[cardguy]

I have taken an interest in the work of Karl Marx over the past year.

As such - I often stumble across online articles to do with the revivial of Marxism (since the 2008 financial crash).

Anyway - I was just reading a story today. And buried in there, was a link to a Marxist critique of Roosh V's Don't Bang Demark.

I was pretty surprised myself. The last thing I expected to see was a reference to Roosh V when I am reading about Marxism.

Here is a link to the article I was reading:

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and...ign=Buffer

And here is the link to the Marxist critique of Roosh V's book:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/c...stribution

The article on Roosh V is from the latest issue of Dissent magazine.

Quote:

Dissent is a quarterly magazine of politics and ideas. Establishing itself as one of America’s leading intellectual journals in 1954, it has since published articles by Hannah Arendt, Norman Mailer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Ellen Willis, Richard Wright, George Packer, and many others.

[Teedub]

Yeah Roosh has posted this on twitter, and I think there may be a thread about it on here, so this could be a dupe.

[Pacesetter20]

(10-19-2013 12:16 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Yeah Roosh has posted this on twitter, and I think there may be a thread about it on here, so this could be a dupe.

http://www.rooshv.com/katie-j-m-baker-pu...ist-agenda

[CactusCat589]

She set up a succession of strawmen and knocked them down to accomplish her goal of smearing someone with right-leaning views. Marxists have intellectual standing? Their class theory of value, their crucial lack of a marginalist theory, their dogmatic view that only they can claim to know the truth and all else that preceded Marx in the history of civilization was mere "ideology" - all of these are fatal flaws. They don't. In their rebuttals - even by academics, what Marxism offers as their intellectual heavyweights - to economists like Bohm-Bawerk and Paul Samuelson, they literally just insult their critics.

It's beyond pathetic. A central tenet of their philosophy is that "Religion is the opiate of the masses". It's hilarious that they don't see the irony.

The economic failings are only surpassed by those of its social counterpart, Cultural Marxism. In Karl Marx's favor though, he called for the abolition of the family, and let four of his own children die to neglect, so he can't be accused of being a hypocrite.

[Roosh]

Seems to be a paraphrase of the Dissent article.

[Samseau]

I didn't find a single Marxist element to the critique. Sounds like a feminist who never read a single essay by Marx.

[GameTheory]

so... a p00n paradise is a "rich" country, middle class, or a poor one ??? or a country with a high or low dist of wealth/income ??? it seems to me that D'rk is a middle class country that spends most of its GDP on social prog's

is that good or bad for running Game ???

[Brodiaga]

(10-19-2013 02:09 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

so... a p00n paradise is a "rich" country, middle class, or a poor one ??? or a country with a high or low dist of wealth/income ??? it seems to me that D'rk is a middle class country that spends most of its GDP on social prog's

is that good or bad for running Game ???

The best combination is a middle-income or relatively poor, but not too poor country with low distribution of wealth.

Examples:
-Russia
-Thailand
-Brazil

Why middle income as opposed to very poor? Because in the poorest countries, you get the kind of problems that make you forget about getting laid. For example, I'm pretty sure I could get laid in 10 minutes in Monrovia, Liberia, but will I go there? No thanks.

[Brodiaga]

(10-19-2013 01:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I didn't find a single Marxist element to the critique. Sounds like a feminist who never read a single essay by Marx.

I didn't find any references to Marx's works, but I think that her point of view is Marxist in its spirit. Both are in favor of wealth redistribution and equality of results (socialism) as opposed to equality of opportunity (capitalism).

[Samseau]

(10-19-2013 02:30 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 01:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I didn't find a single Marxist element to the critique. Sounds like a feminist who never read a single essay by Marx.

I didn't find any references to Marx's works, but I think that her point of view is Marxist in its spirit. Both are in favor of wealth redistribution and equality of results (socialism) as opposed to equality of opportunity (capitalism).

There's a lot more to Marxism than simple redistribution. Welfare programs go as far back as Ancient Greece. I'm sure they've been around since humans have existed.

[GameTheory]

(10-19-2013 02:19 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 02:09 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

so... a p00n paradise is a "rich" country, middle class, or a poor one ??? or a country with a high or low dist of wealth/income ??? it seems to me that D'rk is a middle class country that spends most of its GDP on social prog's

is that good or bad for running Game ???

The best combination is a middle-income or relatively poor, but not too poor country with low distribution of wealth.

Examples:
-Russia
-Thailand
-Brazil

Why middle income as opposed to very poor? Because in the poorest countries, you get the kind of problems that make you forget about getting laid. For example, I'm pretty sure I could get laid in 10 minutes in Monrovia, Liberia, but will I go there? No thanks.

[CactusCat589]

Denmark seems to be doing well though. They have a comparatively low debt-to-GDP ratio at 45% that (as a cursory glance).

I thought they started some insane negative interest rate policy last year, but if they actually have a handle on things and if they're socialist without slippery-sloping into enslaving future generations to the extent other countries have, all credit to them. And they're the only country in the world besides the U.S. to have a debt ceiling.

[GameTheory]

^^^ what needs to happen to DK's economy to make it a p00n paradise ???

[The Lizard of Oz]

Here is something that I always find fascinating.

When I clicked on the article and saw the title -- "Cockblocked by Redistribution" -- this use of the word "cockblocked" made me wince badly.

Now this word gets used 50 times a day on the forum and it's perfectly fine, of course. It doesn't strike me or anyone else in any particular way, you just read right through it to its (unfortunate, lol) content.

But there is a cringeworthy vulgarity in the way feminists and ideologues of that ilk wield profanities. I find it very hard to take.

It's like the difference between an actual cock just hanging between your legs and going about its humble or not so humble business, and a cut off dried out dead human cock hanging from some scarecrow in the West Virginia backwoods in a horror movie. The latter is how the use of the word in an article like this feels to me. The deadness and dryness of its use make it ugly as sin.

These people should stick to the words that really mean something to them. When they write "Southern Poverty Law Center", that's completely fine, and one reads right through the words to their (quite grim) content.

[CactusCat589]

I would say that Denmark would be a better poon paradise if the worst excesses of both socialism and capitalism were engineered into being. This seems to be what historically (for First World countries at least) correlates with sluttier women.

Unrestrained welfarism to take its toll on the currency and bring about the "We owe the debt to ourselves" status quo - which really means "This is a debt one predacious generation owes to another," or "One socio-economic group owes to another". A collective sense of fatalism knowing your liberties are inevitably going to wither away as the state tightens the reins. There's no incentive to build something lasting in a family when you know a fictitious prosperity must vanish one day and you are to bear the cost.

Simply saying: This -> looser women.

Unrestrained capitalism, specifically the consumerism that drives it, engenders materialism and and a kind of baser nature in both sexes, and especially the women. This would introduce a cultural degenerative force that would change what Roosh observed - the generic, nice but confident approach being ideal.

Regarding wealth inequality, I don't think it's a big factor in the player's ambitions. There's a natural level of wealth inequality simply because greater risk taken by entrepreneurs who later become the executives of the companies they found merits greater reward. Then there's an artificial level where the corporatocracy uses the government apparatus to win benefits for itself.

The girl I'm currently with and those who I would have a chance with are all in the same kind of boat financially. I imagine it's generally true for most guys.

So:

1. Expand the welfare state beyond the apparently sustainable level it is now, relax border and immigration controls to break up the ethnic and cultural homogeneity. If radical feminism isn't prominent in Denmark, start concentrating power in its hands, install socialist teachers in education, etc. Start new entitlement programs and calibrate their timing so that changing demographics and dysgenics will lead to crisis. Start intra-government borrowing from these trust funds and create trillions in unfunded liabilities after you're sure reform is politically impossible. Standard cultural marxism.

2. In 1950s America, capitalism thrived and yet the culture wasn't deformed - but what was the message? The vision of becoming financially independent and enjoying your earnings, or building your savings to buy the white picket fence and house to raise a family without government support - few would call this degenerate. So change the message: step up the fashion and glamour advertisements, encourage participation in the attention-whoring social media. This too leads to sluttier women.

I don't think it'll happen. In aggregate, the Danes seem to be fundamentally smarter than the Americans. They are socialist but - and this is key - they understand the cost of welfarism. As evidenced by the onerous VAT and other taxes, they accept the price UPFRONT. This is what allows their political class to be more honest, and less corrupt. They can run for reelection safely by hiking these taxes, and don't have to buy off their constituents through backdoor borrowing.

This is in stark contrast to the United States.

Edit: Okay, taking a closer look, Denmark does not seem to be the great model of sustainable socialism - maybe it is destined to be an oxymoron - it first appeared to be. Despite their admirable willingness to pay the highest tax obligation in the world, much of their economic rosiness was based on a housing bubble and their banks' assets were tranched in the toxic assets brewing in the mortgage market in the U.S. That burst, Danish property values fell, and as they were cut off from their home equity, their average household debt accordingly rose, also to the highest in the world. Their 2013 and future deficit projections have been revised upward, .

Their central bankers at the Danmarks Nationalbank are also Keynesian/monetarist, so their recovery, which is according to Reuters the weakest in the Nordic region, even below Sweden's, is based on interest rates cuts to fuel the reinflation of burst asset bubbles. The deposit rate at Danish banks are -0.2%. The foreign investors placing their money there who are actually losing money due to the NOMINAL interest, nevermind inflation are only willing since the kroner is one of the few viable alternatives to the euro, so they are also supported by the fact that the EU is so fucked. That's the only way their financial sector can get away with not paying out interest, and instead profit.

This is always the case. There seems to be an example of a socialist success story, like the Scandinavian countries like Denmark. Its debt-to-GDP was at a 27.5% low in 2008 (which isn't that wonderful in the first place), but again that was based on the housing boom so the apparent affordability of their programs, and the size of the public sector, was all untenable.

Instead of allowing the market to clear or rollback on government employees- or ANYTHING - it responded by devaluing the kroner. Its debt-to-GDP went up to 33.% in 2009, 41% in 2010, 42.9% in 2011, and 46.6% in 2012, and is projected to rise higher. They have still have room if you use the US and Japan as a barometer for and you backsolve to account for the difference in the sizes of the economies, but they're on the same trajectory of propping everything up by moneyprinting. And if you think that can go on forever, 2008 would never have happened, and no country will have ever defaulted in history.

Again, Denmark is one of the best of the socialist countries owing to their citizens being educated enough to know the cost. I'm reading leftists praising Denmark to the heavens and I actually buy into it, thinking "Wow, these guys are smart." Yet they pay enough taxes to make Democrats blush, and they still overshot.

I wouldn't be opposed to socialism if we spent within our means, what we raised in revenues. But that has never happened even once anywhere in the world.

A 'sustainably socialist' society is a mirage. Not to mention they have a minimal military expenditure which they enjoy due to us.

[GameTheory]

^^^^^^

[Samseau]

(10-19-2013 03:50 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

A 'sustainably socialist' society is a mirage. Not to mention they have a minimal military expenditure which they enjoy due to us.

A socialist society is nothing more than the tragedy of the commons, writ large.