1. The State
Yes, yes, the same old critiques of democracy. But then we reach the problematic section; That on Law and VIolence. Claiming that law and hierarchy are positive is inherently contradictory to central tenets of communism. A communist society has no law and extremely limited hierarchy, and what hierarchy is existent is voluntary. It would not be called a stateless society if law and hierarchy were maintained. Law and hierarchy ultimately serve to reflect and enshrine the goals of the prevailing social class; In a capitalist state, the law protects the bourgeois, and in a proletarian one, the proletariat. But in a classless society, law is simply absent. The only thing that limits individual action in a communistic society is one's relations to others, for better or worse, as well as one's own judgement.
2. Economics
First of all, I'd like to note that you contradict yourself in the section "On Capitalism". You claim capitalism tramples on individual rights. This presupposes that individual rights A. exist and B. are to be protected. To claim the existence of human rights is to claim the existence of man as unique from nature, and to be deserving by that uniqueness special rights and guarantees. This is humanist drivel. Man has no special nature, and thus no rights beyond the rights that all beings have; That is to say, none. Additionally, just a section before this you claim to oppose anarchism and democracy on the premises that democracy misleads the masses(but is it not, according to the doctrine of individual rights, and individual's right to have their own opinion and vote? Is it not that every one knows what is best for themselves and that others cannot claim to know what is best for them?) and that anarchism senselessly opposes law and order. And yet is it not the individual's *right* to follow their own will, regardless of the proscriptions of law and order?
Then there is of course the odious paragraph on markets. The issue with your statements are that they are built upon utilitarian(utilitarian as in pro-utility) conceptions of growth and usefulness. You think that because capital creates endless growth, because it is efficient at this task, it must be good. Nonsense! You are simply falling into the same logic as the bourgeoisie! What matters is not growth but enjoyment! Why prioritize the maximization of economic growth when we could maximize economic support for enjoyment and fun! And yet you realize none of this, and go on to claim that market socialism is a good system, despite being communist, because no system of commodityless communism has been worked out. Have you heard of economic planning? Of worker's councils!?
3. Social
This is truely the most pseudo-intellectual and pathetic *slop* of the entire page. Your first error is acting as if a nation is in any way clearly definable and able to be cut away from the mass of national "identities" and considered its own unique structure. There are so many nations within nations, nations formed from nations, unrecognized nations, forgotten nations, etc. that it is nearly impossible to fish one out of the soup and clearly say "This is my nation, and I know exactly what its insides and outsides are!" Culture does indeed influence one's values and perspectives, but not to the extent that one can understand the Other! If the nation created such a level of commonality that it could surpass the Self-Other barrier, I would most certainly be a nationalist! But it does not. Because nothing can. You then go on to claim that, if they do not share a culture, two individuals will be unable to understand each other. They will see each other as the Other. But then, as I said, this presupposes that one's national kin are not the Others, which is simply untrue.
And then there is your xenophobic ramblings on immigration. If culture is a societal structure rather than a biological attribute, than why can one not simply assimilate into another culture? Why must cultures be kept separate? Why is culture even *necessary*?! There. That is it. Why is a national culture necessary, when a sense of commonality could instead be built upon things shared by all beings, such as existence itself!
"On Feminism" is possibly my least favorite part of the page due to its blatant ignorance. Third and Fourth Wave feminism explicitly *reject* the supposed fundamental opposition between male and female and instead propose that gender is a set of roles, actions, behaviors etc. that are performed and forced onto individuals, thus creating conflict and oppression between different performers. They are CHAMPIONS of the perspective that patriarchy emerges from sociological relations! It does not surprise me that the only feminist text you have read is "Hello From the Wired".
The abortion section is just, well, retarded. Obviously abortion restricts the rights of women! Why should they have to carry something in their own body they do not wish to carry? Nonsense. And no matter *when* life starts, there is nothing sacred about life. There is no reason to stop abortion unless you are a humanist or a christian(two largely identical perspectives).
4. LGBT
I was wrong earlier. THIS is my least favorite part of the page. Claiming that sexuality is a private matter is a classic homophobic perspective which aims to restrict the free expression of homosexuals. The LGBT community is distinct from wider society, especially in capitalism, because they share a culture and particular struggles that they do not share with the rest of society. Of course, much like the nation, this community would dissapear in socialism and communism, but to discourage it from existing? Drivel. Absolute drivel. To discourage solidarity between queer individuals is to discourage solidarity between the oppressed.
The position on transgender issues is somewhat ill-informed, but not outright offensive. However, the xenogender paragraph is just ignorant, and again shows a lack of knowledge about gender studies. Gender, as stated before, is a set of roles, actions and behaviors that are performed. Sex is a biological issue, while gender is a social performance. So, therefore, virtually any gender is 'valid', because any conceivable gender is a set of roles, actions and behaviors to be performed.
And then the femboy section. Oh, the horrible, vile, bigoted femboy section. First of all, femboys do not want to preserve their youth, but rather to exhibit femininity as a male. And then you go on to call them flaming homosexuals, as if this is a bad thing. And then you mention 'spiritual homosexuality' as if there is such a thing as spirit. And then you call them all bottoms, which is just untrue. And then you start acting as if having a submissive personality is inherently bad, which is just a pathetic, ignorant opinion. Some people are passive. Get over it. And THEN you start attacking fetishization, which is just genuinely non-problematic. Yes, people have femboy kinks. No, this isn't an issue. And then you call them perverted crossdressers, as if crossdressing is perverted, and thus bad? Excuse me? Sexualization of adult humans is not really an issue, chief, most especially if its voluntary.
5. Eugenics
Not even going to dignify this with a critique.