn't be on a class basis. Albert Einstein also advocated Socialism as Marx meant it, (which was synonymous with Communism) advocating the end of Capitalism
here in his essay Why Socialism? But he's vague at the end about
how this would be achieved: violent revolution is the only way because the ruling-class won't peacefully give up their rule. They'll enforce capitalism's contradictions to the bitter end, even as it's collapsing. Of course, Marx
wrote that naturally he wouldn't be against the revolution not entailing violence. "It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it." But realistically, it will.
In such a society, obligatory work and wage labor would be a thing of the past, as
this article explains. (
timed work would still exist to run the system: many anti-communist Leftist "Marxists" are intellectually dishonest on this point) It would enable society to use technology to replace the need for work to the maximum extent possible. (notice now how with the rise of AI, we have the manufactured problem of unemployment on our hands, with technology replacing jobs, but leaving people in a state of poverty as a result. Communism is about getting rid of this issue.) Of course, this is very relevant to the issues brought up in this forum: the alienation of unemployed, poor men in general. (you never hear people giving rich people a hard time, despite the fact that they get to not have to work but without the downsides this entails for the majority of unemployed individuals) And the fact that in capitalist society the onus is on the man to be the breadwinner and provide for his woman and family, which largely explains the disparity where women have more intrinsic worth in society than men. (not to mention war/conscription: the proletariat is drafted into the war and labor-force and the two aren't really to be distinguished.)
This page also explains why I disagree with Anarchism. Also it goes without saying, 99% of "Communist" women are complete jokes whether or not they're outright Stalinist/tankie idiots, just like most self-identified male Communists are anyway. It's just another example of a distorted mindset, but it's dead obvious that they defend society in the same way and for the same reasons as any Liberal does anyway. They typically completely think and talk like one. Ted Kaczynski
here explains what this "fake rebellious mindset" is about. Like him, I hate the Left/Leftists. I despise Noam Chomsky.
Marx said
(in this letter) he was against dogmatism and that communism itself is a dogmatic abstraction. Unfortunately, I typically often get into a whole thing explaining why my views have nothing to do with the Soviet Union, China, Cold War etc. because when most people hear "Marxism" this is usually what they think of. (Paul Mattick said
here "In Marx’s conception, changes in people’s social and material conditions will alter their consciousness. This also holds for Marxism and its historical development." In other words, Marxism being distorted into being seen by most as state ideology for authoritarian state-capitalist governments was itself a product of historical conditions; albeit one that has persisted despite the collapse of the USSR/Eastern Bloc and end of the Cold War.) Therefore, I prefer to just agree with people on any given point in a general neutral sense and not bring how I identify into it. Because once I were to tell someone I am a "Socialist" "Communist" or "Marxist" (as Marx did I identify as all three, but disavow the vast majority of people who do so in the present, who don't understand what Marx wrote) they put me in an ideological box and color all my views around their conception of what what are to them these ideological labels of designation mean. (Marxism is of course against such a mindset, if anything, it would say, the problem is precisely that "Marxism" has come under the sway of ideology, which particularizes any mindset as "one ideology among many," to detract from an understanding of the universal totality that is capitalism.)
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.
Also, I must mention the incel wiki seems to describe Marxism as "distribution" which it isn't, at all. Marxism is about abolishing capitalism and the conditions for it, the entire basis for wealth. Wealth redistribution is inherent to capitalism. Marxism is not state-capitalism, worker ownership of the means of production, or redistribution. Marxism is a social theory concerning the historical conditions for the
Communist mode of production. (linked text explains what this is.)
That I got banned by the subreddit for Left-Communists who dislike the Left on reddit should not be surprising, given the fact we're talking about reddit. I thought I'd mention this for the hell of it.
