>Of course I'm referring to actual patriarchy
This still tells me absolutely nothing. There's no irony in me using "cultural marxism" as a vague blanket term, because it's not integral to my point. Throw that away, and what I'm saying still stands; the same can't be said for your point and the word "patriarchy". All you're doing is flinging pilpul in my general direction and hoping something hits a vital organ. Stop dancing and answer the question, and not with more subversive jibberish like "patriarchy = actual patriarchy".
>It's a quote showing your contradiction
How is it contradictory to state that you are projecting your own "hysteria" onto me and then to state that you are a utopian? Excuse me?
>History (liberal capitalist hegemony) doesn't paint utopias (their enemy) as very appealing
Yet again, you're just flinging shit my way and hoping it hits. You can call written history "liberal capitalist hegemony", but you're not showing why, contrary to the suggestions of history, these failed utopias are actually appealing. You are not making any logical sense at this rate anon, you're just parrying counterarguments with incoherent sophistry.
>A tendency would follow, in patches and over time, no doubt
But how do you know this? Why is it not in doubt? Invoke the mere name of deductive reasoning all you want, but you are not showing the actual deduction. This is getting kind of incredible.
>It is the majority people who can decide to let the climate catastrophe kill us off or divert our way of living
No, the question isn't why they would change their nature, it's how. How would human nature change? Are you positing that human nature is just whatever the will of the majority at the time is; is that your ontology? And why is it necessary to change human nature into propagating anarcho-syndicalism of all things, to avoid climate change? What?
>It doesn't seem that way at all. He has no resources at all
But what if a man (or group) constructs a hydrogen bomb, and forces a certain locality into slave labour under threat of, you know, nuking them? What's going to stop this?
>You think one pipsqueak is going to raise an army and go backwards in time
First off, it obviously doesn't have to be one person. It can be a group of people too, controlling the resources within an area under threat of force. This is a very rudimentary point of Anarchy, State and Utopia by Nozick. You should be aware of these things. Secondly, it doesn't necessarily involve "raising an army and going backwards in time", because it does not involve any specific scenario. I'm just saying that anarchism as a state-of-nature (in fact, anarchism is going back in time unless you disagree with Nozick) tends to centralise power until a political state or political state-like entity forms, which is evident seeing as anarchism is extremely sparsely distributed throughout history, and wherever it is, it anteceds state-formation. Do you have an answer as to why this is, and how you would prevent these things from occurring in your utopia? You've continuously refused to satisfactorily answer any of the important questions. If you wanna actually make a point, you're welcome to do so, otherwise I'm just gonna throw you into the pile of neurotic anarchists and move on.
…and yes, the pic is obviously not meant to be taken seriously lol. I already told you I can appreciate critiques of capitalism.