Categories
chad thundercock crackpottery Dunning–Kruger effect entitled babies grandiosity incels men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reddit

Incels of the world, unite! Presenting the not-so-glorious new science of Marxism-Incelism

By David Futrelle

A specter is haunting the IncelsWithoutHate subreddit, a specter who calls himself leftexincel, and he’s bringing with him the glorious science of Marxism.

Leftexincel, a former incel who now boasts that he’s had “a couple of girlfriends” whom he’s “had sex with on multiple occasions” showed up on Reddit’s main hangout for supposedly non-hateful incels last week to warn them of the dangers of losing their true selves in what he sees as a pointless quest “to obtain what is today arguably the most important form of social capital, a female companion … .”

The weird thing is that he kind of, sort of, has a point, or at least half of one. But in the end the small bits of truth in his critique become buried underneath a pile of bullshit. The problems isn’t really his turgid Marxist language — though this doesn’t help — but rather his lingering hatred of both himself and the women he’s apparently convinced to date him.

Leftexincel introduces himself as a “by no means very attractive” twentysomething who,

with an inhuman amount of effort, [has] ‘ascended’ to being a normie, with my own day job’s income and place, a halfway finished BA at a university, a couple of girlfriends (none higher than a ‘4’) and a current girlfriend I’ve had sex with on multiple occasions (also probably no higher than a ‘4’ or maybe ‘4.5’ if I asked the layman), all met at work and school.

Despite his newly-won status as a “normie,” and what he correctly calls “the ‘reactionary’ character of the online incel community,” leftexincel informs the IncelsWithoutHate crowd that

I highly sympathize with it and believe that it is the product of legitimate structural failures of modernity against men and that the cause lies in the increased social demand to be more than just an authentic individual and partner to a woman, but a full ‘product’ that needs to be valorizable as more than a partner but as a commodity and status object in general.

Here leftexincel is basically reiterating the old critique, articulated perhaps most clearly by sociologist David Riesman in the 1950s, that modern capitalism has transformed people from “inner-directed” characters, living according to moral codes, to “other directed” personalities more concerned with impressing others and fitting in. Back in the 50s, cultural critics complained about other-directed up-and-comers trying to curry favor by glad-handing at the office and holding well-attended dinner parties; today, the critics lament all those wannabe influencers building their brands on Instagram.

But leftexincel quickly loses the plot, insisting that, in our excessively materialistic world, money not only can buy you love but that you really can’t find love without it.

With the decline of old rigid patriarchal structures this subjectivity in relations has opened up but in a world where, increasingly, value must come from socioeconomic status, which can primarily be sold materially in the form of: disposable income or other forms of capital, a conformed physical appearance and outwardly matching confidence and (sexually enticing) personality; all elements that improve one’s ability to sell oneself and acquire the means to purchase others. 

Never mind that most poor people the world over end up finding love — and that some rich people never do.

Attraction is a financial transaction exchanged for either financial or social capital, and one must have both or be able to acquire either one with the other to succeed in obtaining intimacy.

Bullshit.

I strongly believe that ‘neurodivergent’ incels in reality fail to find intimacy because they would never want to sacrifice their authenticity for conformity, and that this is then communicated through a resentment of the object of desire (an authentic female companionship).

Close, but very much not it. He’s right about the resentment part, but he doesn’t realize how poisonous the incels; “authentic” selves are to begin with. To put it in Reisman’s terms: While excessive other-direction is both phony and manipulative and in the end rather shallow, incels tend to embrace a reductive form of inner direction, castigating women for not seeing their supposed sterling inner qualities and focusing instead on their supposedly sub-par physical features. What incels don’t realize, of course, is that the toxic attitudes they exude are the real turn-off, not their allegedly inferior bone structure.

Now leftexincel wants these resentful dudes to know that they won’t be happy even if they do finally manage, like him, to “ascend.”

I’m not much happier now that I’ve improved myself, but in effect that is the real problem: anyone can ‘ascend’ if they truly try hard enough, but it will never really fulfill any real needs … .

Well it won’t if you have that attitude, mister!

So why doesn’t leftexincel believe in life after love? (Sorry, Cher.) Is it because the relationships he’s stumbled into so far haven’t lived up his exaggerated hopes? Or that they were objectively shitty relationships? Is he resentful that the women he’s dated haven’t been as “hot” as he would like? That’s got to be at least part of it, given that he managed to bring up their allegedly worse-than-average looks of his various girlfriends twice in a single sentence.

Leftexincel follows this dispiriting take on love with the least-inspiring utopian vision I’ve seen in a long time:

My ideal would not so much be a world in which society itself coerces women to (once more) conform to being the guaranteed other to men (enforced monogamy, arranged marriage, social division in sex, etc.) … but rather a world in which propertied social capital is an impossibility and … sex and romance is then reduced purely to its own, non-vital element of life.

Well that’s rather depressing. There are people who live happy lives without sex or romance — because they honestly don’t desire those things. It’s considerably less healthy to abandon such things because you’ve basically given up in despair.

Essentially this means that for all intents and purposes incels are right about the present state of things, and do identify a problem, and are right when saying that, objectively, when one is an incel, there is little more to do than try to ‘looksmaxx’ or whatever oneself to be as close to a ‘normie’ as possible. And likewise I share the agreement that this is a decrepit state for a society to be in.

I’ll give him points for at least recognizing that returning to patriarchy would be both impossible and a bad thing for women. But I don’t think he’s going to win over many incels — or anyone else, for that matter — by proclaiming that the world sucks and love is an illusion and there’s pretty much noting we can do about it.

His message certainly didn’t win him many fans in the IncelsWithoutHate subreddit. One regular proclaimed that he’d

rather work my ass off and save some money so that I can finally go to Eastern Europe or Thailand on a sex vacation, and cope by indulging in all of my perverted fantasies, than live at the mercy of a benevolent communist state that would pretend to take care of all my material needs, in exchange for conformity of thought and abandoning my personal freedom … .

Another complained that under communism

the same Chad who used to bully us will be able to use his charisma to get elevated into Comrade Chad, worker’s council representative and valuable member of the party .. .

Meet the new Chad. Same as the old Chad.

For what it’s worth, leftexincel insists that the “the violent power fantasies” of Stalinists and other totalitarian communists

are just re-imaginings of their own particular resentment through a modern lens.

As far as he’s concerned,

any hypothetical future communism is guaranteed to have nothing to do with historical Stalinism in the slightest … .

But let’s set all that aside for the moment. Because in the end what undermines leftexincel’s critique isn’t so much its Marxism, which is somewhat attenuated to begin with. It’s that, to paraphrase his own rhetoric, leftexincel’s new science of Marxism-Incelism is basically little more than a re-imagining of the same old incel resentment through a quasi-Marxist lens. And that’s not very revolutionary at all.

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

57 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

@Moon_custafer, oh gosh, yes. Why is the difference only half a point? Why is the layman, less versed in the science of ranking women from 1 to 10 than our expert here, being so precise as to use half points instead of rounding? I’m full of questions.

Bakunin
Bakunin
5 years ago

@Cat Mara
I’ll be in my bunk

Buttercup Q. Skullpants

@Moon_custafer and Viscaria: That’s why you should only use professionally accredited, bonded and insured woman raters, so you don’t get ripped off by charlatans who add .5 to their appraisal. Always ask to see their license. I’ve heard horror stories.

I strongly believe that ‘neurodivergent’ incels in reality fail to find intimacy because they would never want to sacrifice their authenticity for conformity

This seems to be a common complaint from incels, that attracting a woman these days involves all sorts of fakery (on both sides), from makeup to flirting to artfully cropped profile photos. Effort that feels suspiciously like marketing yourself as a commodity. On one level, I can understand how flirting and small talk might feel artificial to Ferengi-like beings who pride themselves on their cold rationality and analytical approach to social conventions.

And yet, for all of their hatred of artifice, they don’t believe women exist anywhere except Tindr, Instagram, and nightclubs, where there’s heavy emphasis on first impressions and physical attraction. Even our Marxist friend is disappointed, because the girlfriends he met in low-key everyday social settings aren’t hot airbrushed models that make him the envy of other men.

It’s a half-hearted critique. He still believes in commodification, but only for women.

elements that improve one’s ability to sell oneself and acquire the means to purchase others.

I read this in a Conehead voice.

bekabot
bekabot
5 years ago

also probably no higher than a ‘4’ or maybe ‘4.5’ if I asked the layman

…and I bet he has asked the layman, at least 4 or maybe 4.5 times.

bekabot
bekabot
5 years ago

Essentially this means that for all intents and purposes incels are right about the present state of things

“There is some ‘right’ in the behavior of cannibals, and trust in it has stewed many a missionary.” — Philip Wylie (quoted from memory)

Jane Done
Jane Done
5 years ago

I’m ashamed to admit I’ve been innundated with the sexist POS 1-10 scale so much I didn’t even notice it being ironically unironically used by Mr “abolish property” Incel.

Whatever critique he has of power hierarchies and the social effects of capitalism could probably be better stated by someone without their head still partially up their ass.

Cat Mara
5 years ago

I’ve mentioned it before but it’s interesting how standards of beauty for women are tied up with signifiers of affluence in Western society. Like, when food was scarce and most people worked outdoors in the sun, the ideal of feminine beauty was to be plump and pale. Nowadays, with food being widely available and the wealthy expected to be able to afford personal trainers and sun holidays (or at least gym membership and tanning beds), the ideal is to be toned and tan. Funny, that. But I’m sure our pals in the manosphere have an evo-psych paper to ‘splain why this is so… ?

ellesar
ellesar
5 years ago

He is reasonably interesting and not so bizarre, compared to most incel stuff I have read (don’t make an effort to do so), but maintains his arseholery with this:

a couple of girlfriends (none higher than a ‘4’) and a current girlfriend I’ve had sex with on multiple occasions (also probably no higher than a ‘4’ or maybe ‘4.5’ if I asked the layman)

and various other digs at ordinary women who have probably never done this man any harm whatsoever.

Less conventionally attractive women do know that this is how men view them (Not All Men obvs!), but I can just imagine how hurtful and depressing it would be to be one of those women and read this.

Cat Mara
5 years ago

@ellesar:

Less conventionally attractive women do know that this is how men view them (Not All Men obvs!), but I can just imagine how hurtful and depressing it would be to be one of those women and read this.

I hope his girlfriend sees the kind of shit he’s writing about her online and dumps his disgusting ass. No-one should have to tolerate that kind of disrespect. She should be out of there like

comment image

Full Metal Ox
Full Metal Ox
5 years ago

@Scildfreja Unnyðnes:

I need to watch Ready Player One. With a bottle of rum and a pen and notepad.

@Diego Duarte:

Thank you for your services. We anticipate your thoughts on the matter, and will reciprocate with as many cat videos and pony gifs as required.

For interested parties, a sporking of the Ready Player One novel has been underway at the Dreamwidth community Das-sporking2:

http://das-sporking2.dreamwidth.org/tag/fic:+ready+player+one

(For whatever it might be worth, my immediate reaction to the trailer was, “Inevitable White Dude immersed in a fauxstalgic 80’s Cliche Storm that neither he nor the target audience would remember, but that the Gen-X-something writers are clearly determined to wallow in and how could anyone not adore it? Not my fantasy; moving on.” See also Pixels.)

And, in honor of the date, here’s an Atlas Obscura article relevant to this community: a period snapshot of Victorian dudebros and the women who weren’t having with them:

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/vinegar-valentines-victorian

Cat Mara
5 years ago

OT: Oh, and the #MeToo toxic waste train just went and grew another tanker: the NYT is reporting Ryan Adams¹ is being accused of all manner of skeevy behavior by multiple women.

¹ No, not the “Everything I Do (I Do It For You)” guy, the other one, though apparently he hates that so keep doing it

Lainy
Lainy
5 years ago

There was a boy who identified as a incel at one of the school seminars I gave. Kid was 17 years old and had the guts to same some pretty disgusting things during my talk. The teacher tried to make him leave the room but I told him to let the kid stay. If anyone in that room needed it, it was that kid. Plus I got to use him as a real world example of toxic behavior and what you should be looking out for when it comes to dating. Still had to throw up later after all of that though.

(A)utonomous Escapist
(A)utonomous Escapist
5 years ago

Oh boy, this’ll sound terrible, but as an actual leftist with marxism as part of my ideological schooling, all I can say is That’s not how this works! That’s not how any of this works!

Anyone claiming both incel-ism and leftism are wrong.

Dalillama
Dalillama
5 years ago

Back in the 50s, cultural critics complained about other-directed up-and-comers trying to curry favor by glad-handing at the office and holding well-attended dinner parties;

Which has been a thing since at least Republican Rome, and has fuck all to do with modern anything.

Ariblester
5 years ago

hapnadsmannen
February 14, 2019 at 5:09 am

“but rather a world in which propertied social capital is an impossibility and … sex and romance is then reduced purely to its own, non-vital element of life.”

It´s hard to say what this means, and if it makes sense or not. Sounds like he is saying incels does not suffer mostly because of lack of romance and sex as such but because they fail to fullfill societys expectations of a successfull life and with communism that would no longer be the case.

It is rather contradictory though that he ranks women with a number because that seems like a very market capitalist influenced way of thinking.

Sorry, Stupendous Man, but it doesn’t make sense no matter how you interpret the statement.

Firstly, people are not property! They are not “products”! What kind of asshole boils personal companionship down to how much “social capital” your companion provides?!

Secondly, incels aren’t suffering because they “fail to fulfill society’s expectations”!

Remember, Elliot Rodger, their “patron saint”, had rich parents, and was attending college until a few months before his killing spree. Also, he was 22 years old. What expectations does society have for a college student, that he felt like such a failure?!

Read his manifesto (or, better yet, don’t). He points the blame squarely at being denied sex that he felt he was entitled to as a matter of course.

No, their “suffering” is entirely self-inflicted, the result of adopting a toxic mindset that rejects introspection and blames their lack of success entirely to factors outside their control (i.e. their physiognomy, or ethnicity, or the attitudes of women), and that encourages impotent rage and/or violent retribution and/or suicide as a method of release.

hapnadsmannen
hapnadsmannen
5 years ago

Since he contrasts it with “sex and romance reduced to it´s own, non-vital element of life”, I assume he means that if you are an incel, you are for that reason alone seen as a failed product in a “brand You” society, since everyone is expected to have a happy relationship. But my interpretation could be wrong.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants

@Ariblester

What kind of asshole boils personal companionship down to how much “social capital” your companion provides?!

If an incel attracts a girlfriend in a forest, and no one is around to see, is he validated?

James Hutchings
5 years ago

The liberation of the wankers must be the task of the wankers themselves.

Ariblester
5 years ago

hapnadsmannen wrote on
February 15, 2019 at 4:17 am:

Since he contrasts it with “sex and romance reduced to it´s own, non-vital element of life”, I assume he means that if you are an incel, you are for that reason alone seen as a failed product in a “brand You” society, since everyone is expected to have a happy relationship. But my interpretation could be wrong.

Except that the expectation that everyone should have a happy relationship is factually wrong.

Yeah, logically the statement “makes sense” if you accept the statement that “everyone is expected to have a happy relationship” is true. Logically, if I accept that the Earth is flat, I could then argue that if I walk far enough, I’ll fall off the edge. Doesn’t mean that it is factually correct.

If incels feel like failures because they themselves think that society has deemed them failures, that’s on them (see “toxic mindset”), not society.

Crip Dyke
5 years ago

@James Hutchings:

The liberation of the wankers must be the task of the wankers themselves.

Wank power to the wanking people?

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
5 years ago

Wank power to the wanking people?

Handjobs Accross America.

Pere Ubu
Pere Ubu
5 years ago

So why doesn’t leftexincel believe in life after love? (Sorry, Cher.)

Oh, THANKS, now I have that song running through my head.

Jane Done
Jane Done
5 years ago

@Lainy: Somehow I highly doubt he’s changed his mind. Someone with the guts to not only publicly identify as a member of violent terrorists, but argue in favour of their violent, misogynistic ideology alone in a crowd, that’s a hardcore extremist right there. That’s like charlottesville-level extremist (apologies to the people of that town who aren’t nazis, but seriously america, you got work to do).

Not to mention, incels, the alt-right, MAGAts/american fascists, their ideology is based in denying the basic tenants of how reality works. When you can’t even rely on basic axioms to convey concepts, there is just no possible way to communicate anymore, not even on the most fundamental level. Even animals accept the basic rules of how reality works.

That guy will never change until he wants to change, and that’s a very small margin.

Still, makes a good example for everyone else of someone to KEEP THE FUCK AWAY FROM

Jerdle
Jerdle
5 years ago

This isn’t his actual argument, but something similar is right, at least among a certain age group (14-25 or something, pretty much the same age range as incels themselves).

Basically, in this stage of life (extended adolescence), a relationship is valued as much for its social impact as for its intrinsic benefits. This can easily explain incels – they probably begin as people who don’t care about having a relationship, but do care about the social benefits of relationships. Of course they still end up as assholes.

Although this expectation is present above 25, by then you’re more likely to have matured enough to develop an independent sense of self and become more inner-directed. Below that age, you’re more outer-directed.

Source: I’m 19 and single, and I’ve noticed something of a social expectation to not be.

Rabid Rabbit
Rabid Rabbit
5 years ago

@Jerdle:

Interesting. Trying to think back to my own days at high school, and the impression I recall is not so much an expectation to not be single as the expectation that at some point in the past you haven’t been. Not so much “Wait, you’re not dating someone? Weird” as “Wait, you’ve never dated someone? What’s wrong with you?” Which seems to be much more what the incels are building on.

Thoughts? Just wondering if the expectations have changed (hey, I don’t even know if it’s still dating that’s the norm), or if I’m misremembering, or what.