How can you be a leftist and blackpilled at the same time?

[Deleted member 2012]

The whole leftist dogma is centred around the pursuit of equality and tolerance. Completely idealistic shit, even communism has a better chance of working.

If you're blackpilled then you know that people will never be equal for as long as we are humans.

Men will never be equal to women

Women don't need to have any qualities to reproduce, men do. Men need to be winners if they want to have a shot at life. Women simply need to exist. In our hunter gatherer past (More than 95% of human existence) only one man got to reproduce for every 17 females. Only the best of the best alpha males could fuck.

So obviously men ended up being more capable than women, because they had to be, or else natural selection would've gotten rid of their genes long ago. Women's own hypergamy made them inferior to men on a genetic level.

It's not just about genetics, men are also more motivated to work hard to achieve success in the workplace. His performance will determine his future quality of life.
While women can always lay back and get taken care of, she can already get chad whenever she wants, her main biological need is already met, the only reason she would want a promotion is to afford more luxuries. While men are fighting to be able to have a woman. It's beyond obvious who has a more motivating goal.

Men are also much more prone to competitiveness, it's instinctive since only the winner among men got to reproduce. Women have no such instinct that boosts their motivation to work, any women got to reproduce in the past. Even if men and women had equal stats and opportunities men would still work harder and achieve more, men and women will never earn the same on average.

Races will never be equal

It's really not rocket science:

1- The sense of beauty in humans is innate.
2- Race determines how you look.
3- There is a racial hierarchy in attractiveness.
4- Attractiveness determines your quality of life due to the halo effect.

Result = Whites will always have it better no matter what policies are implemented.

We are social animals biologically WIRED to create hierarchies and your place in this hierarchy is determined by things mostly out of control.

There is not a single social animal in this planet where every member is equal. Not wolves, not lions, not dolphins or even ants. There are the superior ones and the inferior ones, that's how it's always been in nature.

How can you be a defender of equality while living in such a world? It's IMPOSSIBLE to be a blackpilled leftist.

 

[Deleted member 10104]

Politics is cope, nothing will ever change. We only hold the keys to our own fates.

 

[HumidVent]

Low iq poverty tier post. You don't know a single thing about the left.

The blackpill is materialist opposed to idealist. The left is blackpilled because it's materialist.

 

[Golang]

Races will never be equal

It's really not rocket science:

1- The sense of beauty in humans is innate.
2- Race determines how you look.
3- There is a racial hierarchy in attractiveness.
4- Attractiveness determines your quality of life due to the halo effect.

Result = Whites will always have it better no matter what policies are implemented.

Idk, ask the ethnic copers here. It seems their IQ is too low to realize this

 

[Deleted member 6403]

Read everything

agreed with everything

 

[Butthurt Dweller]

Low iq poverty tier post. You don't know a single thing about the left.

The blackpill is materialist opposed to idealist. The left is blackpilled because it's materialist.

 

[HumidVent]

Lenin: A Liberal Professor on Equality

A Liberal Professor on Equality

www.marxists.org

Liberal Professor Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky is on the war path against socialism. This time he has approached the question, not from the political and economic angle, but from that of an abstract discussion on equality (perhaps the professor thought such an abstract discussion more suitable for the religious and philosophical gatherings which he has addressed?).

“If we take socialism, not as an economic theory, but as a living ideal,” Mr. Tugan declared, “then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept ... that cannot be deduced from experience and reason.”

This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!

Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

Since we have Mr. Tugan to deal with, we shall have to start with the rudiments.

By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.

Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism.

The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.

Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights.

Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production?

No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians.

In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market.

The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.

 

[karbo]

Low iq poverty tier post. You don't know a single thing about the left.

The blackpill is materialist opposed to idealist. The left is blackpilled because it's materialist.

Lenin: A Liberal Professor on Equality

A Liberal Professor on Equality

www.marxists.org

Liberal Professor Mr. Tugan-Baranovsky is on the war path against socialism. This time he has approached the question, not from the political and economic angle, but from that of an abstract discussion on equality (perhaps the professor thought such an abstract discussion more suitable for the religious and philosophical gatherings which he has addressed?).

“If we take socialism, not as an economic theory, but as a living ideal,” Mr. Tugan declared, “then, undoubtedly, it is associated with the ideal of equality, but equality is a concept ... that cannot be deduced from experience and reason.”

This is the reasoning of a liberal scholar who repeats the incredibly trite and threadbare argument that experience and reason clearly prove that men are not equal, yet socialism bases its ideal on equality. Hence, socialism, if you please, is an absurdity which is contrary to experience and reason, and so forth!

Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity! When we say that experience and reason prove that men are not equal, we mean by equality, equality in abilities or similarity in physical strength and mental ability.

It goes without saying that in this respect men are not equal. No sensible person and no socialist forgets this. But this kind of equality has nothing whatever to do with socialism. If Mr. Tugan is quite unable to think, he is at least able to read; were lie to Lake the well-known work of one of the founders of scientific socialism, Frederick Engels, directed against Dühring, he would find there a special section explaining the absurdity of imagining that economic equality means anything else than the abolition of classes. But when professors set out to refute socialism, one never knows what to wonder at most—their stupidity, their ignorance, or their unscrupulousness.

Since we have Mr. Tugan to deal with, we shall have to start with the rudiments.

By political equality Social-Democrats mean equal rights, and by economic equality, as we have already said, they mean the abolition of classes. As for establishing human equality in the sense of equality of strength and abilities (physical and mental), socialists do not even think of such things.

Political equality is a demand for equal political rights for all citizens of a country who have reached, a certain age and who do not suffer from either ordinary or liberal-professorial feeble-mindedness. This demand was first advanced, not by the socialists, not by the proletariat, but by the bourgeoisie. The well-known historical experience of all countries of the world proves this, and Mr. Tugan could easily have discovered this had he not called “experience” to witness solely in order to dupe students and workers, and please the powers that be by “abolishing” socialism.

The bourgeoisie put forward the demand for equal rights for all citizens in the struggle against medieval, feudal, serf-owner and caste privileges. In Russia, for example, unlike America, Switzerland and other countries, the privileges of the nobility are preserved to this day in all spheres of political life, in elections to the Council of State, in elections to the Duma, in municipal administration, in taxation, and many other things.

Even the most dull-witted and ignorant person can grasp the fact that individual members of the nobility are not equal in physical and mental abilities any more than are people belonging to the “tax-paying”, “base”, ‘low-born” or “non-privileged” peasant class. But in rights all nobles are equal, just as all the peasants are equal in their lack of rights.

Does our learned liberal Professor Tugan now under stand the difference between equality in the sense of equal rights, and equality in the sense of equal strength and abilities?

We shall now deal with economic equality. In the United States of America, as in other advanced countries, there are no medieval privileges. All citizens, are equal in political rights. But are they equal as regards their position in social production?

No, Mr. Tugan, they are not. Some own land, factories and capital and live on the unpaid labour of the workers; these form an insignificant minority. Others, namely, the vast mass of the population, own no means of production and live only by selling their labour-power; these are proletarians.

In the United States of America there is no aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat enjoy equal political rights. But they are not equal in class status: one class, the capitalists, own the means of production and live on the unpaid labour of the workers. The other class, the wage-workers, the proletariat, own no means of production and live by selling their labour-power in the market.

The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

The puzzled reader may ask: how could a learned liberal professor have forgotten these elementary axioms familiar to anybody who has read any exposition of the views of socialism? The answer is simple: the personal qualities of present-day professors are such that we may find among them even exceptionally stupid people like Tugan. But the social status of professors in bourgeois society is such that only those are allowed to hold such posts who sell science to serve the interests of capital, and agree to utter the most fatuous nonsense, the most unscrupulous drivel and twaddle against the socialists. The bourgeoisie will forgive the professors all this as long as they go on “abolishing” socialism.

AHAHAHA not a fucking word you abused dog
"the left is blackpilled" i really did laugh

 

[soFarAway]

facts

 

[TITUS]

If you are not a leftie when you are young you got no heart and if you are a leftie when you are a grown up you got no brain.

 

[Uglybrazilian]

I didn't read everything but speaking as a marxist, not even Marx himself actually believed or advocated for the end of all hierarchies or absolute equality among all humans(That was explained by Zizek to Jordan Peterson on their debate). The marxist ideal its not based on this simplistic conservative notions of equality but in the human potential or human will(on Stalin's words).

 

[Uglybrazilian]

Low iq poverty tier post. You don't know a single thing about the left.

The blackpill is materialist opposed to idealist. The left is blackpilled because it's materialist.

Tbqh
Conservatives and the whole right wing philosophy in general is more opposed to the blackpill due to their idealist foundations while marxism is materialist and thus more blackpilled. But niggas here dont have a clue about what are those things jfl

 

[Deleted member 1751]

I'm not a leftist but any means but they don't even believe everyone are equal. They want " everyone" to be equal.

 

[Deleted member 2012]

I didn't read everything but speaking as a marxist, not even Marx himself actually believed or advocated for the end of all hierarchies or absolute equality among all humans(That was explained by Zizek to Jordan Peterson on their debate). The marxist ideal its not based on this simplistic conservative notions of equality but in the human potential or human will(on Stalin's words).

You’re going to have to explain that better or link a video / article.

My point is that by making everyone financially equal, the other differences between people become more apparent. And in a world where an ugly guy can’t even become rich there is literally NOTHING he could do to ever catch up

 

[Coping_nope]

Most leftwingers are faggots

 

[Deleted member 8576]

>Politics is cope, nothing will ever change. We only hold the keys to our own fates.

 

[Shaman]

I suppose in the same way people advocate for the rights of animals and disabled people. If a group of humans is biologically weaker than you, then isn't that a greater justification to support them?

 

[Deleted member 275]

I suppose in the same way people advocate for the rights of animals and disabled people. If a group of humans is biologically weaker than you, then isn't that a greater justification to support them?

Then why do incels and ugly people receive 0 support by these so called 'leftist' policy-makers?
Instead of supporting the weak, governments are supporting the privileged and strong: women.

All my government talks about is how we can make life easier for women and give them more handouts. Or how we can get taxpayers to pay for chad's 5 children.

 

[Deleted member 2012]

I'm not a leftist but any means but they don't even believe everyone are equal. They want " everyone" to be equal.

If they want everyone to be equal then they think it’s possible for that to happen.

My point is that every blackpilled man knows that’s impossible and therefore wouldn’t be pursuing this goal for society

 

[Deleted member 10185]

Only the best of the best alpha males could fuck.


This is is not true.. You dont need look like model to have relationship. Most people are Normie and below normie looking. The models just have much better chance to have women but they are rare.

 

[Deleted member 10185]

Then why do incels and ugly people receive 0 support by these so called 'leftist' policy-makers?
Instead of supporting the weak, governments are supporting the privileged and strong: women.

All my government talks about is how we can make life easier for women and give them more handouts. Or how we can get taxpayers to pay for chad's 5 children.

All left hand out policies are universal. Minimum wage Increase, Universal healthcare, Student debt cancellation. They are not even handouts.. They are just taxes you pay for the government which would be used more for Middle class and poor instead of Rich people.

 

[eduardkoopman]

left wing.
right wing.

Both care more about pleasing women, than men. Gynocentrism.
It's just on a different level. Where the left is more gynocentric, and the right is less gynocentric. YET STILL, gynocentric.

Conclusion.
Both side will fuck you (man) over, to please women.

Hence the choice between 2 evils

 

[Deleted member 2012]

Only the best of the best alpha males could fuck.


This is is not true.. You dont need look like model to have relationship. Most people are Normie and below normie looking. The models just have much better chance to have women but they are rare.

I was obviously talking about evolution here, in our hunter gatherer days only one in seventeen men reproduced.

 

[Deleted member 275]

All left hand out policies are universal. Minimum wage Increase, Universal healthcare, Student debt cancellation. They are not even handouts.. They are just taxes you pay for the government which would be used more for Middle class and poor instead of Rich people.

Middle class and poor women maybe, not men.

As a young healthy male, I don't benefit from:
-Universal healthcare
-Child support
-Free/subsidized education
-Government pensions
-Unemployment benefits

and much more. Most of these things only benefit women, disabled, kids or old people. As a healthy male without family, you are at the bottom of the list for handouts/policies. You pay the most, receive the least. Government is my biggest enemy.

Society can go fuck itself.

 

[eduardkoopman]

In the netherlands we have a saying that 'the strongest shoulders have to carry the heaviest burdens of society'. Society considers me a 'strong shoulder' even though I have utter shit life quality and live the life of a slave, with basic human needs such as sexual and social validation unfullfilled.
Society can go fuck itself.

Based.
It's fucked up.
The ideal in Netherlands, is being a single mom, wellfare wise. Once one has the lable "Poor female worth of pity"; she gets stuffed with free mney, free services, compensations, tax cuts, etc...

 

[Deleted member 10185]

Middle class and poor women maybe, not men.

As a young healthy male, I don't benefit from:
-Universal healthcare
-Child support
-Free/subsidized education
-Government pensions
-Unemployment benefits

and much more. Most of these things only benefit women, disabled, kids or old people. As a healthy male without family, you are at the bottom of the list for handouts/policies. You pay the most, receive the least. Government is my biggest enemy.

Society can go fuck itself.

Bruh are you out of your mind? Those handout are for surviving and its apply to everyone. If you are man and unemployment. You will get the benefit too. Like wtf. Most Americans are working unless you mentally so fucked or you cannot work. You barely survive in America if you dont work.

 

[Deleted member 275]

Bruh are you out of your mind? Those handout are for surviving and its apply to everyone. If you are man and unemployment. You will get the benefit too. Like wtf. Most Americans are working unless you mentally so fucked or you cannot work. You barely survive in America if you dont work.

Those handouts have nothing to do with survival in the netherlands, but more about additional life quality/standards. They don't get some 5 dollar/day for food and a bunkbed in an old building for minimum survival. Nope they get appartments and huge paychecks. Nothing to do with survival anymore. Also it doesn't apply to everyone, like I said:

Young healthy men get 0 handouts. So how the fuck does it help them? Dumb asf.

low iq. Government will never benefit men, because society in general is gynocentric. Being a male and in favor of a large government is dumb asf and counterproductive.

It's why we have this huge imbalance in SMV/RMV nowadays: The role of provider/protector that men naturally have, has been taken away and replaced by the state. If you are male and vote for bigger governments, you are retarded. Sorry.

 

[Deleted member 10185]

Those handouts have nothing to do with survival in the netherlands, but more about additional life quality/standards. They don't get some 5 dollar/day for food and a bunkbed in an old building for minimum survival. Nope they get appartments and huge paychecks. Nothing to do with survival anymore. Also it doesn't apply to everyone, like I said:

Young healthy men get 0 handouts. So how the fuck does it help them? Dumb asf.

low iq. Government will never benefit men, because society in general is gynocentric. Being a male and in favor of a large government is dumb asf and counterproductive.

It's why we have this huge imbalance in SMV/RMV nowadays: The role of provider/protector that men naturally have, has been taken away and replaced by the state. If you are male and vote for bigger governments, you are retarded. Sorry.

Im referring to America. I thought this was about America.

 

[Deleted member 275]

Im referring to America. I thought this was about America.

I can't imagine it being much different in the US. Netherlands mostly follows the US in terms of cultural/societal values.

We have that same retarded racism/sexism PC culture here now, came from the US.

 

[Deleted member 10185]

I can't imagine it being much different in the US. Netherlands mostly follows the US in terms of cultural/societal values.

We have that same retarded racism/sexism PC culture here now, came from the US.

Lol its completely different. Usa is like third world country of West.. yet its richest country at same times.

 

[Deleted member 10185]

Those handouts have nothing to do with survival in the netherlands, but more about additional life quality/standards. They don't get some 5 dollar/day for food and a bunkbed in an old building for minimum survival. Nope they get appartments and huge paychecks. Nothing to do with survival anymore. Also it doesn't apply to everyone, like I said:

Young healthy men get 0 handouts. So how the fuck does it help them? Dumb asf.

low iq. Government will never benefit men, because society in general is gynocentric. Being a male and in favor of a large government is dumb asf and counterproductive.

It's why we have this huge imbalance in SMV/RMV nowadays: The role of provider/protector that men naturally have, has been taken away and replaced by the state. If you are male and vote for bigger governments, you are retarded. Sorry.

I have not idea of Netherlands system work so I would not comment on it..

 

[Deleted member 275]

Lol its completely different. Usa is like third world country of West.. yet its richest country at same times.

Anyone with carreer ambition moves out of Europe/Netherlands and starts living in the US because you can actually make decent money there and therefore get much higher life quality.

Makes 0 sense to work hard in the netherlands when you get taxed into shit anyways.

 

[Danish_Retard]

dn rd but I don't want to be jewed by my boss, bank or landlord so I'm a leftist.

 

[Uglybrazilian]

You’re going to have to explain that better or link a video / article.

My point is that by making everyone financially equal, the other differences between people become more apparent. And in a world where an ugly guy can’t even become rich there is literally NOTHING he could do to ever catch up

If thats your point than your point is 100% in accord to marxist theories
you can see Zizek explaining precisely what you have just said to Jordan Peterson on their debate:


at 1:40:21 a

plus Marx and Engels were critics of abstract egalitarianism since equality by itself is an abstract notion and no philosophy can base itself onto abstract notions - thats the problem with the right wing reasoning(the idealistic notion of freedom) and why I believe its 100% opposed to what is called the blackpill(which is materialist and thus more akin to marxism).

"Marx claims that it makes no sense to speak of equality in the abstract. This is because we can only understand what it means for x to be equal or unequal with y if we first specify the dimensions along which they are being compared. For x to be equal to y is for them to be equal in a particular concrete respect. For example, if x and y are people then they can only be judged equal relative to particular criteria such as their height, how many shoes they own, or how much cake they have eaten. Therefore, one can only be in favour of equality along specific dimensions, such as equality of cake consumption, and never equality as an abstract ideal."

So if Marx didnt advocated for abstract equality so in what type of equality did he believe? thats where the notion of "Human potential" comes: Marx wanted a society in which all humans would be equal on their opportunities to develop their full potentials. In other words, Marx believed that only under communism all humans would be able to fully develop themselves and express their individualities and differences:

"For Marx, the “true realm of freedom” consists in the “development of human powers as an end in itself”. (Marx 1991, 959) As a result, he conceives of a communist society as one in which “the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle”. (Marx 1990, 739) In such a society there are “niversally developed individuals, whose social relations, as their own communal . . . relations, are hence also subordinated to their own communal control."

Marx and Engels Were Not Egalitarians

Marx and Engels are often depicted as egalitarians by people on the right. In reality Marx and Engels rejected equality as a social ideal and as a permanent yardstick against which social arrangeme…

anarchopac.wordpress.com

"And in a world where an ugly guy can’t even become rich there is literally NOTHING he could do to ever catch up"

I dont really know because we dont know what world is waiting for us in the future(as its very likely that in the next centuries we'll live under some form of communism). Even if you cant become rich, being rich is only an advantage under capitalism because it provides status - in most first world countries women dont depend on a rich guy to have a good life. New forms of status would certainly arise in this new society. And just to cite some historical evidence, its well known that sexual inequality actually skyrocketed AFTER the appeareance of private property and class based societies: only one men reproduced to every 17 women after the agricultural revolution. Its not unreasonable to assume that economic inequality actually arises sexual inequality.

But anyways, most of your text is based on a flawed conception of what the left(at least the marxist left) argues for

 

[Deleted member 10185]

Anyone with carreer ambition moves out of Europe/Netherlands and starts living in the US because you can actually make decent money there and therefore get much higher life quality.

Makes 0 sense to work hard in the netherlands when you get taxed into shit anyways.

That because your country is providing opportunity you to start in higher level in Usa. Millions people in Usa does not have same opportunity. You need work 2-3 job to get your end meet. Even homeless people work in Usa. If you get fired. You could lose your healthcare provider and get completely bankrupt if something happen to your health. You will need to pay shit tons of money from Student debt if thing does not goes as planned.

 

[Deleted member 275]

That because your country is providing opportunity you to start in higher level in Usa. Millions people in Usa does not have same opportunity. You need work 2-3 job to get your end meet. Even homeless people work in Usa. If you get fired. You could lose your healthcare provider and get completely bankrupt if something happen to your health. You will need to pay shit tons of money from Student debt if thing does not goes as planned.

If you work 40 hours/week on minimum wage, you are homeless in the USA? Sounds like complete nutjob bullshit to me. There's no way thats the truth.

 

[Uglybrazilian]

I was obviously talking about evolution here, in our hunter gatherer days only one in seventeen men reproduced.

A correction: you are wrong. 1 to 17 ratio arise after agricultural revolution, not in the Hunter gatherer days. As I said before, that suggests that economic inequality actually arises sexual inequality and not the opposite.

8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man

An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.

www.google.com

 

[Deleted member 10185]

If you work 40 hours/week on minimum wage, you are homeless in the USA? Sounds like complete nutjob bullshit to me. There's no way thats the truth.

It is true man. Usa wages are so bad that many poor and middle class people really need works 2-3 job to get end meet.

 

[Deleted member 275]

It is true man. Usa wages are so bad that many poor and middle class people really need works 2-3 job to get end meet.

'2-3' job doesnt mean anything. You can have 1 job and work 60 hours. or have 3 jobs and work 30 hours total per week. Its meaningless.

Everywhere I read that wages in the USA are much higher than in the netherlands. It's impossible to make 6 figures in the netherlands, no matter what degree you have. I've had contact with people that got engineering degrees and made 6 figures with a starter function. It's insane how much americans are paid.

 

[Deleted member 2012]

Those handouts have nothing to do with survival in the netherlands, but more about additional life quality/standards. They don't get some 5 dollar/day for food and a bunkbed in an old building for minimum survival. Nope they get appartments and huge paychecks. Nothing to do with survival anymore. Also it doesn't apply to everyone, like I said:

Young healthy men get 0 handouts. So how the fuck does it help them? Dumb asf.

low iq. Government will never benefit men, because society in general is gynocentric. Being a male and in favor of a large government is dumb asf and counterproductive.

It's why we have this huge imbalance in SMV/RMV nowadays: The role of provider/protector that men naturally have, has been taken away and replaced by the state. If you are male and vote for bigger governments, you are retarded. Sorry.

Thats why im libertarian right

 

[Deleted member 2012]

The role of provider/protector that men naturally have, has been taken away and replaced by the state

It's still the men doing it. But now they don't get any credit and women feel entitled to free things without ever needing to give anything back

 

[Deleted member 2012]

But anyways, most of your text is based on a flawed conception of what the left(at least the marxist left) argues for

I indeed didn't know in depth about the marxist left, but my text was referring to the libertarian left, not authoritarian left. I was talking about the usual feminist sjw.

I learned a lot about the Marxist left today, but that only made me disagree more. In a society with a strongly authoritarian government, how do you expect each human to achieve

the full and free development of every individual

You're supporting a government that limits the market and controls everyone's possessions and yet you think that's the best route for the full and free development of an individual? What?

 

[HumidVent]

I indeed didn't know in depth about the marxist left, but my text was referring to the libertarian left, not authoritarian left. I was talking about the usual feminist sjw.

I learned a lot about the Marxist left today, but that only made me disagree more. In a society with a strongly authoritarian government, how do you expect each human to achieve

You're supporting a government that limits the market and controls everyone's possessions and yet you think that's the best route for the full and free development of an individual? What?

Authoritarianism is a buzzword.

On Authority

In a capitalist society it's the bourgeoisie that have authority over society. This is called the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. However in a socialist society it's the proletariats that have dictate things. All governments everywhere have a monopoly on authority because all governments are a dictatorship of a class.

A lot of western leftists like to cling to cold war propaganda and distance themselves from the Soviet Union and Marxism by calling them authoritarian or totalitarian. Essentially the west uses the term authoritarian for any government they don't like.

 

[Deleted member 7753]

idk, lets find out @Jagged0

 

[Uglybrazilian]

I indeed didn't know in depth about the marxist left, but my text was referring to the libertarian left, not authoritarian left. I was talking about the usual feminist sjw.

I learned a lot about the Marxist left today, but that only made me disagree more. In a society with a strongly authoritarian government, how do you expect each human to achieve

You're supporting a government that limits the market and controls everyone's possessions and yet you think that's the best route for the full and free development of an individual? What?

Your questionings could be answered with: yes. Marx wrote whole books on the subject that cover from the definition of freedom to the definition of possession etc and showing how that makes sense.

but the discussion is about weather the Blackpill is or not incompatible with some kind of leftism. I believe its not, thats what I was saying.