Species Dominance, Artilects, Artilect War, Cosmists, Terrans, Gigadeath, Essays, Media, etc



There is a striking analogy between Marxism and masculism, namely concerning the idea of exploitation.

One of the main ideas of Marxism is the notion of exploitation. In the early days of the industrial revolution, that Marx was living through, there were no trade unions, no worker political parties, so once the cottage industries were put out of business by the far more productive steam engines and the factory system, workers only had one option, pretty much, and that was to sell their own labor power to employers who owned the machines, i.e. the capital (the capital”ists”). Marx then pointed out that these early capitalists viciously exploited (robbed) these “proletariat” in the following way.

Marx had a “labor theory of value” that he took from the economist Ricardo, which says that the value of a product is proportional to the labor time that went into its manufacture. I might trade you 4 of my chickens for your axe but not five chickens because that would then cost me more labor time raising 5 chickens than I’ll save from using your axe.

Typically, an employee (say working in a mine, or tending a cotton loom) might work a 12 hour day. For the first 8 hours of the day, that worker is earning his wage, but the last 4 hours, he is working for the employer, the capitalist. Thus the capitalist is robbing the worker of his labor power. The capitalist gets richer and richer because he is continually stealing labor value from his employees, which is why he can live in a mansion, while his employees live in crowded inner city hovels that Engels wrote so graphically about.

In time, the proletariat became conscious of their exploitation, and formed trade unions, then pushed for the vote to be extended to all working males, and later came worker political parties, e.g. in the UK, the “Labour Party”, in Germany, the “Arbeiter Partei” etc.

Workers were then able to put moral and legal pressure on exploiting employers, that when profits rose strongly, these employers could afford to pay their workers better, and they did. Workers learned to fight against capitalist exploitation of men’s labor.

Now, turn to the fluffies in today’s world. There are fluffies and fluffies. Some have part time jobs, some don’t work at all, and are housewives, with only a little bit of housework to do. Ask yourself, which of the following two male types is the more exploited, the proletariat male who works 12 hours a day, handing over a third of his labor power to his employer, i.e. an exploitation rate of a third, or the manslave husband who hands over his whole pay check to his fluffie wife as in Japan or Korea, whose gender roles are retarded, by western standards. (The Japs and Koreans are “gender role retards!”) The fluffie Jap or fluffie Korean wife might give him a few hundred yen a week for his “allowance” while she spends the rest on food, and herself.

Which of these two types of males suffers the worse exploitation rate? I think it is obvious that the latter is worse off, is more exploited by a fluffie manslaving parasite than a capitalist employer.

Marx’s fiery writings eventually persuaded governments all over the world to go socialist, to the point that well into the 20th century, half of the world’s population were living under Marxist regimes, which were set up specifically to combat capitalist exploitation. In the 1960s the US almost had a nuclear war with Russia over the Cuban missile crisis, over the issue of whether employers have the right to exploit their employees or not. In other words, we almost had a NUCLEAR WAR over what might be called the “partial exploitation” of the proletariat, when in fact the exploitation of male labor is far worse as committed by their fluffie parasitic wives.

The masculists talk a LOT about female exploitation of men’s labor, making analogies with the Marxist view. Fluffie exploitation of men’s labor IS WORSE than the capitalist exploitation of men’s labor. Therefore it needs to be fought in a way that is analogous to the setting up of trade unions, the vote, and labor parties.

In masculist terms, these equivalents take the form of the men’s lib movements, i.e. masculism, and MGTOW, which force women to become FIPs, or be severely punished, by not getting a man, thus living a life that is manless, loveless, sexless, babyless, poor and socially shunned by a society that sees fluffies for what they are, i.e. exploiters of men’s labor, and hence highly immoral. The right to vote for the proletariat would have its masculist/MGTOW equivalent in the form of menfair gender laws (e.g. divorce law reform, the Parer (paternity rejection right), etc). Labor parties would have their masculist equivalent in the form of having a minister in the government whose job is to ensure legal, and social equality of rights FOR BOTH SEXES, unlike the gynocentric injustice committed against men that favors women in today’s society.

Socialists hated the labor exploitation of men by capitalists. Masculists hate the labor exploitation of men by fluffies and are working politically to wipe them out. As men become more politically aware concerning their manslavery to fluffies, they become conscious that ultimately men have the power to wipe out fluffies, because a fluffie can only be a fluffie if she can get her financial claws into some manslave male, who is stupid enough, ignorant enough (of masculist MGTOW ideas), gullible enough, to be willing to be a manslave to some parasiting fluffie. But the supply of such males is drying up. In the US and Japan today, 2/3 of young men under 35 refuse to marry and have kids. This will force women to stop being fluffie exploiters of men (robbers of male labor) and learn to stand on their own two financial feet, and become FIPs, otherwise they will lead miserable lonely, manless lives.

Men are waking up all over the world, that they have been manslaves to exploiting fluffie women, and are now throwing off this manslavery. To paraphrase Marx’s famous slogan “Workers of the world unite – you have nothing to lose but your chains!” we could say as masculists/MGTOWs “Men of the world should be free, to choose themselves, what THEY want to be!”


Prof. Dr. Hugo de Garis


%d bloggers like this: