LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Or would they?

Probably not, as you need a fairly strong monopoly of force to sustain a similarly strong property rights regime. This is what many non-anarchist libertarians tend to forget, and then wonder why there is so much abuse in the way of civil asset forfeiture and other things.

What's a "property rights regime?"

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Finally, Harry Potter becomes more than just liberal shit.

Liberals: *calls for gun bans*

Rightists: "wtf bro thats bad"

Actual leftists: "wtf i agree with the conservatives now"

What about collectivists conservatives who oppose private gun ownership?[/quote]
I've never heard of any until now. You also strike me of more of a fascist than a conservative, as you show admiration to authoritarian states and only criticize them when they aren't christian or traditional.

[Frievolk]

I've never heard of any until now. You also strike me of more of a fascist than a conservative, as you show admiration to authoritarian states and only criticize them when they aren't christian or traditional.

In most of the world, That is pretty much the basis of Conservative thought. America is an exception. (Furthermore, "support of authoritarianism" does not a fascist make)

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I've never heard of any until now. You also strike me of more of a fascist than a conservative, as you show admiration to authoritarian states and only criticize them when they aren't christian or traditional.

In most of the world, That is pretty much the basis of Conservative thought. America is an exception. (Furthermore, "support of authoritarianism" does not a fascist make)

Everytime an illiterate thinks that being an authoritarian means you’re Mussolini incarnate, a baby kitten is roadkilled.

So save the kitties and actually make the distinctions clear.

[Duvniask]

This one. I'm using the generally accepted criteria of what constitutes a capitalist system, as distinct from other socio-economic systems. This is the one Marx and Engels arrived at in their analysis.

What about you? It seems like you just arbitrarily decided that competition (along supply and demand) was the central feature of capitalism, so that monopoly capitalism couldn't possibly exist.

"Socialists are allowed to define socialism but capitalists aren't allowed to define capitalism."

Competition is one of the central features, yes. Property rights are another. You are not using the generally-accepted criteria, only a Marxist interpretation.

The Marxian characterization is also commonly used, especially on a scholarly basis concerned with capitalism as a mode of production. And there is good reason to consider it superior; Marx and Engels looked at the economic system of their time and analyzed all (or many of) its various components and characteristics and sought to describe how this, at the time, new system was distinct from what came before it and what might very well follow it in the future (socialism/communism). In other words, it is preferable that our definitions are coherent and that they clarify what, for example, the distinction between capitalism and socialism is. This is important, especially when you have supporters of the latter criticizing the former, and supporters of the former criticizing the latter. Capitalism is such things as production for profit (or capital accumulation), capital* being money transformed into (used to buy) a commodity to again be transformed into a greater sum of money through sale, in order to realize a profit; generalized commodity production, that is, the production of goods for their exchange value; and the primacy of wage labor, laborers selling their labor power as a commodity to capitalists in return for wages. With socialism, we seek to transcend these things, to establish a society based on production for use, rather than profit, the abolition of wage labor, the abolition of class structures, and so on.

To simply consider capitalism "private ownership of the means of production and competition between private individuals" (paraphrasing here) is passable as a shorthand, because it accurately describes what much of capitalism looks like, but upon closer inspection it is limiting, somewhat arbitrarily taking only a few of its characteristics into focus. It's somewhat like Plato defining "man" as being being a "featherless biped"; all Diogenes had to do was pluck the feathers off of a chicken and utter "Behold! I've brought you a man".

*This understanding of capital is also present in the link you provide, down in the "did you know?" section. It forms much of the backdrop of what makes capitalism, well, a capital-ism, a system based on capital. It too shows that there is more to understanding capitalism than what the definition lets on.

And all in all dictionaries are not very good authorities on understanding complex political thought or socio-economic systems.

Whereas Western capitalism largely eliminates (but doesn't downright kill) small business owners through competition, monopolization, purchase, etc., the Soviet Union took the violent state-sponsored approach, seizing small business and bringing them into the state; this effectively meant making them part of capital on the national level. It killed small capitalists in service of the universal capitalist state.

To the contrary, small businesses vastly outnumber their larger counterparts.

Largely irrelevant, as I did not make a statement concerning the numbers of small businesses, only that their elimination takes place through competition, monopolization and purchasing, contrasting this with the violent nature of the Soviet Union's elimination of small business.

But aside from what I actually said, let's look at this. First of all, as your link makes clear: "Not everyone agrees on just how large a small business can get and still be considered "small."" It elaborates with the following:

"The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy defines small business as any enterprise that employs fewer than 500 employees. There are certain exceptions for some industries that can reach as high as 1,500 employees and remain eligible for SBA programs. Critics of this definition allege that it is overly broad, and charge that the SBA should advocate for the majority of business owners whose enterprises are smaller."

In my view there is a big difference between a factory that employs ~500 people and a wealthy peasant, in terms of what we consider a "small business".

Furthermore, what you're saying does not take into account the market share of small businesses, nor how much they contribute to the toal GDP of the US, percentage-wise, which is decreasing: https://www.sba.gov/content/small-busin ... -2002-2010

[Ostroeuropa]

Bi-annual MRA demographic survey results are out, i'll give a rough rundown with some rounding to dispel myths/misconceptions.


90% Male, 10% Female, around the same number identify as men/women, though there's a trend toward transwomen more than transmen, bringing the numbers of men/women closer to parity than male/female.

80% Are Heterosexual, the rest are some form of LGBT. (Above national averages.).

65% are single, with 35% partnered or married. The norm is about 50% Single, but MRAs are younger on average than the population taken as whole.

80% Are White, with 20% being some form of ethnic minority. A control was implemented to see if US members were inflating the minority statistics, but curiously it was found that the 80-20 figures remain roughly consistent regardless of the nation of the respondents, whether US or UK or Canada and so on.

A plurality are at a Bachelor degree level of education. (37.7), the least common is high school drop out (3.1). PHD/MDs were at 7.2%.

Overwhelmingly, they are between 21 and 30, with the second biggest group being 20 and under, closely followed by 31-40.

70% Are atheists, with 1% identifying as Anti-theist. 12% are Protestant christian, 7% are catholic, and curiously, the next most popular religion is neo-pagan of various forms at 2%.

The strength of their religious convictions was also measured. The religious categories reported low confidence and the atheists reported high confidence, on average.

72% are employed.
10% reported that they were stay-at-home fathers or single fathers.
The rest are students, or unemployed.

28% of them work in IT.
7% of them work in Education.

Income distribution was 50-75k per year as the most common, 100-150k as the second most, 75-100 as the third most, and Under 25k as the next most common. The least common were 150k+

Political orientation indicates a good spread.

The movement averages on a political scale as liberal and econonomically center-left.

The largest group identify as "Moderate".

1% Identify as Anarchists
13% Identify as Republican
26% Identify as Independent
15% Identify as Democrat
31% Identify as Libertarian
4% Identify as Socialist

The survey notes that this appears to indicate "Independents" are left-leaning and not identifying with the Democrats for some reason. (Guess why.), or that "Libertarians" are far more open to left wing economics than their self-identifier might indicate.

This isn't the picture of MRAs typically thrown around.

[Korouse]

It's exactly the picture of MRAs thrown around: Works in IT, early 30s, single, "libertarian" and did I mention a nice guy for the LONGEST time until he realized he didn't need to put bitches on a pedestal?

[Korouse]

Red Scare tactics and the mere existence of post-USSR tankies don't really help leftists in securing rural camaraderie, to be fair.

There's also the perception that leftists have no regard for the values and traditions of agrarian communities. Fascists specifically appeal to those things while retaining a populist facade. They're still losing out to conservatives, of course, mostly due to the cult of the rugged individual and an instinctual mistrust of government, but they have gaps to exploit. The perceived middle-class and urban character of Antifa and socialist groups stymie their cause as well, at least in the rural regions of the country.

Most of the rural population (except for the many, many, many tenant/migrant farm workers who are mostly non-white) are really small business-owners so it's not like it's in their immediate class interests to support communists. Maybe when there comes a day that they're near-homeless and their subsidized gravy train runs out, which is happening in some rural communities. I don't think the GOP necessarily appeals to them at that point though. Maybe fascists moreso.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's exactly the picture of MRAs thrown around: Works in IT, early 30s, single, "libertarian" and did I mention a nice guy for the LONGEST time until he realized he didn't need to put bitches on a pedestal?

Most don't work in IT. Most are not Libertarian. Plenty are not Single. Your last point is a snarl about this demographic and the "Nice guy" point is seemingly out of nowhere. Finally your snarling ignores that more of them are LGBT than the average for the population because you'd rather ignore the diversity of this group so you can continue believing a hateful caricature about them. You also ignore the 1/10 MRAs who are women to do this because you have a problem with recognizing their existence and would rather be spiteful about this group and mischaracterize them as a type of person you dislike than engage with them as human beings.

You are focusing on a vanishingly small subset of MRAs are acting like this proves the demonization of this movement is accurate. You have to consider that the 27% in IT would have to all be male, all be single, all identify as libertarian, all be under 30, and so on, in order for you to be "only" 63% Wrong.

In reality you're more likely 80% to 90% wrong or thereabouts, but so full of hate you can't see that even when the stats are right in front of you because your confirmation bias led you to not understand reality.

Even taking the most charitable interpretation, you are as wrongheaded and inane as someone who ardently claimed the US is about to vote for Ralph Nader in a landslide in 2000, 2004, 2008, etc. That is the level of delusion and margin of error you are operating under due to drinking the anti-MRA koolaid. Not even most people who voted for Nader believed that. That's like, tinfoil hat, end of the world is nigh sandwich board levels of nonsense.

[Korouse]

It's exactly the picture of MRAs thrown around: Works in IT, early 30s, single, "libertarian" and did I mention a nice guy for the LONGEST time until he realized he didn't need to put bitches on a pedestal?

Most don't work in IT. Most are not Libertarian. Plenty are not Single. Your last point is a snarl about this demographic and the "Nice guy" point is seemingly out of nowhere. Finally your snarling ignores that more of them are LGBT than the average for the population because you'd rather ignore the diversity of this group so you can continue believing a hateful caricature about them. You also ignore the 1/10 MRAs who are women to do this because you have a problem with recognizing their existence and would rather be spiteful about this group and mischaracterize them as a type of person you dislike than engage with them as human beings.

You are focusing on a vanishingly small subset of MRAs are acting like this proves the demonization of this movement is accurate. You have to consider that the 27% in IT would have to all be male, all be single, all identify as libertarian, all be under 30, and so on, in order for you to be "only" 63% Wrong.

In reality you're more likely 80% to 90% wrong or thereabouts, but so full of hate you can't see that even when the stats are right in front of you because your confirmation bias led you to not understand reality.

I think they're a stupid movement. Go harp on about the struggle of the first-world male while you make threads about how we need to curb Muslim "rapefugee" immigration or something, ironically consisting of many military-aged victimized young men looking for another way of life, trapped in societies which dictate they must be soldiers.

[Ostroeuropa]

Most don't work in IT. Most are not Libertarian. Plenty are not Single. Your last point is a snarl about this demographic and the "Nice guy" point is seemingly out of nowhere. Finally your snarling ignores that more of them are LGBT than the average for the population because you'd rather ignore the diversity of this group so you can continue believing a hateful caricature about them. You also ignore the 1/10 MRAs who are women to do this because you have a problem with recognizing their existence and would rather be spiteful about this group and mischaracterize them as a type of person you dislike than engage with them as human beings.

You are focusing on a vanishingly small subset of MRAs are acting like this proves the demonization of this movement is accurate. You have to consider that the 27% in IT would have to all be male, all be single, all identify as libertarian, all be under 30, and so on, in order for you to be "only" 63% Wrong.

In reality you're more likely 80% to 90% wrong or thereabouts, but so full of hate you can't see that even when the stats are right in front of you because your confirmation bias led you to not understand reality.

I think they're a stupid movement. Go harp on about the struggle of the first-world male while you make threads about how we need to curb Muslim "rapefugee" immigration or something, ironically consisting of many military-aged victimized young men looking for another way of life, trapped in societies which dictate they must be soldiers.

First world males face a number of important issues that society should be fixing, but if you think trying to bring focus to them is stupid that's your business.
I think we need to curb immigration in general, and be more discerning about who we let in.

[Korouse]

I think they're a stupid movement. Go harp on about the struggle of the first-world male while you make threads about how we need to curb Muslim "rapefugee" immigration or something, ironically consisting of many military-aged victimized young men looking for another way of life, trapped in societies which dictate they must be soldiers.

First world males face a number of important issues that society should be fixing, but if you think trying to bring focus to them is stupid that's your business.
I think we need to curb immigration in general, and be more discerning about who we let in.

I don't. In the end, you are talking to a first-world male here Ostro. I just don't agree with movements that have obvious theoretical gaps in major issues, like the problem of heavily patriarchal societies, while also positioning themselves vis-a-vis feminism which has studied these problems for decades.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's exactly the picture of MRAs thrown around: Works in IT, early 30s, single, "libertarian" and did I mention a nice guy for the LONGEST time until he realized he didn't need to put bitches on a pedestal?

There's a gap between: a) certain groups being somewhat overrepresented in a community that's still quite diverse; and b) the majority of the community being x and y and z.

I say "there's a gap", but honestly it's more of a yawning chasm. "Yawning" was also, coincidentally, my first reaction when reading this strikingly desperate attempt to maintain the narrative. If I were this good at reaching I'd try out for professional basketball.

[Korouse]

It's exactly the picture of MRAs thrown around: Works in IT, early 30s, single, "libertarian" and did I mention a nice guy for the LONGEST time until he realized he didn't need to put bitches on a pedestal?

There's a gap between: a) certain groups being somewhat overrepresented in a community that's still quite diverse; and b) the majority of the community being x and y and z.

I say "there's a gap", but honestly it's more of a yawning chasm. "Yawning" was also, coincidentally, my first reaction when reading this strikingly desperate attempt to maintain the narrative. If I were this good at reaching I'd try out for professional basketball.

Freud would say something about the two MRAs in the thread having children's cartoon profile pictures. And yes you don't need to explain "nuance" to me.

[Dumb Ideologies]

There's a gap between: a) certain groups being somewhat overrepresented in a community that's still quite diverse; and b) the majority of the community being x and y and z.

I say "there's a gap", but honestly it's more of a yawning chasm. "Yawning" was also, coincidentally, my first reaction when reading this strikingly desperate attempt to maintain the narrative. If I were this good at reaching I'd try out for professional basketball.

Freud would say something about the two MRAs in the thread having children's cartoon profile pictures. And yes you don't need to explain "nuance" to me.

Seems like I do have to explain it, honestly, since you apparently think that objecting to inept and misleading use of statistics is only something that a fully paid-up MRA would contemplate.

[Korouse]

It's not very often that you see something actually progressive in the bourgeois media, but Jim Jeffries actually did this very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCb3Ufzvv4

Who was the last target of lazy accusations of male suicide rates? #MeToo sexual assault victims? Abusive wamen? Women who don't give them the time of day? It's funny because when feminism had these internal disagreements on what was effecting women's oppression, it accepted them through the concept of intersectionality (very bad word in some leftist parts these days but it originated to critique liberal feminism ironically). Not blame it all on men in a reductionistic fashion. Where are the disagreements in the MRA movement? Where is patriarchy, an objective reality enforced in varying degrees on all men across the globe, in an MRA's analysis?

[Ostroeuropa]

First world males face a number of important issues that society should be fixing, but if you think trying to bring focus to them is stupid that's your business.
I think we need to curb immigration in general, and be more discerning about who we let in.

I don't. In the end, you are talking to a first-world male here Ostro. I just don't agree with movements that have obvious theoretical gaps in major issues, like the problem of heavily patriarchal societies, while also positioning themselves vis-a-vis feminism which has studied these problems for decades.

You defend feminism despite it's obvious theoretical gaps on the issue of Misandry and so on, despite the fact that unlike feminism MRAs do not seek to explain the totality of sexism and recognize the limitations of their theoretical framework, and do not think it is suitable to analyze misogyny.

So basically you're just showing you don't know what you're talking about.

There's a gap between: a) certain groups being somewhat overrepresented in a community that's still quite diverse; and b) the majority of the community being x and y and z.

I say "there's a gap", but honestly it's more of a yawning chasm. "Yawning" was also, coincidentally, my first reaction when reading this strikingly desperate attempt to maintain the narrative. If I were this good at reaching I'd try out for professional basketball.

Freud would say something about the two MRAs in the thread having children's cartoon profile pictures. And yes you don't need to explain "nuance" to me.

Speaking of Freud, try and follow, it's very basic shit here that feminists have spent 200 years failing to comprehend.

Just because we note the biomedical model of psychology is insufficient and leaves many people in the lurch and propose a cognitive-humanist model to explain some of it, does not mean we don't believe the brain has something to do with psychology, and no amount of insular and ignorant feminists waffling about neurochemistry so we're wrong is going to change that.

It just means they aren't listening, and are failing to understand the criticism, just as they have been doing ever since this movement was founded.

It just means feminists are the equivalent of those people who kept doing lobotomies on depressed folk while defending their stupid and totalizing model because "Muh insular dogmatism tho" and suppressing alternatives.

Know why we still talk about Freud? Because freudians didn't flip their fucking shit and try to prevent every other model of psychology gaining any influence merely because it disagreed with theirs. There were not the villains of history.

The MRM message to feminists is pretty simple. Know what you're good for, stay in your lane, recognize the limitations of your theory, and back the fuck off.

Also lol:

I just don't agree with movements that have obvious theoretical gaps in major issues

Someone failed sociology.
This is every theory.

Maybe if more feminists understood this, they wouldn't be such a blight on society.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not very often that you see something actually progressive in the bourgeois media, but Jim Jeffries actually did this very well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCb3Ufzvv4

Who was the last target of lazy accusations of male suicide rates? #MeToo sexual assault victims? Abusive wamen? Women who don't give them the time of day? It's funny because when feminism had these internal disagreements on what was effecting women's oppression, it accepted them through the concept of intersectionality (very bad word in some leftist parts these days but it originated to critique liberal feminism ironically). Not blame it all on men in a reductionistic fashion. Where are the disagreements in the MRA movement? Where is patriarchy, an objective reality enforced in varying degrees on all men across the globe, in an MRA's analysis?

The disagreements in the MRM movement are pretty profound and revolve primarily around the nature of oppression in economic terms (I.E, is gynocentrism caused by the state, or by capitalism, by organic culture effecting both? Neither? Etc.). There's also the trans exclusionary split.

"Where is neurochemistry in cognitive psychologies analysis?"
Said the person who doesn't understand psychology.

MRAs do not seek to explain the totality of sexism. They seek to explain why feminism has failed to do so and is not equipped to do so You don't understand their discourse. MRAs do not seek to discuss womens experience of sexism because we know our limitations and aren't arrogant enough to say a discourse primarily based around mens experiences and perception should be forced on them to explain their own.

[Ostroeuropa]

Here is something we give 16 year old children for them to understand a concept the overwhelming majority of feminists fail to comprehend well into their adulthood if their inane and ignorant defenses of their movement and criticism of the MRM is taken at face value.

https://www.verywellmind.com/perspectiv ... gy-2795595

[Korouse]

Ostro you're refusing to answer the simple question of how patriarchic societies factor into Men's Rights, instead opting in to give me bullshit like "uh actually dude, we have a lot of theories and splits as to explain why pussy is on a pedestal" and make vaguely threatening statements towards the people you think are your boogeyman oppressors. Somewhere, there's also a lecture about neurotransmitters and psychology. I don't really know, didn't bother to read it because it sounded edgy and pointless.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ostro you're refusing to answer the simple question of how patriarchic societies factor into Men's Rights, instead opting in to give me bullshit like "uh actually dude, we have a lot of theories and splits as to explain why pussy is on a pedestal" and make vaguely threatening statements towards the people you think are your boogeyman oppressors. Somewhere, there's also a lecture about neurotransmitters and psychology. I don't really know, didn't bother to read it because it sounded edgy and pointless.

I actually did answer your question and you simply don't understand the answer.

The answer is that you're demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of what the MRM is about. You have gone up and asked a cognitive behavioural therapist about the importance of brain surgery to their model of psychology and treatment.

This isn't edgy. It's basic, incredibly basic, entry level understanding of theoretical models.

Here, let me try again:

You defend feminism despite it's obvious theoretical gaps on the issue of Misandry and so on, despite the fact that unlike feminism MRAs do not seek to explain the totality of sexism and recognize the limitations of their theoretical framework, and do not think it is suitable to analyze misogyny.

So basically you're just showing you don't know what you're talking about.

+

Speaking of Freud, try and follow, it's very basic shit here that feminists have spent 200 years failing to comprehend.

Just because we note the biomedical model of psychology is insufficient and leaves many people in the lurch and propose a cognitive-humanist model to explain some of it, does not mean we don't believe the brain has something to do with psychology, and no amount of insular and ignorant feminists waffling about neurochemistry so we're wrong is going to change that.

You reject us because we recognize and reject the conceit, arrogance, and intellectual weakness of the feminist movement and its proclamations to be a totalizing explanation. We do not share your movements flaws. That is not a weakness of our movement, it is an understanding of why your movement has failed and refusing to make the same mistakes.

You're someone who'd prefer an explanation of "THE MAGIC SKY MAN. HE DID IT ALL. EVERYTHING. IT'S ALL EXPLAINED!" rather than "This limited section of things is explained very well by this theoretical model." because the latter doesn't explain literally everything.

[Korouse]

"MRAs do not seek to discuss womens experience of sexism because we know our limitations and aren't arrogant enough to say a discourse primarily based around mens experiences and perception should be forced on them to explain their own."

Ah yes, our relationship to the sex that reproduces society... not our thing! Patriarchy is just sexism and stuff!!! Nothing about controlling births n shit. So much for the fib about your milleu analyzing capitalism, shouldn't you know something about the reproduction of labor power?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Ostro you're refusing to answer the simple question of how patriarchic societies factor into Men's Rights, instead opting in to give me bullshit like "uh actually dude, we have a lot of theories and splits as to explain why pussy is on a pedestal" and make vaguely threatening statements towards the people you think are your boogeyman oppressors. Somewhere, there's also a lecture about neurotransmitters and psychology. I don't really know, didn't bother to read it because it sounded edgy and pointless.

"Please repeat your answers to my vague half-questions half-assertions while I lazypost by refusing to engage substantively with your responses, make strawmen, and complain that your sources are too long, icky and probably have cooties".

[Korouse]

Ostro you're refusing to answer the simple question of how patriarchic societies factor into Men's Rights, instead opting in to give me bullshit like "uh actually dude, we have a lot of theories and splits as to explain why pussy is on a pedestal" and make vaguely threatening statements towards the people you think are your boogeyman oppressors. Somewhere, there's also a lecture about neurotransmitters and psychology. I don't really know, didn't bother to read it because it sounded edgy and pointless.

"Please repeat your answers to my vague half-questions half-assertions while I lazypost by refusing to engage substantively with your responses, make strawmen, and complain that your sources are too long, icky and probably have cooties".

I did read the link, just not what he said about neurotransmittal psychology or whatever, which I assume was in response to my acidulous and witty statement about Fraud having a field day with you two. I myself am not a disciple of Fraud, however.

[Ostroeuropa]

"MRAs do not seek to discuss womens experience of sexism because we know our limitations and aren't arrogant enough to say a discourse primarily based around mens experiences and perception should be forced on them to explain their own."

Ah yes, our relationship to the sex that reproduces society... not our thing! Patriarchy is just sexism and stuff!!! Nothing about controlling births n shit. So much for the fib about your milleu analyzing capitalism, shouldn't you know something about the reproduction of labor power?

Our relationship to women is something we discuss at length. We merely do not discuss womens experience of sexism and how they should fix it by caving in to our demands and accepting our perspective on reality as gospel. (Underlined) Oh look, gynocentric nonsense that ignores mens experience of sexism and acts like only women were effected, almost like you've got a blind spot and it would be arrogant and self-absorbed to try and force that view on people as a total explanation of it when they have a different life experience of that system.

We do analyze capitalism, and, unfortunately for you, we're very critical of forcing men into fatherhood.