Well? What do you think, robots?

We will all get really thin and nice. This will end fatshaming once and for all.

>Well? What do you think, robots?
Read Marx and Engels and educate yourself about the difference between private property and personal property. That tweet is not Marxist or communist, it's just dumb.

Am I some sort of sexual Communist now?

Attached: 1524486944881.jpg (500x327, 42K)

Marx talked about communal wives.

Attached: 130221984383.png (600x578, 333K)

I mean, communism already did it once. In 20 years we could be sending roasies to work camps.

redistribute coochie NOW

user have you ever heard of the saying "Sharing is caring"? This is applicable in all circumstances.

Cummunism

We should do like Brave New World and make sex pleasure only and everyone gets a turn with each other

that may well be, but it's neither marxist nor communist.

Not in Das Kapital he didn't. Sex can never be private property and can therefore never be distributed. Read your primary sources kids.

sex is not private property
Its public property
And its not in das kapital its in the communist manifesto

Roastie running damage control. It's too late, the revolution is beginning!

B>ourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

Guaranteed Basic Intercourse NOW

based marx

Gulags for roasties is exactly what St. Elliot wanted

We need "Be yourself" written above the gates and then all day every day we berate them over the traits that they don't have.

Join Bernie's revolution comrades!

Attached: basedboy.png (345x303, 109K)

Dude, I'm not against a sexual revolution or something. Just don't call it Marxist/communist or cite Marxist literature.

I'm actually fairly certain sex isn't property at all, but the body is definitely personal. To be honest, Marx didn't write a great deal about gender issues, but there is a long history of Marxist feminism that goes in the opposite direction you're claiming.

I thought rk9 was all about traditional marriage? This goes directly against that and is more to do with women having freedom to choose men as they wish, not in accordance to bourgeois regulation.

The only thing he said about feminism is that women should be able to work.
The hippies promised "free love" which means free sex.
The left has turned what karl marx said into a feminazi ideology.
And based on what they've been saying they're worse than actual nazis.
And I can't find the quote but he did say sex is a human need.

Intimacy is a human need, but the body is personal. Therefore neither the state, nor any individual has any say over what the owner of the personal property (the woman, in this case) does with said property. It is inalienable in communist rhetoric.

Well convincing you is not going to do anything anyways.
Currently I'd have to be insane to want to be a worker bee for these psychopathic femoids.

Sex creates offspring, thus making sex a means of (re)production, that is to be redistributed to the workers

It's actually true if you think about it, inceldom is a communistic ideology at its core.

this tweet makes no sense. it is as if the OP read the first couple of paragraphs of the wikipedia article on marxism and was like "cool i get it now"

to wit: the idea of a "sex proletariat" would only make sense if incels were compelled to work in the sex mines every day, somehow laboring to produce... sex? whereby their only benefit to (capitalist) society would be their labor. that's what the proletariat is. OP is presumably reaching for some variant of "underclass" or "marginalized group" but just wants to sound more theoretically rigorous

ignoring the wildly oversimplified incantations of "bourgeois rhetoric" and "false consciousness," we reach the next egregious instance of faux-marxist argument: the idea that women, apparently, are the "owners of the means of reproduction" and hold a "monopoly on sex." this is nonsense for a lot of reasons. it's using the language of market behavior--words used to describe economic relations--to describe behavior that is not necessarily economic, nor can it be said to exist in a market space in the same sense that money, goods, etc. exist in a market space. "the act of having sex with someone" and "the material production of commodities" do not exist on the same conceptual plane. describing women as having a "monopoly on sex" contorts the definition of "monopoly" into absolute meaninglessness. women (and men) rely on a variety of influencing factors to determine when and with whom they have sex, but managing competing interests does not necessarily make a space a market.

it's true that, socially, hetero women tend to have a lot of leeway to decide when and with whom they would like to have sex. hetero men often do not. this is unequal, but its remedy can't come from "sexual redistribution" grafted onto a model for economic redistribution because sex does not work like money. this is marxist apples and oranges.

all that said, if this moment is what makes the NEETs of the internet turn into unironic leftists, i'm into it

Attached: 28828866_2111961872366529_2027830670092754663_o.jpg (1280x960, 142K)

Long live our So'ylent motherland!
Built by the Incels' mighty hands!
Long live the Robots, United and free!
Strong in our friendship tried by fire!
Long may our verdant flag inspire!
Meme'ing in glory, for all Chad's to fear!

Attached: images (1).jpg (183x275, 13K)

good shit m8. will support this narrative

Attached: 1523852754177.jpg (218x231, 7K)

No I'm not turning into an unironic leftist
The left is the reason these broads are mad with power and they believe they're oppressed
Its so insulting its almost funny

>all that said, if this moment is what makes the NEETs of the internet turn into unironic leftists, i'm into it
user you and i both know they're just gonna turn into nazbols

>the anthem of the So'ylent Union
I love you guys so much holy shit, my fucking sides.

Hearty chuckle from me

That is why we must secure the memes of reproduction.

this is a good example of how context changes a quotation. marx is describing the social iniquity of bourgeois marriage here, but it's easy to ignore when its framed like this. here are the relevant lines which precede that quotation:

>But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
>The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
>He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
>For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
>Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.
>Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus [...]

he's not at all saying communism should involve a class of communal wives. this makes like zero sense. he outright says this in the quotation.

he's saying that one of the excesses of the bourgeoisie is that they regard women as subservient, and that the project of communism would be to liberate women from the preexisting system of production, along with its attendant social implications.

marx is not commenting on whether sex is private or public property. i am doubtful he even regards sexual intercourse as property--this seems like a late-20th century intervention in marxist literature, but i am not well-read on this subject and do not know for sure.

>because sex does not work like money.
Yes it does. Women trade sex for money all the time.

yes, so do men. this is why the trade of sex for money is termed "sex work," as opposed to simply "sex"

unless your contention is that all sex is sex work (a position held, just fyi, by a pretty small portion of radical feminists), this is immaterial.

>roasties unironically think they're entitled to the labor of men while maintaining ownership over the means of reproduction

>I'm ready for sex communism
cummunism.

Attached: 1248740307275.jpg (423x423, 49K)

cummieism

>implying I actually gave a shit about the context of some cranky Jew's words from 1900.

kek

and I love communism now

We must seize the means of reproduction, comrades.

Marx didn't want communism on the basis of some kind of legal principle concerning property. It was an ethical principle. The purpose of collectivizing property is to provide a better life for the masses. The same should apply to sex. Both would require a sacrifice of personal interests for the sake of the collective.

Lefties have it completely backwards. We actually do need redistribution of sex, and it's the only type of redistribution we need. Lefties are socialists when it comes to things that should be left to the free market but they're incredibly laissez-faire about things that should be regulated

Regular republican here...

>means of reproduction
top kek

Attached: 1507763052350.jpg (720x721, 68K)

marx hated ideology. he made inferences from the laws that governed capitalism.

>unless your contention is that all sex is sex work
All sex is sex work.
Not all work is compensated with money, and anyone who has sex receives some form of compensation, both material and immaterial.

>using communist dogma at all

as a side note, i can't think of any other mass casualty event where the public discourse almost instantly centered on, "did this guy's ideology have some merit?"

like imagine if after the orlando nightclub shooting, suddenly everybody was like "hmm, i dunno, maybe gay people DO deserve death as a reprisal for american airstrikes in the middle east." or if like, a week after columbine, the NYT's resident conservative op-ed writer came out with his new article, "actually, mom, KMFDM is not a satanic band"

like, this is weird, right? a guy makes a shitpost about the beta uprising, kills some people, and the public response is... rigorous, vaguely partisan-aligned debate over whether the guy had a point with the women-are-sex-tyrants thing

that's weird, right

yeah who would lie for poon
that's so strange lmfao

lol @ unironically horseshoe theory-ing yourself into agreement with radfems

>hated ideology
>entire theory based off the presupposition of the inate goodness of man
wew lad

A white man.
That's all it takes for them. I'd the colour of his skin matches their rhetoric, they'll pounds on any perceived ideological group

fuck we've come so far that incels are now a political group.

Did you just defeat your own point?

His big arguments were done as neutral analysis of capitalism as a system, but he wasn't a neutral observer. The system he put forward as an alternative was one he saw as ethically superior, even if his analysis also implied it's replacement of capitalism was inevitable.

It's funny how the feminists are always socialists in all things but sex. It's almost like they have a self-serving agenda and don't actually care about oppressed people.

I'm not sure if you guys are retards, but if you paid attention to the new IP counter ITT you'd realize that I'm not that other user.

you seem cool and well-educated. why are you still posting here?

what system did he proposed as an alternative? As far as I know, he made very vague statements about how it will look like as he couldn't envision what it will specifically be.

making a thread on Jow Forums
cumminsm has to be memed into existence

I mean, it's pretty well-known to most men (especially non-whites since we're not nearly as cucked) that women are largely a net drain on the quality of society as a whole.
It's a shame, but sexually speaking, they should be controlled, and whites are learning this the hard way now.

wtf I love lenin now

shit, Marx was explicitly against utopian system-building.

More incels should read The Manipulated Man

I'm going to throw that femoid philosophy on the trash is what I'm going to do

I mean, Timothy McVeigh was a white man and I don't recall media outlets immediately going "Well, he killed a couple hundred people, but he had some good points, no?"

One that would entail the collectivization of the means of production/abolishment of private property, and have as its ultimate aim the "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" principle. Which is an ethical principle.
Marx attacked utopian socialists for ignoring the material basis of society and proposing socialism was possible without overthrowing the laws of capital. The very word utopia implies idealism/naivete and that was what Marx was against, not the principle of trying to work for a better society.

>not the principle of trying to work for a better society
Always understood Marx in the terms that doing work against the tides of history is futile. Your little ethical principles are the results of material status and aren't reflected in the real relationships that were, are and will be shaping the system as a whole.

self-loathing

not sure "everything is futile" is exactly what marx was going for.
the idea that we are powerless to act against long-term structural forces (or whatever, "the tides of history") does not really mesh well with the premise of the communist manifesto, for instance. but the idea that power relations supersede ethical principles is probably a good takeaway.

Dumb shybois too dumb to understand social activity is opt-in because they're dumb.

He wouldn't have advocated for revolution if he was just a passive historical determinist. He despised socialist politicians that thought capitalism would peacefully transition to communism by the automatic forces of history. He believed capitalism would come under great pressure to experience a proletariat revolution, but this wasn't in any way inevitable. And every revolution involves ethics.