I am a leftist through and through on economic stuff but I also think marriage is a man woman thing and am uncomfortable with abortion past six weeks.(Reactionary bait)
You are a libtard if you think economics and "social issues" are disconnected so no you are not welcome.
You sound like a predditor
>what if im a leftoid on these vibes but also a rightoid based on these other vibes
have some critical reasoning anytime uygha
You need to be against marriage (both straggot marriage and homosexual marriage) to be a leftist. So no, you are not welcome here.
>>2621193There are a lot of people like this here
>>2621193>abortion past six weeks.why 6 weeks in particular? a fetus isn't even viable outside the womb past 22 weeks, really 28 weeks if you don't want severe health consequences.
>>2621193Youll fit right in.
>>2621217
>WOMEN SHOULD BE IN THE WORKFORCE AND ENJOY EQUAL RIGHTS AS MEN
And who shall do the socially reproductive labour?
Marriage is tied to socio-economics.
You’re forced to take position if you are a communist that wants to abolish class itself and not just lower phase socialism.
>>2621217
>Capitalism, but without the pretense
>>2621193abolish marriage
>Nowadays there are two ways of concluding a bourgeois marriage. In Catholic countries the parents, as before, procure a suitable wife for their young bourgeois son, and the consequence is, of course, the fullest development of the contradiction inherent in monogamy: the husband abandons himself to hetaerism and the wife to adultery. Probably the only reason why the Catholic Church abolished divorce was because it had convinced itself that there is no more a cure for adultery than there is for death. In Protestant countries, on the other hand, the rule is that the son of a bourgeois family is allowed to choose a wife from his own class with more or less freedom; hence there may be a certain element of love in the marriage, as, indeed, in accordance with Protestant hypocrisy, is always assumed, for decency’s sake. >In both cases, however, the marriage is conditioned by the class position of the parties and is to that extent always a marriage of convenience. In both cases this marriage of convenience turns often enough into crassest prostitution-sometimes of both partners, but far more commonly of the woman, who only differs from the ordinary courtesan in that she does not let out her body on piece-work as a wage-worker, but sells it once and for all into slavery. And of all marriages of convenience Fourier’s words hold true: “As in grammar two negatives make an affirmative, so in matrimonial morality two prostitutions pass for a virtue.”>Sex-love in the relationship with a woman becomes, and can only become, the real rule among the oppressed classes, which means today among the proletariat-whether this relation is officially sanctioned or not. But here all the foundations of typical monogamy are cleared away. Here there is no property, for the preservation and inheritance of which monogamy and male supremacy were established; hence there is no incentive to make this male supremacy effective. What is more, there are no means of making it so. Bourgeois law, which protects this supremacy, exists only for the possessing class and their dealings with the proletarians. The law costs money and, on account of the worker’s poverty, it has no validity for his relation to his wife. Here quite other personal and social conditions decide. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm read the rules and figure it out, especially 11 and 14. just don't baitpost.
https://leftypol.org/rules.html>>2621193Theoretically right wingers are supposed to be allowed to post here as long as they discuss their views in good faith and aren't annoying. In practice, regardless of your beliefs, jannies can and will ban you if you insult one of their pet causes, so tread lightly. I am socially left wing but have been banned numerous times for accidentally pissing off a janny. I once received a month long ban for calmly correcting someone who suggested that transwomen can have periods, for example (I am pro-trans rights but of course that little detail didn't matter.)
>>2621193and for good measure, abolish sexuality.
>>2621327hell yea
>>2621345that's hassan nasrallah, your meme's text makes no sense.
incels ITT be like
>abolish sexuality.
>>2621193You're a liberal. That's just how it is.
>>2621427Nice animation tbh.
get lost loser
In a funny kind of way, socialism can only work with traditional value systems.
It depends on what you mean by 'right leaning' but either way, this place is overrun by teenage stalinists so its not exactly a comfy place.
>marriage is a man woman thing and am uncomfortable with abortion past six weeks
I struggle with that one. Gay marriage is an abomination sure. Abortion it really depends. Abortion will become a tool of neo-eugenics. This is already happening in Europe.
>>2621461She's Saphie from the anime Jewelpet if ya wanna see more of her
>comfy
Heads up, this is a nazi dogwhistle. Frenpilling and other infantilization etc
>>2621193I will demonstrate the Marxist position in relation to the family:
<21 — What will be the influence of communist society on the family?It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
<And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the “community of women”. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
<Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
<On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
<The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
<Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
<But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
<And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
<The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
<But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
<The bourgeois sees his wife as 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 than 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.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II. Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmWith the abolition of private property and the anarchy of production, the responsibility for raising children becomes collective to the whole society, and the financial coercion of men against women and parents against children ends, because there is no inheritance of private property and capital to use coercion and control against another person through patriarchal relations. With this, you will have to understand what strategy and tactics you will use during the current bourgeois state where you live to prepare for the communist revolution, and during the socialist state, which will be different. If you are against abortion, then in the socialist state you can resolve this with the right to maternity and paternity for both men and women, with guaranteed rights to employment, housing, education, health, childcare, transportation, community, food sovereignty, energy, leisure, etc., as a social responsibility for all, along with raising children for the reproduction of labor and the care of the elderly. This does not tolerate the cost being transferred to women above all else, and the sacrifices for problems will be borne by the rest of society depending on the case, where scarcity of resources that need to be rationed or health problems that women may have will be considered above any outrage or morality you cling to.
>I'm an edgy socdem thread n.523413
>>2621217
>WOMEN SHOULD BE IN THE WORKFORCE AND ENJOY EQUAL RIGHTS AS MEN, GAYS SHOULD BE IN THE WORKFORCE AND ENJOY SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHTS
Without a color differentiation of trousers society has no purpose
>>2621217
based
>>2621193The only thing you are suspected of is putting idpol before class.
>>2621340>someone who suggested that transwomen can have periodsthings that never happened
>>2621492
Its gay marriage that bothers me. It fundamentally undermined marriage and furthered that institutions destruction by capital.
Marriage as we know it was promoted in the middle ages to protect women from being impregnated and abandoned. It was a form of non-capitalist exchange where a man was forced to give up other sexual partners to provide and care for a pregnant woman. In return, she would remain faithful to him as a sole sexual partner and provide domestic services. The husband brings home the bread and protects the wife, the wife has sex and rules the household.
So marriage was a form of non-capitalist exchange which bound two people together, forcing them to give up individual desires for the greater good of the couple. It also promoted communal harmony as different families exchanged sons and daughters to strengthen bonds. Same sex couples existed back then but never married because it was simply pointless. They couldn't get pregnant so there was no need to chain two people together like that.
What capitalism did was hollow out marriage by commodifying it. What's the difference between having a gf and being married? Its an entirely commercial and selfish thing. Nowadays, a woman is expected to do domestic work and be sexually faithful but gets nothing in return. There's no shared obligations. When marriage was reduced to just an aesthetic thing (ceremony, wedding dresses etc) that's when gay marriage became possible. It serves basically no purpose whatsoever but it continues to hollow out marriage as an institution.
Now I'm not trying to romanticize old school marriage here, because often parents dictated who you married, but the element of reciprocity, shared responsibility, mutual obligations has been lost.
>>2621474Nice revison.
Marriage is a dated cultural artifact that sees its socital function in economic relations that won't exist under communism. As such marriage generally shall be abolished.
>>2621610Not everyone needs to reproduce to contribute to society. And even if you disapprove of homosex, the resources needed to prevent people from doing it vastly outweigh whatever small public safety gains you'd get from attempting to ban it.
I do think it's worth noting that modern day notions of homosexuality are a strange inversion of anglo prudishness. We saw sexuality where sexuality didn't exist, and the result is a society where everything is sexualized. Most people don't think "porn" when they look at David, but Americans sure do!
>>2621665Those responsibilities don't amount to anything. You can be in a relationship with another man and have sex all day and nobody's going to come away handicapped with that. Men don't get pregnant and women can't impregnate each other. The need to care for someone whose body is being put under extreme pressure is what made marriage important. Central to that is sacrificing somethings for another person and I don't mean pitty patter responsibilities (who pays rent, who walks the dog) but more meaningful roles and commitments that have to be fulfilled.
>>2621670The idea that marriage can be abolished is a pipe dream. People will always form lasting sexual and romantic bonds. Its going to continue, but how will it look? What purpose will it serve? Right now, it's essentially a consumerist ceremony that reduces people to property. The irony of the abolish marriage, abolish family cultists is their predictions have never come true and their efforts to actually abolish these things end up failing every time. Worst, these ultaleftist fantasies end up strengthening capitalism. The breaking up of the extended family and tribal kinship allowed a greater penetration of state and capital to turn people into autonomous proles.
>>2621685People will still be in monogamous relationships. I'm speaking of marriage as an institution, something that the state is involved in. It will instead be a private affair, in the same way religion has become a private affair under the capitalist state
>>2621685marriage not real buddy boy
>>2621692Marriage isn't inherently monogamous and monogamy isn't necessarily something natural. Marriage isn't something tied to the state either since it exists in stateless societies or societies where the state isn't very strong, arguably it plays an even stronger role in those communities. The idea that marriage can be a private affair (it seems your parroting Engels here since he said something similar) is delusional and contradicts Marx actually. Humans make decisions within a social context so no choice is purely private because all of them are shaped by social constraints.
Some soft family/marriage abolitionists still seem to think people will form monogamous relationships by choice in the absence of marriage, but this is just semantics. Its also ironic because they claim to oppose bourgeois sexuality, but then go on to promote monogamy which is very bourgeois. The other types that believe in unrestricted free love not bound by relationships, children raised by the community etc. well people tried that in the 70s and there was a huge spread of STDs.
>>2621694In the pre-capitalist past, if men ran off they and their family would be punished by the wife's family or civil authorities. In Europe, divorce and abandonment were crimes. In other societies, divorce was permitted but it came with reimbursements and compensation. Today, adultery laws are not enforced in most places where they exist. Men are not punished for abandoning women and children besides alimony payments, which some feminists want to scrap because they reason that a man being bound to pay up is a violation of his individual freedom to quit a relationship.
>>2621659>When marriage was reduced to just an aesthetic thing (ceremony, wedding dresses etc) that's when gay marriage became possible. It serves basically no purpose whatsoever but it continues to hollow out marriage as an institution. Capitalism freed people up to live more autonomous sexual lives, but same-sex marriage came around (as a result of a dialectical process) to stabilize people's lives under actually existing capitalist conditions in which security is not socially guaranteed, but privatized through intimate relationships. Bottom-line though is that marriage is an economic unit and marriage has certain benefits like joint property ownership, easier access to credit / mortgages, stuff like that. That's really what this was all about, and that's also
really why banks sponsor floats at Pride parades. It's not some grand conspiracy to "distract" people from the class struggle like some socialists have been fond of saying, it's economics at work. Like maybe expanding property ownership makes people more conservative by integrating them into a 30-year fixed mortgage, but what banks care about is producing more mortgageable "units" and expanding the market.
But that's what marriage already was for straight couples. The ceremonies which people spend a lot of money on are ways to kind of mystify it and make it feel dramatic and spiritual. Maybe in the Middle Ages the incense smelt better.
>>2621685>The need to care for someone whose body is being put under extreme pressure is what made marriage important. Central to that is sacrificing somethings for another person and I don't mean pitty patter responsibilities (who pays rent, who walks the dog) but more meaningful roles and commitments that have to be fulfilled. Okay but in reality, in the modern world, straight married couples don't necessarily have to have children either. Also in some cases they can't because the woman can't produce children for medical reasons. But that's not really the point. Also there are same-sex couples with children.
>>2621685>The breaking up of the extended family and tribal kinship allowed a greater penetration of state and capital to turn people into autonomous proles.Yeah. Oh no, well anyway. Well you don't have to like it, but I don't think there's any putting the toothpaste back in the historical tube. I'm also not sure what marriage and family relationships will look like in 500 years.
>>2621659>>2621685Communism is not a movement fantasizing about returning to some past of patriarchal relations with isolated petty-bourgeois property, as fantasized by reactionaries. Your analysis is not materialistic and is not based on social class relations. Capitalism destroys the institutions of the past by destroying part of the individualism of private property that maintained patriarchal relations of subjugation. The other part of the property will be socialized with the communist revolution, with the abolition of private property, destroying once and for all any institution that reactionaries cling to, so that the proletarian class becomes the dominant class that will abolish social classes.
Now I will leave you with a quote from Engels:
<[Reactionary Socialists:]<The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society.>> This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.
<This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:
<(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.
<(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free from the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.
<(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htmNow with the quote from the communist manifesto:
<A. Feudal Socialism[…]
<In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half an echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.[…]
<In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.
<For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeois amounts to this, that under the bourgeois régime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.
<What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.
<In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high-falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honour, for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.(2)
<As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.
<Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.
<B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism<The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The medieval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.
<In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.[…]
<This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labour; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.
<In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.
<Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture; patriarchal relations in agriculture.
<Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter III. Socialist and Communist Literaturehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htmRemember what Lenin wrote about disarmament advocates, and you will understand the revolutionary socialist position for advancing the domination of the proletariat, and this has nothing to do with returning to pre-capitalist institutions.
<If the present war rouses among the reactionary Christian socialists, among the whimpering petty bourgeoisie, only horror and fright, only aversion to all use of arms, to bloodshed, death, etc., then we must say: Capitalist society is and has always been horror without end. If this most reactionary of all wars is now preparing for that society an end to horror, we have no reason to fall into despair. But the disarmament “demand”, or more correctly, the dream of disarmament, is, objectively, nothing but an expression of despair at a time when, as everyone can see, the bourgeoisie itself is paving the way for the only legitimate and revolutionary war—civil war against the imperialist bourgeoisie.
<A lifeless theory, some might say, but we would remind them of two world-historical facts: the role of the trusts and the employment of women in industry, on the one hand, and the Paris Commune of 1871 and the December 1905 uprising in Russia, on the other.
<The bourgeoisie makes it its business to promote trusts, drive women and children into the factories, subject them to corruption and suffering, condemn them to extreme poverty. We do not “demand” such development, we do not “support” it. We fight it. But how do we fight? We explain that trusts and the employment of women in industry are progressive. We do not want a return to the handicraft system, pre-monopoly capitalism, domestic drudgery for women. Forward through the trusts, etc., and beyond them to socialism!
<With the necessary changes that arguments is applicable also to the present militarization of the population. Today the imperialist bourgeoisie militarizes the youth as well as the adults; tomorrow, it may begin militarizing the women. Our attitude should be: All the better! Full speed ahead! For the faster we move, the nearer shall we be to the armed uprising against capitalism. How can Social-Democrats give way to fear of the militarization of the youth, etc., if they have not forgotten the example of the Paris Commune? This is not a “lifeless theory” or a dream. It is a fact. And it would be a sorry state of affairs indeed if, all the economic and political facts notwithstanding, Social-Democrats began to doubt that the imperialist era and imperialist wars must inevitably bring about a repetition of such facts.
<A certain bourgeois observer of the Paris Commune, writing to an English newspaper in May 1871, said: “If the French nation consisted entirely of women, what a terrible nation it would be!” Woman and teenage children fought in the Paris Commune side by side with the men. It will be no different in the coming battles for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Proletarian women will not look on passively as poorly armed or unarmed workers are shot down by the well-armed forces of the bourgeoisie. They will take to arms, as they did in 1871, and from the cowed nations of today—or more correctly, from the present-day labor movement, disorganized more by the opportunists than by the governments—there will undoubtedly arise, sooner or later, but with absolute certainty, an international league of the “terrible nations” of the revolutionary proletariat.
<The whole of social life is now being militarized. Imperialism is a fierce struggle of the Great Powers for the division and redivision of the world. It is therefore bound to lead to further militarization in all countries, even in neutral and small ones. How will proletarian women oppose this? Only by cursing all war and everything military, only be demanding disarmament? The women of an oppressed and really revolutionary class will never accept that shameful role. They will say to their sons: “You will soon be grown up. You will be given a gun. Take it and learn the military art properly. The proletarians need this knowledge not to shoot your brothers, the workers of other countries, as is being done in the present war, and as the traitors to socialism are telling you to do. They need it to fight the bourgeoisie of their own country, to put an end to exploitation, poverty and war, and not by pious wishes, but by defeating and disarming the bourgeoisie.”
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1916, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution: IIhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/ii.htm >>2621200>>2621217>>2621198>>2621340>>2621474OP here. The reason why I find this to be the logical position is because.
>It's wrong to racially target immigrants, and I'm fine with reforming the immigration system in favor of a merit based one, but let's be honest, the reason why 80% of immigrants are in America because the capitalist overlords want cheap labor and screw native workers out of paying minimum wage. Applies to both undocumented immigrants and H1B workers>Corporations have done more to normalize homosexuality and transsexuality than any gay activist could hope to. When same sex marriage was legalized in 2015, they ran a 1000 commercials a day featuring gay couples in order to get those pinkbux, so much so that it was dubbed the year of LGBT ads>Corporations love abortions, because it gets them out of paying for a woman's maternity leave. If they could get away with it, they would push for late term abortions.>Overall, socialist principles sound like they put the nation and its people first. Capitalist principles put money first and the nation is just a host, nothing more.>>2621308There's the whole heartbeat thing but frankly, I'm just skeptical of liberal abortion laws because they can serve as a gateway to late term abortions as well as turn abortion into something that can be abused. Of course I'm against strict "life begins at conception" laws too because they can be used to deny a woman abortion in case of rape or if her life is in danger (both of which I support as exceptions). So six weeks is a middle ground for me.
>>2621193It's fine. People here want to say that
>these specific economic positions considered left-wing in america today and these specific cultural positions considered left-wing in america today are directly connected and inseparable and they're wrong, there is a lot of leeway. History proves as much. The socialist camp accepted a wide variety of policies on issues as important as all of village life, it's not surprising socialists in different countries could agree to not push their views on things like gay rights onto each other.
>>2621217>WOMEN SHOULD BE IN THE WORKFORCE AND ENJOY EQUAL RIGHTS AS MEN, GAYS SHOULD BE IN THE WORKFORCE AND ENJOY SAME RIGHTS AS STRAIGHTSI got the ick from you using the word "rights" too often, sorry libtard. But seriously, it's a very vague and moralistic thing to say in most contexts. And that's by design, you can say "man has a right to freedom and pursuit of happiness" and then say "oh but nonwhites and women are not included in the definition of man teehee". If you think modern discourse around rights is all that different, grow up.
Productive forces are stagnating in western countries at best. No advancement in production is related to gay rights or third wave feminism, actual value-producing workers tend to be quite far from these changes for the most part, especially the most important ones that are involved with production of the means of production.
Unique IPs: 31