How Feminists Made Socialism Even Worse

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

Hi broz. This thread is probably going to be one of the most controversial threads I have ever made but I need to make it anyway. I must share what I have learned. Let’s talk about socialism.

We all know that modern socialism is s~~~. That’s obvious. Nearly all modern socialists are radfems. Here’s The Thing: Socialism was not always that way. Let me explain.

I have read the Communist Manifesto. What conclusions did I come to? Well … I realized that hardly anyone nowadays has even read the thing. The Manifesto contains almost nothing that you could call “cultural Marxism”. In one part of the Manifesto, Marx rants about women who have been forced into prostitution by the s~~~ty economy … but that’s the only little piece of feminism in the thing. Overall, the Communist Manifesto focuses on economics and covers little else.

There is very little evidence to suggest that Marx was even a “cultural Marxist”. He showed very little interest in issues regarding sex and race. Marxist feminism came later.

Of course, Marx wasn’t even the first of the socialists. Some of the first socialists were actually Christian. Marx was an atheist but he respected religion in some ways. Marx called religion “the opiate of the masses”. This, contrary to popular belief, is not supposed to ridicule the faithful. Back in those days, opium was used as a painkiller. Marx was saying that religion makes people feel better when their lives are s~~~.

The writings of Marx also contain many inconvenient truths … for Marxist feminists at least. Marx said that his favorite virtue in a man was strength. His favorite virtue in a woman was weakness. The Communist Manifesto says that capitalism has destroyed all the idyllic, patriarchal relationships of the Middle Ages. The Manifesto also says that the communists don’t need to introduce “community of women” (i.e. feminism) because it has existed “since time immemorial”.

Additionally, Karl Marx wanted a world where everyone works and contributes to society. Karl Marx would have hated welfare bums if he had lived long enough to see them. Many early socialists were horrified to see women working in factories because “Those women are just being forced to work in factories. Women naturally want to stay in the home.” Additionally, many early socialists saw proletarian men as masculine and hated the feminine idle rich.

Another early socialist was Pierre Joseph Proudhon. He was the first self-proclaimed anarchist. Proudhon basically said “I like the way proletarian men treat their women. That doesn’t need to change.” Lots of early feminists got p~~~ed at Proudhon after he said this. This caused an internal rift in early socialism which lasted a long time.

Ernest Hemingway, Ernest Belfort Bax and George Orwell were all socialists. They all hated feminism. Ernest Bax was the very first MRA and this means that the first MRA was also the first “brocialist”.

“One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”
– George Orwell

Men like Orwell and Bax saw what was happening to socialism. They tried to fight back but they were unsuccessful. Nowadays, socialism is generally associated with radical feminism and the old internal conflicts over feminism have been largely forgotten. Hardly anyone even acknowledges that this internal conflict within socialism ever occurred.

Am I saying that socialism is good? No. I’ll let you decide. I’m saying that old socialism was far better than new socialism. That is simply a fact. Marx played no role in the development of “cultural Marxism”. Additionally, Marx was against gun control. That’s another thing that modern Marxists like to ignore. Modern Marxism is even more corrupted than modern Western Buddhism.

This brings me to another point. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Was socialism inherently unstable? If so, why has Cuba persisted against all odds?

My Theory: Cuba has stuck around due to macho Latino Culture. In any society, there must be masculine men who do the work. In the Soviet Union, everyone became lazy and the whole thing just imploded. This has not happened in Cuba because Latino machismo has kept men working and kept the country afloat. Masculine culture can also be found in Zimbabwe and North Korea. I’m not saying that those are good countries. I am just saying that those countries have a strong sense of masculine virtue in their culture. That’s why they have outlasted the Soviet Union. Many people like to mock the “sexism” in China but that “sexism” is likely the only thing keeping the country alive.

Next, let’s talk about primitive communism. Early humans didn’t have any money. They shared everything they gathered … but there was still a hierarchy. Men ruled over women, adults ruled over children and humans ruled over dogs. Those are the only natural hierarchies.

We all know that feminists ruin everything. That’s obvious. Feminists have ruined socialism so much that many people forget it was ever masculine. The symbol of communism is a hammer and sickle for a reason. The sickle represents farmers. The hammer represents factory workers. Socialism was originally a system which forced everyone to work. Nowadays, socialism is a system that doesn’t force anyone to work and inevitably collapses as a result.

“How the mighty have fallen.” doesn’t even begin to describe this.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[TuneoutParticipant]

Both Cuba and Korea are smaller countries thus easier to rule and their rulers have done so with an iron fist.
Soviet Russia and China to a lesser extent let them selves become corrupt,even N Korea and Cuba the leaders live much more lavishly than your average comrade.
This is why true communism never works because people always want more and better than what they have,it’s just human nature,esp where females are concerned.

Perhaps in a primitive hunter/gatherer society it would work because the primary motivation is survival and the only possessions are for living.

The only class system was perhaps the tribe leader and his wife so we can assume that women practiced hypergamy
even back then.

Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Uintatherium wrote:

This brings me to another point. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Was socialism inherently unstable? If so, why has Cuba persisted against all odds?

My Theory: Cuba has stuck around due to macho Latino Culture. In any society, there must be masculine men who do the work. In the Soviet Union, everyone became lazy and the whole thing just imploded. This has not happened in Cuba because Latino machismo has kept men working and kept the country afloat. Masculine culture can also be found in Zimbabwe and North Korea. I’m not saying that those are good countries. I am just saying that those countries have a strong sense of masculine virtue in their culture. That’s why they have outlasted the Soviet Union. Many people like to mock the “sexism” in China but that “sexism” is likely the only thing keeping the country alive.

Those countries are/were not communist or socialist – they’re totalitarian. The totalitarian countries that survive today (Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, China) do it because they are willing to crack down on dissenters and don’t get into costly wars. The Soviet Union failed because it invaded Afghanistan, got into an expensive arms race with the U.S., and then didn’t have the stomach anymore to squash its people. In a totalitarian society it’s impossible for a man to be ‘macho’ because ultimately they are the State’s bitch.

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

This is is an interesting topic, but I’m not too good with quality posts to give a constructive view point. I’m quiet sure I’m going to be lost on translation on this.

What I would like to point out is the following,

How is one sure that primitive communism was communism, and not just mutual cooperation? Meaning that there was no common good but really shared interests of personal survival. This idea assumes that the definition of communism is the collective working towards an imagery common goal, such as the common good.

To add to the point, if you’ve seen walking dead or have watched walking dead. Are the people not Zombies, the survivors acting as communists?

To me I don’t think feminism has ruined socialism, to make an analogy here, socialism is like a musical scale say the like major scale. Feminism is just a genre of music that utilizes the scale. Or if your not familiar with music, another way to explain it, socialism is the theory, and feminism is just one application of the theory.

Last thing to note is that I would say that the reason why the countries you mentioned such as Cuba where able to last was because the people had already been set up through the culture of religion, the religion being Roman Catholicism. You can’t here use the term “Christian” because there are so many different sects of Christianity. I wouldn’t be surprised but if you were to research into this you might find that countries with the biggest lean towards socialism tend to be more Roman Catholic. I mean hell, look at the IRA in Ireland, they are all Roman Catholic and there cause is of a socialist one.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

Another Fact About Early Socialists: Many of them admired Sparta. This makes sense because everyone in Sparta was expected to either work or fight.

Check out this pic. I stole it from here.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Uintatherium wrote:

muh socialism

It was always a bad idea. Socialists of any sort be it old or new proved this cartoon right.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

Big Boss wrote:

Uintatherium wrote:

muh socialism

It was always a bad idea. Socialists of any sort be it old or new proved this cartoon right.
<iframe width=”500″ height=”375″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/El7qgQXd-xs?start=24&feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

That cartoon was made back in the good old days when the 4th Amendment still meant something. The American system is now very flawed. Everything has gone downhill … which is what happened in the USSR as well.

Of course, some socialists will argue that the Soviets never had “real socialism”. They are in good company … since an-caps think that America never had “real capitalism”.

Horseshoe theory is funny eh?

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[SimpleLifeParticipant 439]

I like what Uintatherium adds to the forums here. You bring up interesting points.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Uintatherium wrote:

Big Boss wrote:

Uintatherium wrote:

muh socialism

It was always a bad idea. Socialists of any sort be it old or new proved this cartoon right.
<iframe width=”500″ height=”375″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/El7qgQXd-xs?start=24&feature=oembed” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

That cartoon was made back in the good old days when the 4th Amendment still meant something. The American system is now very flawed. Everything has gone downhill … which is what happened in the USSR as well.

Of course, some socialists will argue that the Soviets never had “real socialism”. They are in good company … since an-caps think that America never had “real capitalism”.

Horseshoe theory is funny eh?

Socialism is foolish because it creates LARGE warps in an economy. This isn’t hypothetical, it is basic economics. It does several basic things.

1. It subsidizes an industry and makes it dependent on the policy. So now businesses will depend on government subsidies on something like college tuition or welfare stamps. Not a big deal yet right? We have a world reserve currency status that isn’t a permanent done deal and massive debt. There is a chance programs like them need to be curtailed. What do you think is going to happen when they are?

MASSIVE collapse within an industry that is subsidized.

2. It relating to the first point creates mal-investments, but it isn’t a repeat of the first point, I mean businesses will literally begin to enjoy day to day activities with extra government monies and credit and will make poorer decisions with handling the money. Say they buy cars unnecessarily to use up the money budget line item before its gone. (So it boosts the local economy which slowly becomes dependent on the government money as well) They begin to take on assets that may consume even more money. Cars need insurance, gas, and etc.

Purchases that are not efficient for the business will increase and increase overhead.

3. It as usual creates the need for looser monetary policy and always expands credit. Which results inevitably in BAD monetary policy that hurts everyone. It isn’t unsurprising that we went from gold -> silver -> copper -> to zinc -> paper -> digital in our money. Despite what fools tell you it wasn’t because more people require more types of money. It is because of government embracing socialism that created massive increases in not just the amount of programs but in the the amount socialist programs spend.

4. It destroys the balance between savers and spenders in the business cycle. Now with expanded credit, there can be far more spenders and consumers than savers in a local economy. Consumerism basically blows up and economies shift to consumer based goods instead of production.

It’s a lot of common sense but its beyond capability for most socialist to realize “hey taking people’s money and using/investing it in a thing creates more of the thing and bubbles and busts”.

And worst of all? Socialist can NOT identify problems that result from bad monetary policy specifically and blame it as “capitalist system”. It is no different as a person is incapable to identify a backpack and clothes on a person as separate items and not part of the system.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

Uintatherium wrote:

The American system is now very flawed. Everything has gone downhill

Yes, the cartoon showed exactly how it did starting @7:13
I particularly enjoyed the fence for the “state concentration camp” which would have been more accurately described as “Free speech zone”.

It’s just wordplay you need to see through to understand we ended up with the same things because we embraced socialism.

[Author]

Posts