View Full Version : Monogomous Bondage.
Universal Struggle
6th June 2010, 01:34
Before Huey Newton founded the BPP, he almost cofounded a cult, based on non patriacal, non monogomous principles, his friend, later went on to found the cult.
Dr Newton said that, while man and woman, can derive great moments of hapiness together, their relationship to one another, is turned into misery by their relations to capitalism.
When Marx says that the Family is nothing but a shell, and that it becomes nothing more than a relationship of labour in order to survive, i think he had it right.
In many nations workers struggles have fought for and won better living condition for the proletariat, yet the bondage of patriacal relations, and family is still here.
I am very skeptical of marrige and single partner relations, monogamous relationships always tend to lead to one partner being patriachially dominated, wether physically or mentally, it is often the women who is the victim, until capitalism ceases to force patriachy and economic hardship on us monogomy is dead.
scarletghoul
6th June 2010, 01:42
This is very interesting.
It's true that the family as a economic unit is outdated, however I do find it hard to really love more than one person.. Perhaps that's just an effect of the dominant ideology, not sure.
Anyway do you have any links to info about this cult and Newton's relation to it ? I dont know anything about it and it would be interesting to read about
Universal Struggle
6th June 2010, 01:45
its in revolutionary suicide i will find the page and type it up chara
FriendlyLocalViking
6th June 2010, 05:42
I still think monogomous relationships are crucial to society. They existed long before capitalism, and I hope they last long after it too.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 10:39
I still think monogomous relationships are crucial to society. They existed long before capitalism, and I hope they last long after it too.
Of course they are..."Free love" tends to depersonalize sex and turns other people into tools of your own selfish pleasure, into things and not human persons..If thats not capitalist I dont know what it is. Plus sexual liberalism is oppressive to particularly working class girls and women who are often left having to attempt to bring up childern by themselves. Make no mistake the breakdown in sexual ethics in our communities is part of the process of bourgieousification and/or lumpenization (not much essential difference between the two) and must be resisted by Communists.
RED DAVE
6th June 2010, 12:34
From the Communist Manifesto:
But you communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife 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 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.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the communists. The communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.RED DAVE
"Free love" tends to depersonalize sex and turns other people into tools of your own selfish pleasure, into things and not human persons..
It certainly removes all mystification and moralism about sex. In contradiction to your statement, it appreciates a human as an individual with their individual desires which shouldn't be subject to some collective moral paradigm on what they should and shouldn't do with their body within the confines of their house.
If thats not capitalist I dont know what it is.Latter.
Plus sexual liberalism is oppressive to particularly working class girls and women who are often left having to attempt to bring up childern by themselves.Uh, no. "Sexual liberalism" was liberating to women, alongside the introduction of contraception, in terms of allowing them to have sex with someone they wanted to without having all the 'baggage' that was formerly associated with that (like, ya know, marrying the guy or getting pregnant). Far from being 'oppressive' to working class women it allowed them to have some sexual agency which was hitherto restricted.
The problem isn't 'sexual liberalism', the problem is with puritans and conservatives like you refusing to educate young women (and men) on contraception or opposing abortion rights and therefore young women are left to bring up children by themselves in a capitalist system. Your argument would just about as make sense as someone claiming that sexual liberalism is oppressive because it results (let's pretend) in a higher contraction of AIDS. Its not sexual liberalism that's the cause...
Make no mistake the breakdown in sexual ethics in our communities is part of the process of bourgieousification and/or lumpenization (not much essential difference between the two) and must be resisted by Communists.Make no mistake, your puritanism has more to do with your liberal Maoism than a concern about working class women.
Sperm-Doll Setsuna
6th June 2010, 12:57
It certainly removes all mystification and moralism about sex. In contradiction to your statement, it appreciates a human as an individual with their individual desires which shouldn't be subject to some collective moral paradigm on what they should and shouldn't do with their body within the confines of their house.
Hedonism is liberal individualism to the extreme.
I still think monogomous relationships are crucial to society. They existed long before capitalism, and I hope they last long after it too.
The point of the destruction of the family is to make no relationship - monogamous, polygamous - crucial to the functionings of society or its members.
Hedonism is liberal individualism to the extreme.And on the other hand sexual puritanism and morality is a remnant of feudalism and patriarchy, a cry from the religious-right (and sometimes the left) of the breakdown (oh no!) of the nuclear family and the ethics revolving such a relationship. I certainly think that individuals should be free to have sex on consensual grounds merely for the purpose of enjoying sex.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 13:12
And on the other hand sexual puritanism and morality is a remnant of feudalism and patriarchy, a cry from the religious-right (and sometimes the left) of the breakdown (oh no!) of the nuclear family and the ethics revolving such a relationship. I certainly think that individuals should be free to have sex on consensual grounds merely for the purpose of enjoying sex.
This is the point though....We are not just individuals but social persons who rely on others and form attachments to other people and other people also form attachments to us. All to often I have seen people both hurt themselves and hurt others through "sexual liberation". We dont just have rights but also duties. The wanting to opt out of all meaningful long terms duties through which we grow as human beings in order to enjoy a sterlie "autonomy" is typical of decadent capitalist culture.
manic expression
6th June 2010, 13:15
It's true that the family as a economic unit is outdated, however I do find it hard to really love more than one person.. Perhaps that's just an effect of the dominant ideology, not sure.
That's interesting...I'm still pretty young when it comes to all this, but the idea of loving just one person is really difficult for me to grasp right now. It feels a bit like choosing one flavor of ice cream to eat for the rest of my life.
At the same time, though, I think growing up in a two-parent household (whatever the gender) is important for kids, but that's just my suspicion. Plus, monogamy makes sense because two people seem to be able to work out the problems that we humans carry around with us...more than two would have far too many emotions bouncing off the walls, while one less than two seems like a recipe for loneliness. So yeah, I can see why monogamy is a stable and productive relationship for the long-term, but still, right now I agree with Nina Simone:
One married he, one married she...whaddya got?
Two people watching TV!
This is the point though....We are not just individuals but social persons who rely on others and form attachments to other people and other people also form attachments to us. All to often I have seen people both hurt themselves and hurt others through "sexual liberation". We dont just have rights but also duties. The wanting to opt out of all meaningful long terms duties through which we grow as human beings in order to enjoy a sterlie "autonomy" is typical of decadent capitalist culture.None of what I wrote contradicted the view that people can have meaningful relationships, if they wish to. Someone who dresses up 'cheating' as 'sexual liberation' is just using a phrase to justify/hide them being an asshole. I don't support that, I don't think anyone would support that. That's not a problem of sexual freedom, its a problem of people being assholes.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 13:17
The problem isn't 'sexual liberalism', the problem is with puritans and conservatives like you refusing to educate young women (and men) on contraception or opposing abortion rights and therefore young women are left to bring up children by themselves in a capitalist system. Your argument would just about as make sense as someone claiming that sexual liberalism is oppressive because it results (let's pretend) in a higher contraction of AIDS. Its not sexual liberalism that's the cause...
Make no mistake, your puritanism has more to do with your liberal Maoism than a concern about working class women.
Where did I mention opposition to contraception in my post?
However the fact is that long term use of chemical contraceptives can have dangerous effects and be unsettling for a lot of women's bodies, condoms break, and not every woman is able to go through with an abortion. Also there is the constant pressure from the capitalist cultural industry for girls to be "sexy" with often not pleasant results for most of us...Sex after all sells.
In what way is my Maoism liberal?
GreenCommunism
6th June 2010, 13:21
opposing abortion rights and therefore young women are left to bring up children by themselves in a capitalist system.
i still haven't understand this part of woman liberation. in some way i feel like woman are saying that it is a duty for a woman to take care of her children biologically. i mean i know that woman have to keep the baby in their stomach for 9 month, and when they deliver the baby they instantly have a strong link with that children. but surely there are cases of a woman leaving the family to ... do something stereotypical of a bad father that is move out of the city because she fears her responsibility,get drunk and cheat on her husband.
i feel like somehow no matter who abandons their family it is their fault, man or woman.
this is altogether another discussion but i've heard somewhat conservative psychologist say that mens have nothing to do with raising their child, womans could do it all by themselves and cause no psychological repercussions, is that true? their explanation is that they will look for a father figure on other mens such as school teacher or so. i have a hard time believing it. is a mother's presence more important than a father's? i thought it was more crucial for a woman to have a father and vice versa, since there your relation with the opposite sex starts out.
i still haven't understand this part of woman liberation. in some way i feel like woman are saying that it is a duty for a woman to take care of her children biologically.
No communist would argue that a woman has a biological duty to raise their biological child.
i mean i know that woman have to keep the baby in their stomach for 9 month, and when they deliver the baby they instantly have a strong link with that children.Well they've put a fuck-load of time and pain into the child, so I think its understandable.
but surely there are cases of a woman leaving the family to ... do something stereotypical of a bad father that is move out of the city because she fears her responsibility,get drunk and cheat on her husband.Well yeah, what's your point?
i feel like somehow no matter who abandons their family it is their fault, man or woman.Well yeah, what's your point?
this is altogether another discussion but i've heard somewhat conservative psychologist say that mens have nothing to do with raising their child, womans could do it all by themselves and cause no psychological repercussions, is that true?Only if you think that women have the something in their 'mind' which preconditions them to raise children, or to cook and clean, or to...
their explanation is that they will look for a father figure on other mens such as school teacher or so.I don't believe a male child has any intrinsic psychological need to have a father figure.
i have a hard time believing it. is a mother's presence more important than a father's?No.
i thought it was more crucial for a woman to have a father and vice versa, since there your relation with the opposite sex starts out.Sounds like Freudian-influenced crap.
However the fact is that long term use of chemical contraceptives can have dangerous effects and be unsettling for a lot of women's bodies, condoms break, and not every woman is able to go through with an abortion.
So your 'answer' is to fight the break down of 'sexual ethics' by abstaining from sex? :lol:
Also there is the constant pressure from the capitalist cultural industry for girls to be "sexy" with often not pleasant results for most of us...Sex after all sells.
Don't see what relevance this has in this discussion.
In what way is my Maoism liberal?
Read Mao, then re-read Bordiga.
GreenCommunism
6th June 2010, 13:36
gee don't be so hostile bro. you basicly agreed with me yet you manage to make it sound like you disagree.
what i said was that woman want abortion and say it is woman liberation. it sounds like both sex sexual liberation to me. it is only because of society that mens are more allowed to abandon their family than woman.
I don't believe a male child has any intrinsic psychological need to have a father figure.
is the same true for a woman, after all there is breast feeding.
then again i believe that society can outlaw abortion in the middle age and it would be progressive, it would allow woman to keep their children rather than be forced by their husband to have an abortion in pretty disgusting ways such as jumping off a certain height and landing on your stomach. and the same time i believe legalizing abortion makes it progressive right now because woman are usually the single mother and not the father.
Well they've put a fuck-load of time and pain into the child, so I think its understandable.
i don't think it is that simple, they have the baby going out from their body, they also feel the baby during pregnancy. they also breast feed them. this is a reason to feel a stronger connection.
Universal Struggle
6th June 2010, 13:41
Pallegenisis, you have what i am saying wrong.
Post revolution, society will be communal, less enphasis will be placed on biological family than the bigger, communal family.
You are right, women are made to feel inadequite and no good by TV and all the advertisements etc, but i for one do not judge a woman on her looks as a be all and end all.
I believe people should be free to be with multiple people and experience non patriachal, non bourgeoisie relations.
Of course, if children are had from these relations, it is the biological parents obligation to look after them, as it is the communal families too.
Hey the more kids the better, gives us a strong workforce :)
Seriously though, Newtons Girlfriend did try and kill herself over their l;ifestyle, but she had huge seperation issues, of which newton only found out about after she tried to endit.
But post revolutuion, people won't feel so insecure and needy on a man/woman to be happy.
Unless it is me, all the ladies want me.... actually no thats a lie :
gee don't be so hostile bro.
I'm not a bro, dick.
what i said was that woman want abortion and say it is woman liberation.
No communist thinks that abortion is 'woman's liberation.'
is the same true for a woman, after all there is breast feeding.
Absolutely. Besides, there are alternatives to breast-feeding.
i don't think it is that simple, they have the baby going out from their body, they also feel the baby during pregnancy. they also breast feed them. this is a reason to feel a stronger connection.
Well yeah, they've expended quite a bit of labor and time on the child, hence are likely to feel 'a stronger connection.' If men could give birth they'd probably feel the same way too.
Sperm-Doll Setsuna
6th June 2010, 13:56
Oh, and Lavender, your little rep-thing is lovely.
And what else is Maoism but democratic liberalism dressed up in red? Here's my authoritarian socialism: a bullet to the heads of Maoists.
Just sod off you little prick. I'm not even a Maoist.
RED DAVE
6th June 2010, 14:21
i've heard somewhat conservative psychologist say that mens have nothing to do with raising their child, womans could do it all by themselves and cause no psychological repercussions, is that true? their explanation is that they will look for a father figure on other mens such as school teacher or so. i have a hard time believing it. is a mother's presence more important than a father's? i thought it was more crucial for a woman to have a father and vice versa, since there your relation with the opposite sex starts out.Children of both sexes need parents or, to use a term I can't stand, "role models" of both sexes.
This is not an argument for monogamy but for responsible parenting. The parents don't have to be married, but both parents need to take an appropriate role. Those roles are subtle and ill-defined and often negatively socially conditioned, but they are real. They can also be "taught" by someone who is not a parent. But in capitalist societies, this is difficult.
Don't have a kid unless you are, basically, ready to go Number 2 in your own life for about 20 years.
RED DAVE
Children of both sexes need parents of both sexes. This is not an argument for monogamy but for responsible parenting.
RED DAVE
So homosexual couples shouldn't have children or be able to adopt, or are unable to provide 'responsible parenting'? :rolleyes:
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 14:29
Hedonism is liberal individualism to the extreme.
One man's hedonism is another man's normalcy. Compared to the Victorians, we're all fucking hedonists.
Also, who the fuck are you to tell someone they are devoting too much of their own lives to pleasure?
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 14:30
One man's hedonism is another man's normalcy. Compared to the Victorians, we're all fucking hedonists.
Actually the Victorians in many ways were pretty hedonistic.
Yes, which is why the term Victorianism is used to describe middle-class prudery. :rolleyes:
Sperm-Doll Setsuna
6th June 2010, 14:35
One man's hedonism is another man's normalcy. Compared to the Victorians, we're all fucking hedonists.
Also, who the fuck are you to tell someone they are devoting too much of their own lives to pleasure?
There's nothing progressive whatsoever about some senseless search for satisfying stimuli and focus on ones own pleasure. Impulses and instincts are vestiges of primitive biology and should not be heralded as the greatest way to spend time. "Sexual liberation"-nonsense general replaces subjugation to a patriarchal family unit and related institutions to a subjugation to pleasure-seeking itself; a change of masters. I don't see this as any progress whatsoever for humanity as a whole.
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 14:41
Children of both sexes need parents or, to use a term I can't stand, "role models" of both sexes.
But they don't actually have to be parents. You can have gender role models who are uncles and aunts, neighbors, teachers, etc.
What children do need to have is multiple adults. The nuclear family is merely one way for that to happen, and it is a way that is particularly prone to failure, as it has no redundancy. In a nuclear family, if one parent leaves, then you're either missing a primary care giver or a support provider. In a multi-generational family or a multi-family family, i.e., brothers and sisters and their families, living together, the loss of a parent, though emotional painful, isn't a disaster.
In any event, in a free society, humans are going to experiment with many different sorts of family units. It might be interesting for comrades to read Heinlein's, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, to read one sort of arrangement (imagined) and then read The Dispossessed to read another sort. We should not fetishize a particular family style that appeared in late capitalism.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 14:41
Also, who the fuck are you to tell someone they are devoting too much of their own lives to pleasure?
When I see supposed Socialists writing things like that I really do despair....Dont we stand for discipline, overcoming, heroism and sacrafice as opposed to the degenerate and degenerating values of a capitalist individualism that seeks its own comfort and pleasure at all costs?
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 14:43
Yes, which is why the term Victorianism is used to describe middle-class prudery. :rolleyes:
Actually isnt it used to describe middle class hypocracy?
There's nothing progressive whatsoever about some senseless search for satisfying stimuli and focus on ones own pleasure.
Essentially, this is what the bourgeoisie moralist tells us: don't enjoy yourself, work harder!
Impulses and instincts are vestiges of primitive biology and should not be heralded as the greatest way to spend time.
What nonsense. There is no hierarchy of pleasure. If someone enjoys reading a book, then they should read a book. If someone enjoys kissing someone, then they should kiss someone. It makes no difference whether one stems from 'biology' or one stems from something constructed by society (playing a video game). The people who do arrange them in a hierarchy arrange them with their own subjective preferences, where normally things like sex or drugs are on the bottom of that ladder. Thus they make a universal out of their own likes or dislikes.
"Sexual liberation"-nonsense general replaces subjugation to a patriarchal family unit and related institutions to a subjugation to pleasure-seeking itself; a change of masters. I don't see this as any progress whatsoever for humanity as a whole. More nonsense.
If you don't think there's a difference between on the one hand, a woman being the servant of a patriarch, and on the other, a woman making decisions about her sexual life because of whatever desires she has, then you are just completly devoid from what oppression and progress actually means.
Actually isnt it used to describe middle class hypocracy? "Victorian morality can describe any set of values that espouse sexual restraint, low tolerance of crime and a strict social code of conduct."
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 14:50
There's nothing progressive whatsoever about some senseless search for satisfying stimuli and focus on ones own pleasure. Impulses and instincts are vestiges of primitive biology and should not be heralded as the greatest way to spend time. "Sexual liberation"-nonsense general replaces subjugation to a patriarchal family unit and related institutions to a subjugation to pleasure-seeking itself; a change of masters. I don't see this as any progress whatsoever for humanity as a whole.
Interesting points comrade..However my majior problemn with "sexual liberation" is that all too often its takes sex out of a social context and ceases to see sex as a means of relating to another person and instead turns it into a means of obtaining an isolated individual pleasure or as a means of self assertion in order to prop up a fragile ego through the manipulation of someone else's sexual desire for you.
Sperm-Doll Setsuna
6th June 2010, 14:51
Essentially, this is what the bourgeoisie moralist tells us: don't enjoy yourself, work harder!
What nonsense. There is no hierarchy of pleasure. If someone enjoys reading a book, then they should read a book. If someone enjoys kissing someone, then they should kiss someone. It makes no difference whether one stems from 'biology' or one stems from something constructed by society (playing a video game). The people who do arrange them in a hierarchy arrange them with their own subjective preferences, where normally things like sex or drugs are on the bottom of that ladder. Thus they make a universal out of their own likes or dislikes.
More nonsense.
If you don't think there's a difference between on the one hand, a woman being the servant of a patriarch, and on the other, a woman making decisions about her sexual life because of whatever desires she has, then you are just completly devoid from what oppression and progress actually means.
Utter nonsense.
Desires and pleasures and wants do not exist in a vacuum. They are formed from social constructs and biology. This "autonomous slavery", where one is at the whims of influences outside and inside one has no control over, though not directly enforced as say a patriarchal society, is no independence or liberty of any worth. All it is, is liberalism. Emancipation from biological enslavement and social subjugation and control should be prioritised, replacing one form with another change nothing.
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 14:54
There's nothing progressive whatsoever about some senseless search for satisfying stimuli and focus on ones own pleasure. Impulses and instincts are vestiges of primitive biology and should not be heralded as the greatest way to spend time. "Sexual liberation"-nonsense general replaces subjugation to a patriarchal family unit and related institutions to a subjugation to pleasure-seeking itself; a change of masters. I don't see this as any progress whatsoever for humanity as a whole.
Who are you to tell anyone what the best way to spend their own time is? Who are you to tell other human beings what to do with their own bodies?
"Vestiges" of "primitive" biology. You are alienated from your humanity. Human beings aren't some ethereal beings tethered to some primordial past we need to get over. We're animals, material beings. Our existence is rooted in base instincts, the need for food, shelter, sleep, community, sex, etc. Our bodies give us pleasure for doing these things because they enable us to survive.
Being human is wonderful! (As if I have an experience to compare it to). I love sex and beer and meat and sleeping and fighting. I am human! Hear me ROAR!
Stop dressing up capitalist prudery in red clothing and pretending its radical. It's not. It's just patriarchy.
Stranger Than Paradise
6th June 2010, 14:59
It's true that the family as a economic unit is outdated
I wouldn't say that, a unit of consumption as opposed to production now.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 14:59
Stop dressing up capitalist prudery in red clothing and pretending its radical. It's not. It's just patriarchy.
I dont see much capitalist prudery around today mo chara. Turn on MTV and tell me where you see this capitalist prudery?
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 15:03
When I see supposed Socialists writing things like that I really do despair....Dont we stand for discipline, overcoming, heroism and sacrafice as opposed to the degenerate and degenerating values of a capitalist individualism that seeks its own comfort and pleasure at all costs?
No, we don't.
We need organizational discipline in order to overcome the state, because the state is organized and disciplined. We need heroism and sacrifice in order to overcome the hurdles we face. In specific historic circumstances, we may need to avoid sex or good food or drinking, but our goal is not to create a society without these things. As Emma said, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution."
First off, what's a degenerate value? Degenerated from what? Were we at some higher place of moral purity from which we've descended to enjoying sex? Where have I heard that term used to describe sex? Oh right, it's how Maoists describe gays. Hmm, it's also how the Nazis described gays, degenerate. It's also how the right-wing Christians describe gays, degenerate.
In fact, it's how all oppressors describe the sexual activities of the oppressed. Consider how Black people are described sexually.
The problem with capitalist sex relations isn't that people are finally free to enjoy their bodies. It's that they aren't. It's that, on the one hand, they use sexual manipulation to motivate us, but then, like you, they heap shame and scorn for "giving in" to our natural desires. It makes us crazy, and easier to manipulate. As Reich said, "If they can tell you how to fuck, they can tell you anything."
This "autonomous slavery", where one is at the whims of influences outside and inside one has no control over, though not directly enforced as say a patriarchal society, is no independence or liberty of any worth.
All it is, is liberalism. Emancipation from biological enslavement and social subjugation and control should be prioritised, replacing one form with another change nothing.
Many women, like myself, beg to differ.
No one here denies that there is coercion in capitalism. But to equate all forms of coercion and social control as the same is fundamentally un-Marxist. In a patriarchal society women had little capacity for economic independence; their position was either to marry or to prostitute themselves as they were essentially excluded from other forms of employment. Subsequently the industrial revolution changed that as they were allowed the capacity to engage as wage-slaves.
There are meaningful distincitons between different forms of social control; being slave is different from being a wage-slave and there exist even categories in that.
The same applies here. Whilst women still lack equality, to equate the social control of living in a patriarchal society to living in current society where women do have control over whom they are to have sex with or marry, is the most disgusting liberalism of them all as it denies any meaningful differences amongst forms of oppression. To make a comparison, it would be like saying that fighting against racism or homophobia is of no worth because whilst it fights against those specific forms of oppression, it doesn't fight against them being oppressed via capital and merely replaces 'one form of oppression for another.'
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 15:04
I dont see much capitalist prudery around today mo chara. Turn on MTV and tell me where you see this capitalist prudery?
I don't watch MTV. Perhaps you should turn on the news and listen to all the capitalist politicians saying the same thing you're saying.
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 15:07
Utter nonsense.
Desires and pleasures and wants do not exist in a vacuum. They are formed from social constructs and biology. This "autonomous slavery", where one is at the whims of influences outside and inside one has no control over, though not directly enforced as say a patriarchal society, is no independence or liberty of any worth. All it is, is liberalism. Emancipation from biological enslavement and social subjugation and control should be prioritised, replacing one form with another change nothing.
This is a dualist view of human nature, derived from Plato, and part and parcel of religious morality for thousands of years. There is a pure, human side of our nature, and a base, animal side. This is the same shit that the religious right keeps shoveling on us.
The truth is, there is only a human animal side. We are not two beings waring against ourselves. We are one unitary being.
And there's nothing wrong with being "slaves" to our bodies, since, without them, we wouldn't exist. The body isn't the enemy. The enemy are idiots who think the body is the enemy.
Sperm-Doll Setsuna
6th June 2010, 15:15
This is a dualist view of human nature, derived from Plato, and part and parcel of religious morality for thousands of years. There is a pure, human side of our nature, and a base, animal side. This is the same shit that the religious right keeps shoveling on us.
The truth is, there is only a human animal side. We are not two beings waring against ourselves. We are one unitary being.
And there's nothing wrong with being "slaves" to our bodies, since, without them, we wouldn't exist. The body isn't the enemy. The enemy are idiots who think the body is the enemy.
That's a pretty warped extrapolation. I think humans should transcend their animal nature, but in no way do I fancy there exists something in humanity as it is that is beyond naturalistic animal; there is potential, and that is all. There is generally no battle; but there should be, one should inquire why things are what they are; one has to eat because without it one dies from lack of energy; but soon sex will be unnecessary for reproduction altogether. The body must be destroyed; for the human body is not only ugly and incredibly flawed (religious would hold that the body is perfect and intended to be the way it is, much like you do), but something holding the possibilities back.
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 15:19
Not only is it not warped, but you just admitted exactly what I said. Yes, you're a materialist, and you don't believe there is anything beyond material reality, but you somehow believe it is possible for human beings to be something beyond an animal, instead of understanding that human beings are a specific type of animal, and we always will be. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with it. You're just alienated from your humanity, and that's a personal thing you need to deal with, not us.
It's the same reason I'm never going to be a vegan. Animal protein is just too damn pleasurable. I derive a primordial satisfaction from it that I don't get from no vegetable.
You know, religious/capitalist morality about sex screwed me up for a long time. It took me years to get over that, and in some ways, I'm still not. I still think sex is gross, just a lot of fun. That's what this society did to me. That's what's degenerate, conditioning me to want and fear sex at the same time. When I think about all the sex I could have had, with women who really wanted to have sex, but I didn't, because I was "respecting them" (and could never understand why they didn't want to talk to me after).
I'm in a committed, monogamous relationship now, because that's what we decided we want. Not because anyone forced us to, not because of someone else's morality. Our choice. Not yours.
GreenCommunism
6th June 2010, 15:29
i personally don't think sex is really required for humans to function, in a certain way i don't think waiting for marriage really is that much of a big deal when it comes to it. i think intimacy and other humans touching or so has more to give when it comes to psychology. i know we are not talking about early tribes, but in those times i don't think those who were born with certain disabilities had alot of sex if any at all. i think they had more intimacy and perhaps kissing than sex. of course such things leads to sex but i think this society encourages sex so much that relative love without sex is not considered love.
what i am refering to is the freudian idea that sex is a strong component of human psychology and that alot of psychological problem comes from taboo about sex or lack of such satisfaction. i think intimacy is a better answer, sex is perhaps the strongest form of close intimacy.
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 15:33
i personally don't think sex is really required for humans to function,
Yes, and no. We can function, but it screws us up. We become unhappy. Look at cultures which do that to themselves. They end up going out and taking over the world ... or large chunks of it anyway.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 15:33
I don't watch MTV. Perhaps you should turn on the news and listen to all the capitalist politicians saying the same thing you're saying.
Possibly...Both puritianism and libertinism are reactionary. The fact that some capitalist politicians seek to invoke the values of what could be called capitalism's heroic era (and the "Puritianism" of the original Jansenists, Puritians, etc was an advance on the carry on of most of the Fuedal aristocracy) or that they see the disintergrative effects unleashed by the consumer "culture" of out and out hedonism doesnt detract from my basic point or the basic drift of capitalist decadence ( http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/growth-of-casual-sex-in-the-united-states/ ). Sexual stimulation is used all the time in marketing, etc in order to invoke desire for products and to hypnotize the masses through a siren song of "coolness" or whatever.
RED DAVE
6th June 2010, 15:36
When I see supposed Socialists writing things like that I really do despair....Dont we stand for discipline, overcoming, heroism and sacrafice as opposed to the degenerate and degenerating values of a capitalist individualism that seeks its own comfort and pleasure at all costs?Some comrades need to:
(a) get laid;
(b) smoke some dope;
(c) down some brewskies;
(d) listen to some good, hot music and shake their booties;
(e) all of the above.
:D
RED DAVE
Universal Struggle
6th June 2010, 15:44
i need to get laid.
btw i stand by my statement.
you are awesome haha :)
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 15:47
Sexual stimulation is used all the time in marketing, etc in order to invoke desire for products and to hypnotize the masses through a siren song of "coolness" or whatever.
And that doesn't have a damned thing to do with sexual liberation! It's one more form of sexual oppression.
It's not like we're going to have marketing in a free society. All that crap that capitalism sells us will disappear, and people will be free to make the kinds of relationships they want, and we shouldn't interfere, or we become the oppressors.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 15:53
Now Im beginning to understand what drives people towards Monkey Smashes Heaven. :bored:
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 16:01
Now Im beginning to understand what drives people towards Monkey Smashes Heaven. :bored:
Self hatred.
And I'm not being flip.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 16:09
Self hatred.
And I'm not being flip.
Geniune self esteem comes from applying ourselves to goals and/or other people over a prolonged period of time and not from indulgence in momentary pleasure or facile "feeling good about me" pop psychology crap. No what drives people towards Monkey Smashes Heaven is the piosoning of the psyche of the average member of the First World masses with the mindset and aspirations of a decadent capitalism.
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 16:13
No, it's liberal white guilt, masquerading as pseudo revolutionary sloganeering so they can feel good about their academic jobs.
chegitz guevara
6th June 2010, 16:47
Geniune self esteem comes from applying ourselves to goals and/or other people over a prolonged period of time and not from indulgence in momentary pleasure or facile "feeling good about me" pop psychology crap.
No one's arguing for pop psychology. And all pleasure is momentary, cuz we all die. Also, just as I fondly remember some good writing I've done or good organizing I've done, I also fondly remember some of he great sex I've had. Why do you have to subordinate "physical" pleasure to "mental" pleasure? Why can't you understand they are both good, both fulfill human needs and desires. Life without one or the other would be one sided and empty.
Robocommie
6th June 2010, 17:12
Physical pleasure is transitory and ultimately unfulfilling, pursuing it as a sole means of happiness will never achieve results. That said, there's no reason not to enjoy it, in moderation, so long as you don't kid yourself about sensation and pleasure not being true liberation.
/Zen
#FF0000
6th June 2010, 17:17
Physical pleasure is transitory and ultimately unfulfilling, pursuing it as a sole means of happiness will never achieve results. That said, there's no reason not to enjoy it, in moderation, so long as you don't kid yourself about sensation and pleasure not being true liberation.
/Zen
Of course but that being said, this dumb puritanical and self-hating nonsense I'm seeing in this thread is exactly the opposite of liberation.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 17:42
Of course but that being said, this dumb puritanical and self-hating nonsense I'm seeing in this thread is exactly the opposite of liberation.
Where exactly is the self hating on this thread?
Infact I have noticed both in myself and in other girls that sexual libertinism is the result of a lack of geniune self worth and so an attempt to achieve valididation through inappropriate means a vast amount of the time.
Why should communists care how much sex people have, and with whom they have it? I'm seriously not seeing the relevance this has to the liberation of the working class and the end of exploitation. Are people less revolutionary or less class conscious if they bang a lot?
Nothing Human Is Alien
6th June 2010, 18:10
http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-children-raised-t135788/index.html?p=1753742#post1753742
Nothing Human Is Alien
6th June 2010, 18:12
Of course but that being said, this dumb puritanical and self-hating nonsense I'm seeing in this thread is exactly the opposite of liberation.Welcome to the left.
Care for a Motherhood Medal?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Motherhood_Medal2.JPG
All you have to do is pop out 6 kids for the Nation.
Robocommie
6th June 2010, 18:13
Of course but that being said, this dumb puritanical and self-hating nonsense I'm seeing in this thread is exactly the opposite of liberation.
The thing is, I don't know if Palingenesis is necessarily being a sexual puritan. Sometimes I think the "fuck buddy" culture of our generation is a bad idea. Because even though I am in support of sex ed, and promoting the use of birth control (and I've never seen Palingenesis be opposed to any of that) let's not kid ourselves that even with condoms and sexual education, promiscuity can be a problem.
I don't think Palingenesis is trying to advocate puritanism and the idea that sex is bad and evil, just trying to encourage self-control and good sense in getting into sexual relationships - avoiding excess.
Palingenesis, you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong.
Robocommie
6th June 2010, 18:14
Why should communists care how much sex people have, and with whom they have it? I'm seriously not seeing the relevance this has to the liberation of the working class and the end of exploitation. Are people less revolutionary or less class conscious if they bang a lot?
Some people generally want to apply Marxist principles to every single aspect of life. I'm not one of those people.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 18:15
Welcome to the left.
Care for a Motherhood Medal?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Motherhood_Medal2.JPG
All you have to do is pop out 6 kids for the Nation.
I find your mockery of women who raised strong sons and daughters up to defend their socialist motherland to ward off Imperialism and defeat fascism highly offensive.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 18:17
I don't think Palingenesis is trying to advocate puritanism and the idea that sex is bad and evil, just trying to encourage self-control and good sense in getting into sexual relationships - avoiding excess.
Palingenesis, you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong.
Sex is about two things...Its a means of relating to other people and its about the continuation of the species...To me a puritian is someone who denies the first aspect of it. I dont and therefore dont see myself as a puritian.
piet11111
6th June 2010, 18:19
I don't know about the rest of you but i doubt i would ever be comfortable with multiple partners or sharing my partner with others.
If others can do that well good for them but its not something i can see myself doing.
GreenCommunism
6th June 2010, 18:21
i think the comparison with mtw has a point, we live in decadence and don't give a shit if other people in the world cannot have access to such decadence too, though i would say that sexual decadence is more present in the third world.
Yes, and no. We can function, but it screws us up. We become unhappy. Look at cultures which do that to themselves. They end up going out and taking over the world ... or large chunks of it anyway.
i meant just like we need love from our parents as a child, we need human contact and respect, not necessarily the act of reproduction.
what do you mean about cultures who do that to themselves? you mean that it gives them some advantage or so? i kind of agree that oppressive societies sometime work better to achieve their goal of military power. happiness is flushed down the toilet though
Here we go!
Seriously, though, why can't those of us who want to bang everything with a pulse coexist with those who want to bind themselves to one person, or vice versa? I really don't see where this conflict stems from.
Nothing Human Is Alien
6th June 2010, 18:35
I don't know about the rest of you but i doubt i would ever be comfortable with multiple partners or sharing my partner with others.
If others can do that well good for them but its not something i can see myself doing.
"The jealous person is in want of a slave; he can be in love, but this love is only a feeling of luxuriating in jealousy; the jealous person is above all a private-property owner." - Marx
Seriously, though, why can't those of us who want to bang everything with a pulse coexist with those who want to bind themselves to one person, or vice versa? I really don't see where this conflict stems from.
"It [communist society] 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 woman on the man and of the children on the parents." - Engels
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 18:43
Fuck you for treating women as nothing more than breeding machines for raising soldiers to die in a bloodbath for a a Stalinist capitalist state.
Dont pull that sisterhood crap with me.
Fuck you for being a self indulgent little anarchist who puts her own petty "self-realization" before the needs the international proletariat.
And actually its pretty brillant to wake up and know as a Stalinoid your life actually means something.
#FF0000
6th June 2010, 18:50
And actually its pretty brillant to wake up and know as a Stalinoid your life actually means something.
Apparently having a lot of sex means your life is meaningless or something? I don't understand this comment.
Dont pull that sisterhood crap with me.
Fuck you for being a self indulgent little anarchist who puts her own petty "self-realization" before the needs the international proletariat.
And actually its pretty brillant to wake up and know as a Stalinoid your life actually means something.
LOL, sisterhood is a stupid concept advocated by Maoist liberals, so no, I didn't pull any 'sisterhood' crap with you. And far from being an anarchist, I'm a communist and as far as the international proleteriat is concerned the only thing that fighting for the socialist motherland (LOL, what are you, stuck in the 1940s?) only offered misery and death. Your position is disgusting. You treat women as nothing more than breeding machines, happy to give their sons to fight for a capitalist state.
Here, I'll change your statement so it fits better with your politics:
"I find your mockery of women who raised strong Aryan sons and daughters up to defend their German fatherland to ward off the Jewish warmongers highly offensive."
piet11111
6th June 2010, 18:55
"The jealous person is in want of a slave; he can be in love, but this love is only a feeling of luxuriating in jealousy; the jealous person is above all a private-property owner." - Marx
I have no intention of making my partner into my slave and if she wants more partners then she will have to do so without me.
I know that i would not be happy in such a situation and as such i would not get into such a relationship.
Shame TC is not around anymore i would love to know what she would have to say about this thread.
manic expression
6th June 2010, 18:56
And far from being an anarchist, I'm a communist and as far as the international proleteriat is concerned the only thing that fighting for the socialist motherland (LOL, what are you, stuck in the 1940s?) only offered misery and death.
So you think defeating Nazism was no big deal, then, right? The nations of the Soviet Union would have been no worse for wear with Hitler forcing them all into Siberian death marches, I suppose. Nope, nothing to fight for here.
:rolleyes:
Your position is disgusting. You treat women as nothing more than breeding machines, happy to give their sons to fight for a capitalist state.
You seem to have a deep-seated hatred for honoring motherhood.
Here, I'll change your statement so it fits better with your politics:
"I find your mockery of women who raised strong Aryan sons and daughters up to defend their German fatherland to ward off the Jewish warmongers highly offensive."
:lol: You're the one who slanders the workers of the Soviet Union for destroying Nazism, so that's a whole bit of richness right there.
So you think defeating Nazism was no big deal, then, right? The nations of the Soviet Union would have been no worse for wear with Hitler forcing them all into Siberian death marches, I suppose. Nope, nothing to fight for here.
Nothing to fight for socialism. It was an inter-imperialist war, which is why I oppose it and is why communists opposed it, whereas Stalinist liberals, such as yourself, lined behind your democratic allies, nationalists, republicans in a bloodbath, all the while putting down various working class strikes against the war, as well as Stalinists assassinating various communists who opposed the war.
There was something to fight: your disgusting Stalinism, dressed up in democratic rhetoric.
You seem to have a deep-seated hatred for honoring motherhood.
The people who "honour" motherhood in our society are the ones who think that its the prime role of a woman to give birth and to provide children either to fill up the labour pool or the provide soldiers to fight in their disgusting wars. So fuck yes I have a problem with the sexist idea that its a role of a mother to breed and to raise their child. But a sexist piece of shit, and a Stalinist like you wouldn't.
:lol: You're the one who slanders the workers of the Soviet Union for destroying Nazism, so that's a whole bit of richness right there.
And your the one who slanders communism if you think that the Soviet Union had anything to do with it. A bullet in your face would solve it, IMO.
You know, one good thing about the struggle against capitalism is how it brings leftists together.
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 19:08
Apparently having a lot of sex means your life is meaningless or something? I don't understand this comment.
Who said that at all? A lot of sex under certain circumstances can make your life very meaningful...Sex after all is one of the best ways to commune with another person...Context is everything comrade.
Nothing Human Is Alien
6th June 2010, 19:12
"Honoring motherhood" in the USSR came along with banning abortions and making divorce difficult to impossible to obtain. Does that tell you anything?
#FF0000
6th June 2010, 19:15
Who said that at all? A lot of sex under certain circumstances can make your life very meaningful...Sex after all is one of the best ways to commune with another person...Context is everything comrade.
Oh of course. I just wasn't sure what you were getting at with that comment.
manic expression
6th June 2010, 19:17
Nothing to fight for socialism. It was an inter-imperialist war, which is why I oppose it and is why communists opposed it, whereas Stalinist liberals, such as yourself, lined behind your democratic allies, nationalists, republicans in a bloodbath, all the while putting down various working class strikes against the war, as well as Stalinists assassinating various communists who opposed the war.
You've done quite a thing: so many words without so much as an argument within them. The Soviet Union was not imperialist. It had no capitalist production or ownership. Sorry, but materialism usually works better than being mad at something you don't understand.
The people who "honour" motherhood in our society are the ones who think that its the prime role of a woman to give birth and to provide children either to fill up the labour pool or the provide soldiers to fight in their disgusting wars. So fuck yes I have a problem with the sexist idea that its a role of a mother to breed and to raise their child. But a sexist piece of shit, and a Stalinist like you wouldn't.Who said anything about their "prime role"? No one, you're making things up again. Women were honored for a wide host of things in the Soviet Union, including valor in combat (check the White Lily of Stalingrad if you don't believe me); why shouldn't motherhood be part of that?
And yeah, it's so terrible to think that women give birth to children. I mean, really, only a Stalinist "piece of shit" could think something so vile, so base, so hellish. So I wonder, what's your version of childbirth...storks with baskets? :lol:
And your the one who slanders communism if you think that the Soviet Union had anything to do with it. A bullet in your face would solve it, IMO.A bullet wouldn't teach you the first thing about Marxism, which is precisely what we need here. Keep up the temper tantrum, you're just beginning to entertain. :laugh:
Palingenisis
6th June 2010, 19:26
Who said anything about their "prime role"? No one, you're making things up again. Women were honored for a wide host of things in the Soviet Union, including valor in combat (check the White Lily of Stalingrad if you don't believe me); why shouldn't motherhood be part of that?
And yeah, it's so terrible to think that women give birth to children. I mean, really, only a Stalinist "piece of shit" could think something so vile, so base, so hellish. So I wonder, what's your version of childbirth...storks with baskets? :lol:
Exactly, well put mo chara.
This aversion to motherhood is typical of a class that realises it has no real future. The denigration of motherhood by many of our post-modern nihilists is on a par with those religious fanatics who would reduce women primarily to being mothers as opposed to full persons in their own right.
Robocommie
6th June 2010, 22:19
Here we go!
Seriously, though, why can't those of us who want to bang everything with a pulse coexist with those who want to bind themselves to one person, or vice versa? I really don't see where this conflict stems from.
I don't either, frankly. I find the idea that you'd have to be a swinger incapable of jealousy to be a true Marxist to be absurd, but I also think it's absurd to suggest a true Marxist is a strict monogamist. It should be people's choice.
Some comrades need to:
(a) get laid;
(b) smoke some dope;
(c) down some brewskies;
(d) listen to some good, hot music and shake their booties;
(e) all of the above.
:D
RED DAVE
This. Also agree with Marsella.
That said, I've learned to stay the fuck out of these discussions.
Crusade
7th June 2010, 12:05
You really can't say that "educating young girls" on pregnancy and sexual contraceptives and the like are gonna prevent teen pregnancy. It helps in some cases, but ultimately that's not the problem. Me and my girl have had so many pregnancy scares it's ridiculous. Luckily she hasn't been pregnant any of those times, but NOTHING changed after those scares. NOTHING. We continued doing the pull out technique and we still do it sometimes even if we know the ins and outs about pregnancy. She doesn't like the pill because it makes her stomach feel weird and she doesn't like her menstrual cycle going off schedule. She doesn't like me wearing condoms because SHE likes to "feel it". It's not that we're unaware, it's just that we're idiots and completely irresponsible. We know what we're doing, but we're idiots. That won't be helped by educating us until we bump our heads on something else, but like it wouldn't hurt to teach people so why not.
I don't consider monogamy to be "bondage". The same way I don't consider having a "best" friend to be bondage. I prefer having sex with my girlfriend and that's it. I prefer telling her things that I don't want to tell anyone else. I want to raise a kid with HER. And when I have a kid I want me and her to raise it. Not a "community", not some fucking other guy. I don't want my son or daughter calling any other guy papa or daddy except me. I don't care how old fashioned this makes me, it's just how I feel. Everyone else can do what they want, but I prefer it this way. Also, most interactions I see with people I know today are entirely sexual. And that's not in that liberating "look how far we've come" way. It's in a way that has every single guy approaching every girl asking if they smoke weed and what do they drink. They want to get them drunk or high so they can fuck them and that's it. That's all they do. They don't want to get to know you or even talk to you, they just want to fuck you. And until they DO fuck you, they're gonna lie to you a whole lot. They're gonna say a lot of bullshit and be completely insincere until they get their goal, which is your vagina or mouth. At least if you're only having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend you can at least safely assume that they're with you for more than that.
And Jesus, don't get me started on the single mothers. It pisses me off having to see a woman, by herself, with 2 kids getting on the bus. Or seeing pregnant women homeless living in their cars. My sister's boyfriend got her pregnant and throughout the ENTIRE pregnancy he made up excuses to be "mad" at her so they weren't together the entire pregnancy. And throughout this period I basically had to do everything he should have been doing. He was out fucking other girls while she was vomiting. OMG guys so liberating look how liberated we are this is awesome. I understand the messages of sexual liberation, but there's 2 sides to it. For every guy trying to dictate that women should cover themselves up, calling them a whore for having sex at all, there's another guy who's cheering on your sexual "liberation" because he (you guessed it) WANTS TO FUCK YOU... and that's it. He wants you to be nothing but a sexual object, while the other guy doesn't want you to be sexual at all. Whether or not you consider that bad or not is up to you, that's up to each individual to decide. But if you want more than that, especially a family, it'd be wise to have that whole monogamy thing in place, imo.
Alright, so I lied - I'm going to make one comment.
Generally, these discussions seem fundamentally to miss the point. Lifestylism has nothing to do with communism. I don't give a shit about the real or pretend sex lives of people posting here because they don't matter. Individuals making personal decisions not to pursue monogamous relationships aren't, by virtue of this, doing something to end the oppression of women, and individuals who are involved in monogamous relationships aren't, by virtue of this, doing something to maintain the oppression of women. Monogamy corresponds to the rise of class society, as the first form of the family to be based on economic conditions. In case you didn't catch that, monogamy is based on economic conditions. Not on human nature. Not on the optimal form of raising healthy, happy children. Not on the sexual preferences of individuals. Not on love. But on economic conditions.
Individuals making personal lifestyle choices isn't going to overthrow capitalism, isn't going to end class society, and therefore, isn't going to do away with monogamy/the oppression of women. So making it into a moral measurement or crusade on an individual level either way is pointless and has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. And while there is no point in calling on individuals to abstain from monogamous relationships within the framework of capitalism, it should be clearly understood that the oppression of women is inextricably tied to monogamy (which is inextricably tied to class society, of which capitalism is the present and final stage), and the impulse to argue otherwise simply betrays complete ignorance of the subject, at best. For those of you who are clueless, read up (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm).
I could go off about the horribly patronizing views in the most recent post in addition to many others in this thread, but I'll spare you all.
Crusade
7th June 2010, 14:47
I could go off about the horribly patronizing views in the most recent post in addition to many others in this thread, but I'll spare you all.
How cute, a threat. Let's hear it. Seriously though, did I hurt your feelings or something? Why would you make a condescending remark about my post?
It wasn't a threat, it was merely an observation. I'm not really interested in getting into it with you, though.
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 15:33
Once a child is old enough to be of use as an exploited labor-power, the best part of his remaining lifetime becomes the collective property of the whole capitalist class.
But until such time, bourgeois morality (along with most "communists" and "anarchists" who are always ready to pledge their allegiance to its holy commandments) preaches that it is the solemn and holy responsibility of one or at most two people to do all the work, lasting about ten to twenty years depending on the prevailing social conditions, of preparing this new wage slave for a life of exploitation.
Universal Struggle
7th June 2010, 15:41
Comrade crusadem my point is, that for many poor people, the shackles of domestic patriachy suck the life out of them.
Economic hardship creates huge misery and in alot of cases, fuels drinking, which in turn fuelsdomestic violence etc.
When we have communsim, monogomy would be good, but until then, it leads to women and men in unhappy marriges/ relationships, often bound to each other because of children or because of patrichal bondage and emnotional or physical domination.
Remember, weon here are all communists/ anarchists, so how we are in relationships is far different than it is with most peoiple who do not understand or care about the patriachal nature of contempery relationshipsin capitalism.
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 15:49
When we have communsim, monogomy would be good
Why? We don't know what personal life will be like in communism. The abundance of goods, and the socialization of "women's work" like child care, cooking and cleaning will certainly remove the remaining economic justification for the bourgeois family.
But I'm willing to bet that interpersonal relationships in communist society won't be to the liking of today's sex police, be they bible-thumpers or wannabe "red guards"!
Universal Struggle
7th June 2010, 16:05
because when we have communism, the economic pressure on monogomous relationships will cease to exist.
Males will have a high enough conciousness to never think of trying to physically or emotionally dominate their partner.
Bourgoeis relationships are just a reflection of bourgeois society, when class contradictions dissapear, patriachal conditions and tensions will also.
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 16:18
because when we have communism, the economic pressure on monogomous relationships will cease to exist.
But those pressures are not just tensions that push people apart. They are just as often compulsions that keep partners unhappily together.
You are beginning from the assumption that the "natural" human sexual relationship is one man and one woman, until death do us part. But every part of that stupid religious myth is deeply hurtful to millions of people.
Why is it assumed that monogamy must result in oppression?
Crusade
7th June 2010, 16:24
Comrade crusadem my point is, that for many poor people, the shackles of domestic patriachy suck the life out of them.
Economic hardship creates huge misery and in alot of cases, fuels drinking, which in turn fuelsdomestic violence etc.
When we have communsim, monogomy would be good, but until then, it leads to women and men in unhappy marriges/ relationships, often bound to each other because of children or because of patrichal bondage and emnotional or physical domination.
Remember, weon here are all communists/ anarchists, so how we are in relationships is far different than it is with most peoiple who do not understand or care about the patriachal nature of contempery relationshipsin capitalism.
Agreed. However, it's more of a case of capitalism straining monogamy relationships than monogamy necessarily pressuring people to stay together. Although I could see that certainly being true in some cases.
Crusade
7th June 2010, 16:25
But those pressures are not just tensions that push people apart. They are just as often compulsions that keep partners unhappily together.
You are beginning from the assumption that the "natural" human sexual relationship is one man and one woman, until death do us part. But every part of that stupid religious myth is deeply hurtful to millions of people.
That's not a religious myth. It's not even exclusively human. Well the "death do you part" stuff is. But sometimes people end up staying together because they want to.
Bad Grrrl Agro
7th June 2010, 16:35
Eh, I think the terms of a relationship should be up to those involved
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 16:35
Why is it assumed that monogamy must result in oppression?
It's not an assumption, it's an observation of the bourgeois family as an institution for the enslavement of women.
Communists are not opposed to any variety of human companionship -- promiscuous, monogamous, homosexual, heterosexual, etc. What we're against is the privileging, and the enforcement via state power or economic compulsion, of any particular kind of relationship.
It's not an assumption, it's an observation of the bourgeois family as an institution for the enslavement of women. A married proletarian woman is no more enslaved than her husband, imo.
Communists are not opposed to any variety of human companionship -- promiscuous, monogamous, homosexual, heterosexual, etc. What we're against is the privileging, and the enforcement via state power or economic compulsion, of any particular kind of relationship.
Well, sure, I'm against that, too. I'm just seeing a lot of hate on the very idea of monogamous relationships.
Universal Struggle
7th June 2010, 16:53
a wife is a slave ofawage slave in many places.
And, i personally do not think monogomy is natural, but i do think it would work as a model for intimate relationships post capitalism.
Remember, we truly are the jacobins of tomorow.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 17:25
Why? We don't know what personal life will be like in communism. The abundance of goods, and the socialization of "women's work" like child care, cooking and cleaning will certainly remove the remaining economic justification for the bourgeois family.
Why the hell will cooking and cleaning be socialized? I don't want to live in a group home. I'd like to cook my own meals and clean my own damn house/apartment, thank you.
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 17:30
Why the hell will cooking and cleaning be socialized? I don't want to live in a group home. I'd like to cook my own meals and clean my own damn house/apartment, thank you.
Because it will be much more efficient. You'll be free to do your own chores the old fashioned way if that's what floats your boat. But you won't be free to make your wife do them!
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 17:36
Because it will be much more efficient. You'll be free to do your own chores the old fashioned way if that's what floats your boat. But you won't be free to make your wife do them!
More efficient? Human beings aren't cogs.
And damnit, I don't want to make my wife do the chores. I'd rather split the chores, like my parents did. You're operating off of an assumption that everyone here who is pro-monogamy has a 1950s view of domestic life - that's completely absurd. That wasn't how I was raised, it's not how I'll do things. My parents both cooked and cleaned, together.
Bad Grrrl Agro
7th June 2010, 17:39
Children of both sexes need parents or, to use a term I can't stand, "role models" of both sexes. RED DAVE
That is soooo fucked up on sooooo many levels.
And damnit, I don't want to make my wife do the chores. I'd rather split the chores, like my parents did. You're operating off of an assumption that everyone here who is pro-monogamy has a 1950s view of domestic life - that's completely absurd. That wasn't how I was raised, it's not how I'll do things. My parents both cooked and cleaned, together.
This. Also, this is basically how most monogamous relationships, at least working-class ones, work these days, in my experience.
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 18:10
More efficient? Human beings aren't cogs.
The material basis of socialism is the increased productivity of labor that shortens the labor time socially necessary for the reproduction of social relations. The point of the revolution is to give working people back the control over more of their lives, and to give the workers democracy, rather than private capital, the control over the surplus product, which will be used to raise even further the productivity of labor, and thereby to further revolutionize those social relations.
You are obviously not a Marxist but a moralizing, bloviating bourgeois Babbit.
And damnit, I don't want to make my wife do the chores. I'd rather split the chores, like my parents did.
Damnit, why should revolutionary proletarian women (and men!) limit our horizons to doing half of the atomized, inefficient, conservatively organized chore-work as it is defined by the bourgeois family institution of today? As I wrote above, if you want to slave away in the kitchen (and your wife wants to "equally" split that drudgery with you), nobody's stopping you. But the revolutionary workers government will seek to bring house-labor out of the dark ages and put it onto a technical and social par with the efficiency of modern industry. Raising domestic labor at least up to the productive level of wage labor will be part of the overall abolition of the wages system!
Bad Grrrl Agro
7th June 2010, 18:10
You really can't say that "educating young girls" on pregnancy and sexual contraceptives and the like are gonna prevent teen pregnancy. It helps in some cases, but ultimately that's not the problem. Me and my girl have had so many pregnancy scares it's ridiculous. Luckily she hasn't been pregnant any of those times, but NOTHING changed after those scares. NOTHING. We continued doing the pull out technique and we still do it sometimes even if we know the ins and outs about pregnancy. She doesn't like the pill because it makes her stomach feel weird and she doesn't like her menstrual cycle going off schedule. She doesn't like me wearing condoms because SHE likes to "feel it". It's not that we're unaware, it's just that we're idiots and completely irresponsible. We know what we're doing, but we're idiots. That won't be helped by educating us until we bump our heads on something else, but like it wouldn't hurt to teach people so why not.
I don't consider monogamy to be "bondage". The same way I don't consider having a "best" friend to be bondage. I prefer having sex with my girlfriend and that's it. I prefer telling her things that I don't want to tell anyone else. I want to raise a kid with HER. And when I have a kid I want me and her to raise it. Not a "community", not some fucking other guy. I don't want my son or daughter calling any other guy papa or daddy except me. I don't care how old fashioned this makes me, it's just how I feel. Everyone else can do what they want, but I prefer it this way. Also, most interactions I see with people I know today are entirely sexual. And that's not in that liberating "look how far we've come" way. It's in a way that has every single guy approaching every girl asking if they smoke weed and what do they drink. They want to get them drunk or high so they can fuck them and that's it. That's all they do. They don't want to get to know you or even talk to you, they just want to fuck you. And until they DO fuck you, they're gonna lie to you a whole lot. They're gonna say a lot of bullshit and be completely insincere until they get their goal, which is your vagina or mouth. At least if you're only having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend you can at least safely assume that they're with you for more than that.
And Jesus, don't get me started on the single mothers. It pisses me off having to see a woman, by herself, with 2 kids getting on the bus. Or seeing pregnant women homeless living in their cars. My sister's boyfriend got her pregnant and throughout the ENTIRE pregnancy he made up excuses to be "mad" at her so they weren't together the entire pregnancy. And throughout this period I basically had to do everything he should have been doing. He was out fucking other girls while she was vomiting. OMG guys so liberating look how liberated we are this is awesome. I understand the messages of sexual liberation, but there's 2 sides to it. For every guy trying to dictate that women should cover themselves up, calling them a whore for having sex at all, there's another guy who's cheering on your sexual "liberation" because he (you guessed it) WANTS TO FUCK YOU... and that's it. He wants you to be nothing but a sexual object, while the other guy doesn't want you to be sexual at all. Whether or not you consider that bad or not is up to you, that's up to each individual to decide. But if you want more than that, especially a family, it'd be wise to have that whole monogamy thing in place, imo.
Your girlfriend is a lucky woman. I see where you come from on this as I want someone who doesn't JUST want to FUCK me BUT actually STICK BY ME. I still say there should be no societal demand to be mono nor to be poly. I think it's to each their own. In my case, I think I want my own. I am just that kind of girl, though somehow I usually make the mistake of welcoming anyone with my legs open. In most cases I just feel presured into it. But I've given up on the idea of my knight in shining armour. He always lets me down in the end.
So I guess there is a tiny monogomous nature inside me.
GreenCommunism
7th June 2010, 18:19
Originally Posted by RED DAVE
Children of both sexes need parents or, to use a term I can't stand, "role models" of both sexes. RED DAVE
That is soooo fucked up on sooooo many levels.
why? i do understand the concern toward same sex adoption. but i do think children need both parents to know how to act with the opposite sex as well as the same sex. this may sound like i am affirming that one should treat them differently but i do think it has something to do with your attitude toward your soul mate or your friends.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 18:25
You are obviously not a Marxist but a moralizing, bloviating bourgeois Babbit.
Alright Fred, I see you are an asshole indeed, so I'll just stop listening to you.
Also, you're apparently a little eccentric, since apparently you think making breakfast on a mass industrialized level is some kind of requirement for socialist revolution. I'm envisioning now, the Moskva Scrambled Eggs Factory no. 45. Remind me never to offer to cook you a salmon steak with lemon pepper, you just might call me a reactionary for it, you weirdo.
The material basis of socialism is the increased productivity of labor that shortens the labor time socially necessary for the reproduction of social relations. The point of the revolution is to give working people back the control over more of their lives, and to give the workers democracy, rather than private capital, the control over the surplus product, which will be used to raise even further the productivity of labor, and thereby to further revolutionize those social relations.
Productivity should be an issue for people when they are at work. In their spare time, productivity stops being something anyone but these individuals should care about. House chores are a social activity, too.
You are obviously not a Marxist but a moralizing, bloviating bourgeois Babbit.
How do I negrep?
Damnit, why should revolutionary proletarian women (and men!) limit our horizons to doing half of the atomized, inefficient, conservatively organized chore-work as it is defined by the bourgeois family institution of today? As I wrote above, if you want to slave away in the kitchen (and your wife wants to "equally" split that drudgery with you), nobody's stopping you. But the revolutionary workers government will seek to bring house-labor out of the dark ages and put it onto a technical and social par with the efficiency of modern industry. Raising domestic labor at least up to the productive level of wage labor will be part of the overall abolition of the wages system!
ALERT CODE 1111000101101. LAUNDRY EFFICIENCY HAS DROPPED BY 2%.
Seriously, though, do you really consider cooking "slaving"?
Nothing Human Is Alien
7th June 2010, 18:36
On the one hand, it's funny how far so many dogmatic leftists are away from the actual people they idolize on questions like these. On the other hand, it's sad how close they are to right-wing bourgeois talking heads.
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 18:37
Alright Fred, I see you are an asshole indeed, so I'll just stop listening to you.
Also, you're apparently a little eccentric, since apparently you think making breakfast on a mass industrialized level is some kind of requirement for socialist revolution. I'm envisioning now, the Moskva Scrambled Eggs Factory no. 45. Remind me never to offer to cook you a salmon steak with lemon pepper, you just might call me a reactionary for it, you weirdo.
If any of fred's comrades in the paedophile "liberation" movement try to get "communal" with any childern I may have than they will get to know the meaning of "Reaction" to the fullest exent, communism or no communism.
And you can call me middle class all you want for that.
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 18:40
Because it will be much more efficient. You'll be free to do your own chores the old fashioned way if that's what floats your boat. But you won't be free to make your wife do them!
No it wont...It would lead to endless fighting...
Comrade one; I want scrambled eggs for breakfast today.
Comrade two; No! We must have cornflakes!
Comrade one; Reactionary individualist bourgious!
GreenCommunism
7th June 2010, 18:42
If any of fred's comrades in the paedophile "liberation" movement try to get "communal" with any childern
... err, what does this have to do with the topic, can you send me fred's post concerning his attitude toward this matter?
Universal Struggle
7th June 2010, 18:42
If any of fred's comrades in the paedophile "liberation" movement try to get "communal" with any childern I may have than they will get to know the meaning of "Reaction" to the fullest exent, communism or no communism.
And you can call me middle class all you want for that.
Middle class! hehe :)
just that kind of girl, though somehow I usually make the mistake of welcoming anyone with my legs open. In most cases I just feel presured into it. But I've given up on the idea of my knight in shining armour. He always lets me down in the end.So I guess there is a tiny monogomous nature inside me. __________________
I am a virtuous knight, the non fuedal maxist kind, do not fear, a man that doth love thy not only body, but in mind and soul is here :)
If any of fred's comrades in the paedophile
wait what
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 18:47
wait what
The whole Spart family believes that if you dont support paedophile "liberation" you are a reactionary. Which just shows you how far people will take things when they are just reacting against "Conservatism" without thinking.
GreenCommunism
7th June 2010, 18:50
The whole Spart family believes that if you dont support paedophile "liberation" you are a reactionary. Which just shows you how far people will take things when they are just reacting against "Conservatism" without thinking.
please give sources.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 18:50
I am a virtuous knight, the non fuedal maxist kind, do not fear, a man that doth love thy not only body, but in mind and soul is here :)
Smooth, player. ;)
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 18:52
please give sources.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/converse.php?u=14286&u2=28160
Its not like they hide the fact.
Universal Struggle
7th June 2010, 18:53
I hate pedophiles, as they pray on the weak etc, but i must say, it is their fault for raping molesting abusing etc, which deserves death, but, it aint their fault they are attracted to kids, how can they help it.
It puzzles me why we outcast men attracted to minors than seek to give them therapy and try and find why certain men/women have such strange attraction to children
GreenCommunism
7th June 2010, 18:58
nothing in what he says is wrong. it is used to persecute homosexuals(in canada anal sex is illegal in regard to those under 18), and it does promote family values. people of similar age are better to create lasting couple such as modern monogamy, though i guess at other times they didn't care about age the reason might be that it was marriage until death. people who have 5 years difference or more don't last together as long as people who have 1-2 years difference, this is a good proof that age difference matters in couple.
the reason why age of consent switched from 13 to 18 was child prostitution. i am not against this, i believe sex with those under 18 is child exploitation, but not pedophilia or rape. also my concern is mostly that not all children develop equally.
this is off-topic though. but notice he didn't say what he think age of consent should be.
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 19:02
No it wont...It would lead to endless fighting...
Comrade one; I want scrambled eggs for breakfast today.
Comrade two; No! We must have cornflakes!
Comrade one; Reactionary individualist bourgious!
Ever heard of restaurants? You can order anything on the menu. But because of economies of scale and industrial technique, it still requires much less labor to feed 100 restaurant guests than for 100 wives to cook in 100 kitchens.
Under socialism, restaurants won't just be for the bourgeoisie and upper middle class.
Such things were briefly established, for example, in Barcelona during the Spanish Revolution.
fredbergen
7th June 2010, 19:08
Communists oppose all age of consent laws and say that no state, be it a bourgeois state or a workers state, should criminalize sexual relations that are based on the effective consent of those involved. Communists defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), against the vicious slanders and attacks it receives, not only from outright reactionaries but from most of the "left" and the official bourgeois "gay rights" movement, simply for courageously standing on this basic democratic principle.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 19:11
Communists oppose all age of consent laws and say that no state, be it a bourgeois state or a workers state, should criminalize sexual relations that are based on the effective consent of those involved. Communists defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), against the vicious slanders and attacks it receives, not only from outright reactionaries but from most of the "left" and the official bourgeois "gay rights" movement, simply for courageously standing on this basic democratic principle.
Amazing. Well to quote the man himself, "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 19:15
Amazing. Well to quote the man himself, "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist."
This is about looney ultra-leftism trolling the left and living far to much in its own head as opposed to "Marxism" as such.
GreenCommunism
7th June 2010, 19:20
............
Communists oppose all age of consent laws and say that no state, be it a bourgeois state or a workers state, should criminalize sexual relations that are based on the effective consent of those involved. Communists defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), against the vicious slanders and attacks it receives, not only from outright reactionaries but from most of the "left" and the official bourgeois "gay rights" movement, simply for courageously standing on this basic democratic principle.
does nambla think sex with kids before pubescent is okay? we should make another topic about this or go into private message.
also i think alot of communist disagree with you.
Originally Posted by Obsmagon
A married proletarian woman is no more enslaved than her husband, imo.
Originally Posted by Obsmagon
Also, this is basically how most monogamous relationships, at least working-class ones, work these days, in my experience.In that case, you're experience has been remarkably atypical:
Originally Posted by National Science Foundation (http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=111458)
Husbands create an extra seven hours a week of housework for wives, according to a new study. But wives save husbands from about an hour of housework a week.
Based on 2005 data, which have been compared to those from national time diaries, the research shows women, of all ages with no children, on average do 10 hours of housework a week before marriage and 17 hours of housework a week after marriage. Men of all ages with no children, on the other hand, do eight hours before marriage and seven hours afterwards.
"The situation gets worse for women when they have children," says Stafford.
Married women with more than three kids recorded an average of about 28 hours of housework a week, while married men with more than three kids logged only about 10 hours of housework a week.
According to the study, housework was defined as "core chores," or routine housework that people generally do not enjoy doing such as washing dishes, laundry, vacuuming floors and dusting.And this on top of the fact that in the US, for example (though, notwithstanding some exceptions, it is much worse throughout the world), women on average earn around 75 cents for every dollar their male counterparts make (and iirc, it is actually closer to 55 cents for women of color). Further, following a divorce, women's average standard of living drops nearly 30%, whereas men's rises 10%.
So this idea that the division of domestic labor between men and women is in any way equal, or that women are not oppressed as women (with monogamy at the heart of it), is really pure fantasy.
Also, how about people grow the fuck up and keep the "pedophilia" bullshit out of this thread. What a fucking sausagefest this place is.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 19:28
Also, how about people grow the fuck up and keep the "pedophilia" bullshit out of this thread. What a fucking sausagefest this place is.
You tell us to grow up and then sling around language like sausagefest? Christ, Api.
^Yes, but the "pedophilia" comment was dishonest. Unfortunately, "sausagefest" is a very apt description of revleft.
GreenCommunism
7th June 2010, 19:31
Also, how about people grow the fuck up and keep the "pedophilia" bullshit out of this thread. What a fucking sausagefest this place is.
agree, sorry for biting the bait.
how are those numbers taken. i have a hard time imagining how reliable may be if those numbers are taken from woman stating how much hours they work or so, then again i doubt they would lie that much so there is of course alot of truth in those statistics. i do think that some people live in the 1950s, and when i think of my parents my mother was pretty much doing most of the housework.
and are you talking about woman who do the same job as mens? i think some reason behind the fact that woman do not have as much money as mens is taht sometime especially in small businesses, people get raises because they say that the men has a family to take care of, it is traditional to reward his hard work first. but when it comes to woman, they might be single mothers but this sort of thinking doesn't happen.
Communists oppose all age of consent laws and say that no state, be it a bourgeois state or a workers state, should criminalize sexual relations that are based on the effective consent of those involved. Communists defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), against the vicious slanders and attacks it receives, not only from outright reactionaries but from most of the "left" and the official bourgeois "gay rights" movement, simply for courageously standing on this basic democratic principle.
You're fucking disgusting. Since I can't knock you out and dump you in the corner, I'm just going to ignore you, you prick.
In that case, you're experience has been remarkably atypical:
Huh, I guess it has. Well, I'm not gonna argue with empirical evidence, but I will defend that there's no reason a monogamous relationship can't be equal.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 19:35
^Yes, but the "pedophilia" comment was dishonest. Unfortunately, "sausagefest" is a very apt description of revleft.
Ironically, Palingenesis, the poster who mentioned that Fredbergen was apparently a supporter of NAMBLA, is a woman.
And who's fault is it that there's more men here than women? Yours? Mine? Anybody's? Not that I see.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 19:36
Huh, I guess it has. Well, I'm not gonna argue with empirical evidence, but I will defend that there's no reason a monogamous relationship can't be equal.
There's a need for feminism still, but that doesn't mean that being in a couple is something that's in opposition to feminism.
Universal Struggle
7th June 2010, 19:41
Palegenisis denounced NAMBLA, that sick fuck fredbergen who i would not mind running over with my forklift advocated pedophillia.
Your no marxist you perverted piece of shit
GTFO RL
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 19:43
Also, how about people grow the fuck up and keep the "pedophilia" bullshit out of this thread. What a fucking sausagefest this place is.
No it illustrates how far people will go when they are living in their own head and merely reacting against "Conservatism" or restraint without thinking things through fully....There are far to many people on the left who havent gotten over the teenage rebellion stage of their development.
GreenCommunism
7th June 2010, 19:54
No it illustrates how far people will go when they are living in their own head and merely reacting against "Conservatism" or restraint without thinking things through fully....There are far to many people on the left who havent gotten over the teenage rebellion stage of their development.
i don't think you have gotten over that if you resort to attacking his credibility like that instead of debating his idea.
No it illustrates how far people will go when they are living in their own head and merely reacting against "Conservatism" or restraint without thinking things through fully....There are far to many people on the left who havent gotten over the teenage rebellion stage of their development.
Cool, so I've taken my arguments from Marx and Engels (who were just reacting against "conservatism" and restraint, no doubt), whereas you are apparently incapable of actually formulating an argument* so you instead find an easy distraction and make ambiguous references to "capitalist decadence" and "teenage rebellion". I see.
*with the exception of this gem:
Welcome to the left.
Care for a Motherhood Medal?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Motherhood_Medal2.JPG
All you have to do is pop out 6 kids for the Nation.
I find your mockery of women who raised strong sons and daughters up to defend their socialist motherland to ward off Imperialism and defeat fascism highly offensive.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 21:15
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2767r_biz-markie-just-a-friend_music
"I asked her her name she said 'Blah blah blah'."
You win the thread.
gorillafuck
7th June 2010, 21:31
If you want to be monogamous then that's what you should do. If you want to be promiscuous then that's what you should do. Saying that promiscuity or casual sex is for some reason bad is a basically puritan view that makes no sense at all and sounds like something I'd expect the Catholic church to be telling me, but it's absurd to think that once capitalism is gone everyone will be fucking everyone and there will be no relationships between two people.
Robocommie
7th June 2010, 21:49
I actually find it funny that I'm on the side of the argument that I am because I'm been involved with kink and with swingers. I've just never felt a compulsion to identify sexual activity or people's relationships as being something socialism should even address - and frankly I think Marxists, even people I otherwise respect or admire, can be prone to insufferable overanalysis - though I'm not trying to call anyone out by saying that.
Red Conall
7th June 2010, 22:48
When I see supposed Socialists writing things like that I really do despair....Dont we stand for discipline, overcoming, heroism and sacrafice as opposed to the degenerate and degenerating values of a capitalist individualism that seeks its own comfort and pleasure at all costs?
You might, we certainly don't. To me the science of the emancipation of humanity, Marxism, is ultimately about individual liberty and building a society where such an ideal can actually function. As Marx said the one thing he detested most was servility. The discipline, heroism and sacrifice you speak of belong to the revolutionary struggle that will lead to a society that is based upon the free association of free peoples:
"To make the individual sacred we must destroy the social order which crucifies him. And this problem can only be solved by blood and iron." ~ Leon Trotsky
The promotion of sexual liberation is integral to a truly revolutionary perspective and I just cannot fathom why you would buy into this outdated and puritanical feminism comrade. :(
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 22:58
Trotsky pulled a tantrum when the the Communist Party of the Soviet Union didnt give him what he wanted and went on to work with Fascism and Imperialism in a huff aswell as founding an annoying parasite on the movement of working and oppressed people of the world that continues to troll the Revolutionary Communist movement to this day feeding off its base in the Labour aristocracy and students looking to shock mummy and daddy...What has he got to do with anything serious?
Palingenisis
7th June 2010, 23:01
. The discipline, heroism and sacrifice you speak of belong to the revolutionary struggle that will lead to a society that is based upon the free association of free peoples:
Discipline, herosim and sacrafice will always in one form or another be necessary to achieve anything of worth...The destruction of the fetters of capitalism is the start and not the end of human striving.
Red Conall
7th June 2010, 23:12
Trotsky pulled a tantrum when the the Communist Party of the Soviet Union didnt give him what he wanted and went on to work with Fascism and Imperialism in a huff aswell as founding an annoying parasite on the movement of working and oppressed people of the world that continues to troll the Revolutionary Communist movement to this day feeding off its base in the Labour aristocracy and students looking to shock mummy and daddy...What has he got to do with anything serious?
While I object to your attempt to drag Trotsky's name through the dirt I doubt an in depth response to your ignorance or deliberate deceitfulness (or both) is really worth my time. Headbanger Stalinist/Maoist-types, such as yourself, tend to make a habit of ignoring matters of historical fact and reality in general.
Universal Struggle
7th June 2010, 23:25
Trotsky pulled a tantrum when the the Communist Party of the Soviet Union didnt give him what he wanted and went on to work with Fascism and Imperialism in a huff aswell as founding an annoying parasite on the movement of working and oppressed people of the world that continues to troll the Revolutionary Communist movement to this day feeding off its base in the Labour aristocracy and students looking to shock mummy and daddy...What has he got to do with anything serious?
Comrade, youseem to have a stupid angst against middle class comrades.
I am working class, but the guy who taught me most about communism says he is from a petit bourgoeis family, does that make him less revolutionary.
Was che, or Engels?
Alot of middle class peopleare poorer than workers, they also end up working many more hours if they run small buisnesses.
Also, the middle class are the ones who provided food for the breakfast for school programme everyday, from their small shops.
Nothing Human Is Alien
8th June 2010, 00:57
Comrade, youseem to have a stupid angst against middle class comrades.
I am working class, but the guy who taught me most about communism says he is from a petit bourgoeis family, does that make him less revolutionary.
Was che, or Engels?
Alot of middle class peopleare poorer than workers, they also end up working many more hours if they run small buisnesses.
Also, the middle class are the ones who provided food for the breakfast for school programme everyday, from their small shops.
We just went over this exact topic, starting here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rcp-hold-web-t136536/index3.html) and continuing until the end of the thread.
chegitz guevara
8th June 2010, 14:10
A married proletarian woman is no more enslaved than her husband, imo.
That's a fairly ignorant statement.
Well, sure, I'm against that, too. I'm just seeing a lot of hate on the very idea of monogamous relationships.
No you're not. You're seeing hate against enforced monogamous relationships and the idea that respectful monogamous relationships are the only way human sexual relations should be engaged.
chegitz guevara
8th June 2010, 14:13
Seriously, though, do you really consider cooking "slaving"?
I do after working all day.
GreenCommunism
8th June 2010, 22:31
i think human is monogamous by nature but with some flexibility.
i think human is monogamous by nature but with some flexibility.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm
Raúl Duke
8th June 2010, 23:32
free love is not about hedonism, it's just a principle that many types of relationships (monogamy, polyamory, straight, gay, bisexual, un-married couples, etc) are valid and that love should not be restricted to just one definition (i.e. monogamous straight married couples). I've only be seeing people throw around assumptions, mostly statements of their opinion ("I do not like..."), as fact/universal.
This out-right assumption particularly stood out...
Children of both sexes need parents or, to use a term I can't stand, "role models" of both sexes. An article was recently published that said children of lesbian couples were more "well-adjusted" than their usual father-mother raised peers.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/07/lesbian.children.adjustment/index.html
In other words, your saying that is just pushing a possibly discredited heterosexist assumption as truth (a few more studies and we may find out if that assumption is false, this study only hints that it's possibly false), I say assumption because it was said without looking at current facts nor evidence.
Raúl Duke
8th June 2010, 23:35
Alot of middle class peopleare poorer than workers, they also end up working many more hours if they run small buisnesses.
Also, the middle class are the ones who provided food for the breakfast for school programme everyday, from their small shops.
You mean petit-bourgeois..."middle class" is a non-marxist contemporary economic term and they are usually not poorer than most other workers. Even than, most actual petit-bourgeois are not poorer than most workers.
Crusade
9th June 2010, 00:05
That's a fairly ignorant statement.
Why is it?
NGNM85
9th June 2010, 04:59
This 'smash monogamy' crap is total bullshit.
piet11111
9th June 2010, 05:44
i think human is monogamous by nature but with some flexibility.
Actually no we are not its the reason why for instance ovulation is not signaled with clear signs (like with baboons having their buts swelling up and turning bright right glad this does not happen to women :blink:) but hidden.
I have to go to work right now but i will look for some more info about this but if you google for hidden ovulation you should find enough on your own.
Bad Grrrl Agro
9th June 2010, 08:19
I am a virtuous knight, the non fuedal maxist kind, do not fear, a man that doth love thy not only body, but in mind and soul is here :)
That statement is absolutely adorable! :o I'm blushing.
Originally Posted by Crusade
You really can't say that "educating young girls" on pregnancy and sexual contraceptives and the like are gonna prevent teen pregnancy. It helps in some cases, but ultimately that's not the problem. Me and my girl have had so many pregnancy scares it's ridiculous. Luckily she hasn't been pregnant any of those times, but NOTHING changed after those scares. NOTHING. We continued doing the pull out technique and we still do it sometimes even if we know the ins and outs about pregnancy. She doesn't like the pill because it makes her stomach feel weird and she doesn't like her menstrual cycle going off schedule. She doesn't like me wearing condoms because SHE likes to "feel it". It's not that we're unaware, it's just that we're idiots and completely irresponsible. We know what we're doing, but we're idiots. That won't be helped by educating us until we bump our heads on something else, but like it wouldn't hurt to teach people so why not.
I don't consider monogamy to be "bondage". The same way I don't consider having a "best" friend to be bondage. I prefer having sex with my girlfriend and that's it. I prefer telling her things that I don't want to tell anyone else. I want to raise a kid with HER. And when I have a kid I want me and her to raise it. Not a "community", not some fucking other guy. I don't want my son or daughter calling any other guy papa or daddy except me. I don't care how old fashioned this makes me, it's just how I feel. Everyone else can do what they want, but I prefer it this way. Also, most interactions I see with people I know today are entirely sexual. And that's not in that liberating "look how far we've come" way. It's in a way that has every single guy approaching every girl asking if they smoke weed and what do they drink. They want to get them drunk or high so they can fuck them and that's it. That's all they do. They don't want to get to know you or even talk to you, they just want to fuck you. And until they DO fuck you, they're gonna lie to you a whole lot. They're gonna say a lot of bullshit and be completely insincere until they get their goal, which is your vagina or mouth. At least if you're only having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend you can at least safely assume that they're with you for more than that.
And Jesus, don't get me started on the single mothers. It pisses me off having to see a woman, by herself, with 2 kids getting on the bus. Or seeing pregnant women homeless living in their cars. My sister's boyfriend got her pregnant and throughout the ENTIRE pregnancy he made up excuses to be "mad" at her so they weren't together the entire pregnancy. And throughout this period I basically had to do everything he should have been doing. He was out fucking other girls while she was vomiting. OMG guys so liberating look how liberated we are this is awesome. I understand the messages of sexual liberation, but there's 2 sides to it. For every guy trying to dictate that women should cover themselves up, calling them a whore for having sex at all, there's another guy who's cheering on your sexual "liberation" because he (you guessed it) WANTS TO FUCK YOU... and that's it. He wants you to be nothing but a sexual object, while the other guy doesn't want you to be sexual at all. Whether or not you consider that bad or not is up to you, that's up to each individual to decide. But if you want more than that, especially a family, it'd be wise to have that whole monogamy thing in place, imo.Your girlfriend is a lucky woman.
......................:blink:
[ Originally Posted by Universal Struggle
I am a virtuous knight, the non fuedal maxist kind, do not fear, a man that doth love thy not only body, but in mind and soul is here :)That statement is absolutely adorable! :o I'm blushing.
......................:blink:
Universal Struggle
9th June 2010, 13:37
That statement is absolutely adorable! :o I'm blushing.
Me knows :)
They love me down at Hallmark hehe
I do after working all day.
Fair.
That's a fairly ignorant statement.
I'm sorry I'm such a disappointment. Could you educate me, perhaps, then? What part of a marriage indicates that the woman MUST be enslaved?
No you're not. You're seeing hate against enforced monogamous relationships and the idea that respectful monogamous relationships are the only way human sexual relations should be engaged.
I was seeing it from Fred. And you just implied in that same post that married women necessarily are more enslaved than their husbands. So obviously there must be some huge problem with monogamy in and of itself that I'm not understanding.
Bad Grrrl Agro
9th June 2010, 15:40
Me knows :)
They love me down at Hallmark hehe
They love me out at the gulags jaja
Edit: Sorry, I just had to say it!
Nothing Human Is Alien
9th June 2010, 18:52
"In February 1874, a writer for the Boston Evening Transcript distinguished between the two types of workers in a description of German immigrants. Some, he recorded, were 'solid, honest, thrifty, taking an adieu of their country, in company with their wives and children, as industrious as themselves.' The others were caricatures of the disaffected worker that revealed just how profoundly this sort of individual threatened American life. They were 'of less inviting appearance,' 'wifeless and childless,' socialists who were discussed 'strange theories of government' and who denied the very basis of civilization by 'arguing that the relation of husband and wife is but an 'historic product,' . . . 'that the woman who freely gives her love to any man is not a prostitute but the woman of the future.'" - Richardson, Heather Cox. The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor and Politics in the post-Civil War North, 1865-1901. pp. 114
[Some socialists are against monogamy.]
Glad you could clear that up.
Nothing Human Is Alien
9th June 2010, 22:21
An astute observation as always... and one of your quality straw men to go with it! :lol:
The point was that the criticisms of many of our leftist defenders of family values here make today are eerily similar to those that the bourgeoisie has been making for a century and a half.
When you find yourself virulently defending what the bourgeoisie calls 'the very basis of civilization' you may want to take some time to consider your positions.
Jazzratt
9th June 2010, 22:32
This 'smash monogamy' crap is total bullshit.
Well, I can see you really thought that post through.
Glad you could clear that up.
It's a bit more complex than "some socialists" opposing monogomy. If the reaction of bourgeois society to people who have the temerity to abandon traditional roles and monogomy doesn't tell you something of the nature of "family values" I really don't know what will...
An astute observation as always... and one of your quality straw men to go with it! :lol:
The point was that the criticisms of many of our leftist defenders of family values here make today are eerily similar to those that the bourgeoisie has been making for a century and a half.
When you find yourself virulently defending what the bourgeoisie calls 'the very basis of civilization' you may want to take some time to consider your positions.
Fair enough, I misunderstood the point of your post. In my defence, you do little to elaborate on what you're trying to say when all you post is a quote.
And the difference between my stance and the stance of the bourgeois cultural hegemony is that I have no problem with promiscuity; I'd be a hypocrite if I did. All I'm saying is that socialism has no place telling people what to do with how many people in their spare time.
My argument is just that frankly, we shouldn't give a shit.
NGNM85
9th June 2010, 23:07
Well, I can see you really thought that post through.
I just thought I'd give you the condensed version. Where to begin? First of all, monogamy does not necessarily equal marriage, which, incidentally, is not necessarily a religious act, nor is it necessarily inherently patriarchal. Sleeping around, or having threesomes, or whatever, does not make you a radical, or revolutionary, although it might make you a hedonist. In the past the opposition to monogamy has been anything but helpful to women, essentially it was just an excuse for their boyfriends to sleep with lots of other women. I doubt many women found this especially liberating. If you and you’re partner are both adults and both of you want to have sex with other people, that’s fine, similarly if you’re a single person and you want to play the field, although I don’t think anyone ever said otherwise, but don’t pretend it has some kind of deeper significance, or that you’re undermining the state, or something. In short, I stand by my original conclusion.
Sleeping around, or having threesomes, or whatever, does not make you a radical, or revolutionary, although it might make you a hedonist.
Shit, my threesomes are pretty radical, just not politically.
Jazzratt
9th June 2010, 23:26
I just thought I'd give you the condensed version.
That's not really how discussion forums work. Making condensed versions of posts isn't really conduicive to the "discussion" aspect. For example if I wanted to take a leaf out of your book I could just condense my reply into "fuck you".
Where to begin? First of all, monogamy does not necessarily equal marriage, which, incidentally, is not necessarily a religious act, nor is it necessarily inherently patriarchal.
Monogomy as it stands relies heavily on gender roles and certainly most current monogomous relationship are stained with patriachal undertones.
Sleeping around, or having threesomes, or whatever, does not make you a radical, or revolutionary, although it might make you a hedonist.
You're a fuckwit if you honestly believe that opposition to monogomy boils down to simply having threesomes and sleeping around. While it's true that opposition doesn't make you a revolutionary per se it is still something that revolutionaries should engage in.
In the past the opposition to monogamy has been anything but helpful to women, essentially it was just an excuse for their boyfriends to sleep with lots of other women.
This is the strawman that has been wheeled out time after time, yes. It also seems to be one wheeled out exclusively by the members of the pro-monogomy clergy who have never actually met anyone in a non-monogomous relationship.
I doubt many women found this especially liberating.
Based on what? Your own gut feelings and desperate clinging to the old order?
If you and you’re partner are both adults and both of you want to have sex with other people, that’s fine, similarly if you’re a single person and you want to play the field, although I don’t think anyone ever said otherwise, but don’t pretend it has some kind of deeper significance, or that you’re undermining the state, or something. In short, I stand by my original conclusion.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's quite difficult to argue with someone who equates a principled opposition to a backward social practice with someone who wants to "play the field". It's a little annoying, too, to see that all your views amount to is exactly the same arse-dribble that the rest of the twatterati in this thread have already been castigated for: I was hoping for fresh insight.
fredbergen
9th June 2010, 23:32
Some people here are apparently incapable of seriously discussing politics, particularly the "woman question." They see every argument that has seriously been attempted in this thread as 1. a personal affront or 2. an excuse for them to make silly jokes "to impress the ladies." Discussions of the prevailing ideology, which is enforced on those women, homosexuals, and others who do not fit into its wedding-gown (or burqa) with ferocious brutality, are treated as denials of the mere possibility of the existence of reasonably happy, monogamous hetero relationships.
I think that this is because for most posters here, their "radicalism" is skin-deep. So they are rather obsessed, shall we say, with skin, and ignorant of the social forms, the laws, the conventions, the everyday violence that regulates the skin.
Robocommie
9th June 2010, 23:40
The point was that the criticisms of many of our leftist defenders of family values here make today are eerily similar to those that the bourgeoisie has been making for a century and a half.
That's ridiculous. Just because the bourgeoisie like something or promote it doesn't mean it's inherently reactionary. There's a lot of proletarians who feel the same way. Your argument is guilt by association.
That's not really how discussion forums work. Making condensed versions of posts isn't really conduicive to the "discussion" aspect. For example if I wanted to take a leaf out of your book I could just condense my reply into "fuck you".
That's not nice.
Monogomy as it stands relies heavily on gender roles and certainly most current monogomous relationship are stained with patriachal undertones.
Key words being "as it stands" - no-one is arguing that monogamy is not often patriarchal in nature. I'm opposed to any cultural aspect that's discriminatory in nature, I just don't see how limiting oneself to one partner is necessarily so. Socialism will change the entire order of society, so why can't it possibly change the nature of the monogamous relationship itself?
You're a fuckwit if you honestly believe that opposition to monogomy boils down to simply having threesomes and sleeping around. While it's true that opposition doesn't make you a revolutionary per se it is still something that revolutionaries should engage in.
Pardon me, but who are you, exactly, to tell people what they should or should not engage in?
This is the strawman that has been wheeled out time after time, yes. It also seems to be one wheeled out exclusively by the members of the pro-monogomy clergy who have never actually met anyone in a non-monogomous relationship.
No argument there.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's quite difficult to argue with someone who equates a principled opposition to a backward social practice with someone who wants to "play the field". It's a little annoying, too, to see that all your views amount to is exactly the same arse-dribble that the rest of the twatterati in this thread have already been castigated for: I was hoping for fresh insight.
I GET SO ANGRY WHEN PEOPLE MAKE DIFFERENT LIFESTYLE CHOICES THAN ME.
That's ridiculous. Just because the bourgeoisie like something or promote it doesn't mean it's inherently reactionary. There's a lot of proletarians who feel the same way. Your argument is guilt by association.
You know who else liked monogamy?
HITLER.
Universal Struggle
10th June 2010, 00:02
You know who else liked monogamy?
HITLER.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Awesome....just freakin awesome!!
Palingenisis
10th June 2010, 02:02
HITLER.
But he didnt...Hitler encouraged "free love" among the "racially pure".
Raúl Duke
10th June 2010, 02:05
But he didnt...Hitler encouraged "free love" among the "racially pure".
source?
Just like the USSR during Stalin's time, Nazi Germany gave mother-hood awards. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honor_of_the_German_Mother)
source?
Just like the USSR during Stalin's time, Nazi Germany gave mother-hood awards. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Honor_of_the_German_Mother)
Which the recipient was notably stripped of in the case of marital infidelity. But it doesn't matter, because I was making a fucking joke. I didn't meant to start discussing Hitler.
But he didnt...Hitler encouraged "free love" among the "racially pure".
No, he didn't. But obviously the only way you can argue is by lying. In reality, German women of "pure blood" under the Nazis were to be married at a young age and were to spend their days at home, raising children and caring for their husbands. It was perfect monogamy. Congrats on yet another dishonest post.
Robocommie
10th June 2010, 03:49
Found this in my "Latest Reputation Received" just a bit ago, care of fredbergen. Neg-repped. :lol:
"You are a pusillanimous, whining Babbit who cringes before the bourgeoisie's fake god."
Well, whatever character flaws I may have Freddie, at least I don't consider NAMBLA to be a socialist cause. Because while it's certainly true that marriage is a social construct, at least I'm not advocating for the right to fuck kids.
I don't know if it's pusillanimous of me to say this, but you should note, the next time you accuse someone of "moralizing" just keep in mind how incredibly full of bravado and macho bullshit language like "pusillanimous" and "whining" is, fucking tough guy.
Seriously, Freddie. God-damn kids.
Yeah, Freddie negrepped everyone who disagreed with him. He was less original with me,though. I just got "You're a moron." I guess I can live with that.
Robocommie
10th June 2010, 04:04
Yeah, Freddie negrepped everyone who disagreed with him. He was less original with me,though. I just got "You're a moron." I guess I can live with that.
Keep trying man, maybe you can work your way up to "sanctimonious" or even "carbuncular"!
Robocommie
10th June 2010, 04:05
No, he didn't. But obviously the only way you can argue is by lying. In reality, German women of "pure blood" under the Nazis were to be married at a young age and were to spend their days at home, raising children and caring for their husbands. It was perfect monogamy. Congrats on yet another dishonest post.
I actually have to agree, here. The Nazis were unbelievably socially conservative. Well, maybe not unbelievably.
Bad Grrrl Agro
10th June 2010, 04:08
The point was that the criticisms of many of our leftist defenders of family values here make today are eerily similar to those that the bourgeoisie has been making for a century and a half.
I am not against monogomy just the expectation of monogomy on a societal level.
Yazman
10th June 2010, 04:09
If other people want to be polygamous or other I don't mind (they should be allowed to), but I really don't think my own relationship choices are anybody's business but my own.
GreenCommunism
10th June 2010, 06:15
But he didnt...Hitler encouraged "free love" among the "racially pure".
such an idea was considered with the ss. that is not only the racially pure but the cream of the cream of the german people. such idea was considered but never put in place because of the sanctity of marriage and the strong influence of the christian church.
Found this in my "Latest Reputation Received" just a bit ago, care of fredbergen. Neg-repped.
"You are a pusillanimous, whining Babbit who cringes before the bourgeoisie's fake god."
Well, whatever character flaws I may have Freddie, at least I don't consider NAMBLA to be a socialist cause. Because while it's certainly true that marriage is a social construct, at least I'm not advocating for the right to fuck kids.
I don't know if it's pusillanimous of me to say this, but you should note, the next time you accuse someone of "moralizing" just keep in mind how incredibly full of bravado and macho bullshit language like "pusillanimous" and "whining" is, fucking tough guy.
Seriously, Freddie. God-damn kids.
i seriously got pissed off at fredbergen but please, stop bringing up that shit, i wanted to negrep you but then i realized you were pissed because he negrepped you.
Robocommie
10th June 2010, 06:22
i seriously got pissed off at fredbergen but please, stop bringing up that shit, i wanted to negrep you but then i realized you were pissed because he negrepped you.
Well I'm not saying anything he didn't say. But alright.
Barry Lyndon
10th June 2010, 06:45
Found this in my "Latest Reputation Received" just a bit ago, care of fredbergen. Neg-repped. :lol:
"You are a pusillanimous, whining Babbit who cringes before the bourgeoisie's fake god."
Well, whatever character flaws I may have Freddie, at least I don't consider NAMBLA to be a socialist cause. Because while it's certainly true that marriage is a social construct, at least I'm not advocating for the right to fuck kids.
I don't know if it's pusillanimous of me to say this, but you should note, the next time you accuse someone of "moralizing" just keep in mind how incredibly full of bravado and macho bullshit language like "pusillanimous" and "whining" is, fucking tough guy.
Seriously, Freddie. God-damn kids.
Fredbergen is probably a pedophile himself. Seriously, I can't see any other reason why you would consider defending NAMBLA a worthwhile cause.
On a somewhat more political note, a major reason why age of consent laws were passed to begin with was not because of 'bourgeois morality', but because of decades of working class struggle for such laws. Why? In 19th century America and England, children were repeatedly sexually abused and raped by their adult overseers in factories and mills, and in Third World sweatshops such horrors continue to this day.
proudcomrade
10th June 2010, 06:54
As an aside, I found the sight of that Motherhood Medal to be very moving- the gesture was a resounding "No!" toward cap society's constant degradation of women's work. To award the mother on par with the artist, the athletic champion, the diplomat or the scientist, is by no means retrograde or reactionary; quite the opposite. The mothers of the USSR were every bit the dignified full comrades of any engineer working in the space program or dancer touring the globe with the state ballet. To those who find the medal an object of mockery, perhaps you might wish to consider examining your cynicism.
Re: the main topic- no strong opinion on the subject either way, thus, not much to add that has not already been covered.
peaccenicked
10th June 2010, 07:43
This is the first time, I have a read a thread here for a long while. I find it a little vapid.
I read "Marx, Engels, and Lenin on love". It was a pamphlet produced by one of the left group or perhaps the USSR, I cant remember. They were not all that interesting to me at the time. Lenin was perhaps the most intriquing he arqued against things like parental approval, in general he thought that love should be free from prejudice. I think he saw sex without love as petty bourgeois. I also found it strange he found love to be a womens issue. It says a lot about the times he lived in. His correspondence with his wife and leading female revolutionaries is a fairly good read, if just for historic value, there is much sense in his approach.
Personally. I favour those who have advocated a non-interference approach, which can only be discarded when abuse occurs or is felt. How we draw the boundary lines is a democratic concern. If we get to a place where we need to dicuss working class self government, there might be endless debate on the matter. The main thing we should look for is self rule. Of course what type of self rule is important. Our goal is to achieve a standard of education and culture that eats away at rules, because we practice respect over criminality. In the mean time we ought to reduce rules, and share what we percieve as wisdom gleamed from experience in order to reduce pain, in things like abortion, divorce, loss of children etc. Issues of heartache, counselling, mental illness, disability etc are really complex but in general we need a safety net, against the dysfuntion of imperialist/racist/sexist/ society and the problems and dysfunctions we inherit from it without stigma . Life under both capitalism and socialism entails finding a balance between protecting rights and allowing people just to be themselves without harassment. I think it is really that simple.:thumbup1:
Glenn Beck
10th June 2010, 23:35
Monogamous bondage... monogamy and bondage are both a little quaint. The real fun starts when you start daisy chaining people like the Human Centipede (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX8fKLjC__c).
Monogamous bondage... monogamy and bondage are both a little quaint. The real fun starts when you start daisy chaining people like the Human Centipede (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX8fKLjC__c).
What the fuck, man.
Fredbergen is probably a pedophile himself. Seriously, I can't see any other reason why you would consider defending NAMBLA a worthwhile cause.
On a somewhat more political note, a major reason why age of consent laws were passed to begin with was not because of 'bourgeois morality', but because of decades of working class struggle for such laws. Why? In 19th century America and England, children were repeatedly sexually abused and raped by their adult overseers in factories and mills, and in Third World sweatshops such horrors continue to this day.
Incidentally, this thread isn't about fredbergen, or his organization. If those of you who are incapable of making arguments without employing slander, dishonesty, and appeals to emotion would like to make a thread about fredbergen or the views of his organization, you are more than welcome to do so. But please refrain from littering this thread with your bullshit. The position fredbergen is defending on the subject of monogamy and the socialization of "women's work"is a view which is not specific to him or his organization, but is in fact the Marxist position on the question. I would link to chapter II of "Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State" yet again, but I've already linked to it twice in this thread, and in general I get the feeling that those in this thread who are making uninformed arguments are not actually at all interested in informing themselves anyway, so...
So, would you prohibit monogamous relationships? And if so, how do you justify that if you value individual freedom?
Consider also that Marx was a married man, and as such, if all genuine Marxists were so vehemently against monogamy as you say, Marx would be pretty damn dishonest.
leftace53
11th June 2010, 02:22
Monogamy creeps me out, but i guess if it became an equal relationship without financial dependence and such, I see no reason why people can't choose to live that way.
Glenn Beck
11th June 2010, 02:31
So, would you prohibit monogamous relationships? And if so, how do you justify that if you value individual freedom?
Consider also that Marx was a married man, and as such, if all genuine Marxists were so vehemently against monogamy as you say, Marx would be pretty damn dishonest.
Ever heard of do as I say, not as I do?
Communism won't just abolish monogamy, it'll abolish sex altogether. We'll achieve true equality as genderless vat-grown drones.
So, would you prohibit monogamous relationships? And if so, how do you justify that if you value individual freedom?
Let's give some context. If we are talking about working class revolution, under the dictatorship of the proletariat decisions are made by the class or in some cases by its leadership (i.e. the most politically-advanced elements of the class). So arguing that I as an individual would or wouldn't prohibit something is pretty meaningless.
The next element of context which is needed is with regard to what is meant by "monogamous relationships". As I said in an earlier post, Engels describes the monogamous family as the first form of the family to be based on economic conditions. The tendency in this thread by the pro-monogamy side is to see monogamy as an "idea" - as something which exists above, or separate from, the forms of society and the economic conditions which correspond to it. This is a form of idealism. Because monogamy is not some sort of metaphysical "idea" which exists in a vacuum but is actually a form of the family based on economic conditions and corresponding to the rise of class society, it makes no sense to refer to monogamy in a hypothetical world in which everyone will be free to pursue relationships uninhibited by economic conditions and their corresponding social forms which would by then have presumably been rendered obsolete. In a world in which relationships are determined entirely and freely by the desires of those involved, "monogamy" will no longer exist. Which isn't to say that long-term/lifetime exclusive romantic relationships between two people will not exist under such circumstances - they may, they may not. But it is only possible to refer to such hypotheticals as examples of "monogamy" if you have an entirely idealist understanding of monogamy - if you see it as an "idea" which exists independently of society rather than as a form of the family which corresponds to a particular stage and form of society (i.e. class society).
I certainly uphold the proposals in the Communist Manifesto for "the abolition of the family". But I don't see this as meaning the prohibition of the present form of the family. Instead, I see it as the complete socialization of "women's work", childcare, and education which - in my view - will in and of itself lead to the destruction (i.e. "withering away") of the bourgeois family. To speak of the sort of romantic/sexual relationships that I imagine would replace this certainly borders on utopian, though.
In any case, hopefully this answers your question.
Yazman
11th June 2010, 04:07
Monogamous bondage... monogamy and bondage are both a little quaint. The real fun starts when you start daisy chaining people like the Human Centipede (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX8fKLjC__c).
Sorry Glenn, but this is the Politics forum, not chit chat. If you're going to post here make sure you post something that meaningfully contributes to discussion, rather than just looking for an excuse to bump a youtube video.
Barry Lyndon
11th June 2010, 05:24
Monogamous bondage... monogamy and bondage are both a little quaint. The real fun starts when you start daisy chaining people like the Human Centipede (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX8fKLjC__c).
WTF??? I almost vomited. Seriously, that is not cool man.
chegitz guevara
11th June 2010, 17:23
So, would you prohibit monogamous relationships?
I present you with
THE STRAWMAN AWARD!!!!!!
Congratulations. I know you've worked very hard for this achievement. Your mother must be so proud. Tell us, do you have to practice constantly or are you a natural?
I wasn't even trying to make an argument, I was asking a question. I'm just trying to figure out how the hell one would go about getting rid of monogamy, which is apparently one of the most evil and destructive bourgeois inventions in the world, right up there with colonialism and slavery.
And 9, you answered perfectly. I'd say I probably agree to a point, I definitely think there'll gradually be less and less monogamous relationships under socialism and communism, seeing as the economic incentive to get married would be gone, but I think people have become so used and acclimatized to loving one person at a time and having monogamous relationships that it'll be a long time before monogamous relationships in and of themselves are gone.
And I'm not sure socializing child care will help get rid of monogamy, either, if we don't assume that monogamy will always result in some things being "women's work".
Still, thanks for the good answer. I think I finally understand where you guys are coming from with this.
McCroskey
12th June 2010, 04:00
This debate is pointless. There is no marxist debate on monogamy-poligamy. The issue is patriarcal relations. I am married, I have a kid and I love my wife. Couldn´t love anyone else at the moment. In my household, there is no patriarcal stupid relations. We work the same, at home and outside home, and no one is above the other. It is true that my wife had a stronger emotional connection to our child when he was born, but that is biologically understandable.
Arguments between "it´s better to live in a couple" and "it´s better to fuck anyone you please" (you must be really gorgeous to do that) are not political and it´s down to personal choice, which, in this case, hasn´t got a class element to it and causes no harm to anyone else. Patriarcal structures and oppresion of the woman should be opposed, and everyone should have the right to practice love as they wish, but to debate if marriage is more socialist than free love or vice versa, is just a waste of time. It is not a political debate, it´s a matter of personal choice.
SocialismOrBarbarism
12th June 2010, 06:01
Why do people keep citing Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State in defense of their hippy free love bullshit? Despite the patronizing attitudes of some people doing so, they don't seem very familiar with it's contents other than a few choice quotes.
If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience, the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.
Unlike some people Marx and Engels did make a distinction between monogamy and "the bourgeois family" as it exists under capitalism, even though "Today it is already broken through at a thousand points."
We don't know what personal life will be like in communism. The abundance of goods, and the socialization of "women's work" like child care, cooking and cleaning will certainly remove the remaining economic justification for the bourgeois family.
How relevant can the views of someone be if they're still talking about the socialization of cooking? This isn't the 1930s. It's as if you've never seen a McDonalds, ate a frozen dinner or ordered a pizza.
Why do people keep citing Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State in defense of their hippy free love bullshit?
It's funny - as far as I know, I'm the only one who has referenced Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State in this thread, so it would seem you are referring to me here. In which case you're either intentionally misrepresenting what I've been saying in this thread, or you haven't actually bothered to read any of it in the first place. In my first post I stated quite clearly that lifestylism has nothing to do with communism and that people who are involved in monogamous relationships are not doing anything to maintain the oppression of women, nor are those abstaining from them doing anything to end the oppression of women. I've also stated that it would be utopian to make predictions about the forms that romantic/sexual relationships will assume in a classless world, and so have avoided making any such predictions. And in fact right after the passing prediction which you quoted, Engels made a similar point:
Originally Posted by Engels
What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.All you've done is set up a strawman and knocked it down. Good for you! :rolleyes:
SocialismOrBarbarism
12th June 2010, 19:14
It's funny - as far as I know, I'm the only one who has referenced Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State in this thread, so it would seem you are referring to me here. In which case you're either intentionally misrepresenting what I've been saying in this thread, or you haven't actually bothered to read any of it in the first place.
Actually I wasn't specifically referring to you, but my post wouldn't be misrepresenting you if I had been anyway.
In my first post I stated quite clearly that lifestylism has nothing to do with communism and that people who are involved in monogamous relationships are not doing anything to maintain the oppression of women, nor are those abstaining from them doing anything to end the oppression of women.Yes, what does that have to do with my post? You also said:
In case you didn't catch that, monogamy is based on economic conditions. Not on human nature. Not on the optimal form of raising healthy, happy children. Not on the sexual preferences of individuals. Not on love. But on economic conditions.
This strikes me as horribly determinist. You also fail to distinguish between monogamy as such and the "bourgeois family", which is the kind of thing I was referring to in my post and in fact making my criticisms applicable to your posts. So "you're either intentionally misrepresenting what I've been saying in this thread, or you haven't actually bothered to read any of it in the first place." :rolleyes:
Individuals making personal lifestyle choices isn't going to overthrow capitalism, isn't going to end class society, and therefore, isn't going to do away with monogamy/the oppression of women.
And while there is no point in calling on individuals to abstain from monogamous relationships within the framework of capitalism, it should be clearly understood that the oppression of women is inextricably tied to monogamy (which is inextricably tied to class society, of which capitalism is the present and final stage), and the impulse to argue otherwise simply betrays complete ignorance of the subject, at best. For those of you who are clueless, read up.In your posts it's monogamy itself that is identified with the oppression of women, not monogamy as it exists under capitalism(and whose existence Engels says is never fully realized, incomplete, etc) Not only is monogamy kept distinct from the modern family by Engels but he even says that it is the freeing of women that will make possible real monogamy. But what is it that you cite to back up your position? Oh right...Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Who's straw manning who here?
SocialismOrBarbarism
12th June 2010, 19:27
Here is an interesting look at the issue from Marxism, History, and Socialist Consciousness:
You claim that Marx and Engels “openly defied the stifling morality of the Victorian age by calling for the abolition of the family and denouncing marriage as legalized prostitution.” Without directly quoting Marx and Engels, you suggest to a reader unfamiliar with their writings that they were for the dissolution of all family relations, the practice of universal free love, etc. This corresponds to the caricature of communism found in the most reactionary literature. As a matter of fact, Marx and Engels did not speak of the family as an ahistorical abstraction in the Communist Manifesto. Rather, they posed the following question: “On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based?” They answered:
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.” [New York, 1988, p. 71.]
Similarly, Marx and Engels speak not of marriage in general, but of bourgeois marriage. Their treatment of this issue begins with a mocking dismissal of the bourgeois claim that it is the intention of communists to create a “community of women,” i.e., to make women the property of a public harem. They reply:
The bourgeois sees in his wife 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.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.”
In another essay, entitled Principles of Communism and which was written almost simultaneously with the Communist Manifesto, Engels offered the following reply to the question, “What influence will the communist order of society have on the family?”
It will make the relation between the sexes a purely private relation which concerns only the persons involved, and in which society has no call to interfere. It is able to do this because it abolishes private property and educates children communally, thus destroying the twin foundations of hitherto existing marriage - the dependence through private property of the wife upon the husband and of the children upon the parents. Here also is the answer to the outcry of moralizing philistines against the communist community of women. Community of women is a relationship that belongs altogether to bourgeois society and is completely realized today in prostitution. But prostitution is rooted in private property and falls with it. Thus instead of introducing the community of women, communist organization puts an end to it. [Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 6 (New York, 1976), p. 354] Also,
"In February 1874, a writer for the [I]Boston Evening Transcript distinguished between the two types of workers in a description of German immigrants. Some, he recorded, were 'solid, honest, thrifty, taking an adieu of their country, in company with their wives and children, as industrious as themselves.' The others were caricatures of the disaffected worker that revealed just how profoundly this sort of individual threatened American life. They were 'of less inviting appearance,' 'wifeless and childless,' socialists who were discussed 'strange theories of government' and who denied the very basis of civilization by 'arguing that the relation of husband and wife is but an 'historic product,' . . . 'that the woman who freely gives her love to any man is not a prostitute but the woman of the future.'" - Richardson, Heather Cox. The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor and Politics in the post-Civil War North, 1865-1901. pp. 114
Because someone who says that is obviously motivated by concern for the objectification and oppression of women. :rolleyes:
thereader
12th June 2010, 19:30
What is "monogamy as such," abstracted from the class societies that have conditioned and enforced the oppression of women in the family? It is nothing more than an idealization of the bourgeois family. It is shorthand for bourgeois romanticism.
Nothing Human Is Alien
12th June 2010, 21:15
Because someone who says that is obviously motivated by concern for the objectification and oppression of women. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
It was a caricature of communist workers by a bourgeois newspaper (and very similar to the caricatures being made by leftists here).
Try to read things before you respond to them. It usually helps.
GreenCommunism
12th June 2010, 21:34
wasn't there forced or arranged marriage during engels time?
Meridian
12th June 2010, 21:42
Newer gender studies show that married men statistically feel less comfortable in the home than women do, and that women make the majority of decisions in the household.
This is Scandinavian research though, from a couple of years back if I remember correctly. This doesn't apply to all countries.
Robocommie
12th June 2010, 21:44
Haha, look what I just got from Nothing Human Is Alien. Apparently the ghost of Fredbergen has returned from beyond the ban.
"You are a pusillanimous, whining Babbit who cringes before the bourgeoisie's fake god."
How old are you, man? You're just being childish, now.
GreenCommunism
12th June 2010, 21:55
fredbergen is banned? what for. i do think he probably deserved to be.
as for my question wasn't there forced or arranged marriage in engels time? or more like marry a rich man to avoid poverty and death?
Robocommie
12th June 2010, 22:07
as for my question wasn't there forced or arranged marriage in engels time? or more like marry a rich man to avoid poverty and death?
Yes to all of it. Here in the US, it was particularly common for men in the western frontier to arrange to marry a woman from out East, who he oftentimes never even met before she traveled west, in order to escape poverty. It was like a 19th century version of mail-order brides - and that phrase itself is proof that it hasn't died out.
Haha, look what I just got from Nothing Human Is Alien. Apparently the ghost of Fredbergen has returned from beyond the ban.
"You are a pusillanimous, whining Babbit who cringes before the bourgeoisie's fake god."
How old are you, man? You're just being childish, now.
Yeah, I got one of those, too, except with "You're a moron". I guess we all have diffrent ways of reacting when our arguments fall flat, and in NHIA's case, that reaction is grumbling "babby mad" and spilling milk on people's clothes.
Nevermind that I've already mostly agreed that monogamy will fade away after the revolution.
As for this:
What is "monogamy as such," abstracted from the class societies that have conditioned and enforced the oppression of women in the family? It is nothing more than an idealization of the bourgeois family. It is shorthand for bourgeois romanticism.
We ought to put a bullet in the back of the head head of those fucking bourgeois parrots.
In all seriousness, though, how would you suggest that a post-revolutionary society should respond to two people who decide to only romantically/sexually love each other?
What is "monogamy as such," abstracted from the class societies that have conditioned and enforced the oppression of women in the family? It is nothing more than an idealization of the bourgeois family. It is shorthand for bourgeois romanticism.
this.
SocialismOrBarbarism
12th June 2010, 23:30
What is "monogamy as such," abstracted from the class societies that have conditioned and enforced the oppression of women in the family? It is nothing more than an idealization of the bourgeois family. It is shorthand for bourgeois romanticism.
this.
There is no monogamy abstracted from capitalism because obviously capitalism still exists. But unless you honestly think that all monogamous relationships will instantly cease upon the abolition of capitalism, then there will still be people who want monogamous relationships, but they will not in any way entail the oppression of women because it will be based in a society that has removed "all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner" and "which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future."
As Engels put it:
what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself.
That's a bit different from the position that monogamy and the oppression of women are inseparable irregardless of the conditions under which people may decide to pursue that sort of relationship.
chegitz guevara
13th June 2010, 00:12
In all seriousness, though, how would you suggest that a post-revolutionary society should respond to two people who decide to only romantically/sexually love each other?
As has been asked to this moronic question repeatedly, why is it anyone else's fucking business?
Not one single person has said that two people should not be allowed to have an exclusive relationship, but don't let facts keep you from continuing to engage in this bourgeois strawman. Please, by all means, continue to parade around your Victorian prudery in red clothing.
Raúl Duke
13th June 2010, 00:22
As has been asked to this moronic question repeatedly, why is it anyone else's fucking business?
Not one single person has said that two people should not be allowed to have an exclusive relationship, but don't let fats keep you from continuing to engage in this bourgeois strawman. Please, by all means, continue to parade around your Victorian prudery in red clothing.
This...
Like I said initially, free love is not "death to monogamy!!!!!ZOMG" but just an idea that many forms of relationships (gay marriages, un-married couples, polyamory, etc) outside the monogamous married straight couple are valid and should be consider so by society (in this case, socialist, anarchist, communist society).
As has been asked to this moronic question repeatedly, why is it anyone else's fucking business?
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. I said so in several posts in this thread.
Please, by all means, continue to parade around your Victorian prudery in red clothing.
I'd be a pretty terrible Victorian prude, myself.
Glenn Beck
13th June 2010, 01:52
I love how you people, all knowing better, will pretend not to realize that the most recent "serious disagreement" in this thread is wholly due to some using monogamy to refer to the institution of the nuclear family and others using it to refer specifically to the practice of sexual exclusivity, even though it's bleeding obvious which meaning a particular individual is using from the context of their post. Just so you can continue to spit acid and bile at each other for 11 pages because it's that fucking entertaining.
Robocommie
13th June 2010, 03:50
I love how you people, all knowing better, will pretend not to realize that the most recent "serious disagreement" in this thread is wholly due to some using monogamy to refer to the institution of the nuclear family and others using it to refer specifically to the practice of sexual exclusivity, even though it's bleeding obvious which meaning a particular individual is using from the context of their post. Just so you can continue to spit acid and bile at each other for 11 pages because it's that fucking entertaining.
I think that's pretty much what's going on. Everyone needs to take a deep breath.
Zoster
14th June 2010, 05:16
Most of those who go on and on about "Free Love" are loud-mouth white dudes trying to trick new activist girls into fucking them. "It's really revolutionary to spread your legs, baby."
Have you considered the possibility that you're a patronizing asshat?
I tried really hard to resist making that last flame but it didn't work out. just for the record.
If it's against the rules to flame someone when their very first post is that astronomically stupid, then the rules should be amended.
Zoster
14th June 2010, 05:57
It's just blatantly true that "Free Love" is almost always used as a form of cover for pushy white douchebags in pseudo-Left groups (anarchos, Trots, etc) to pressure girls into fucking them. Women in these groups often complain about it.
Zoster
14th June 2010, 06:13
Keep telling young activist girls about "Free Love" and driving them away from anarcho-Trot circles, by all means.
Nothing Human Is Alien
14th June 2010, 06:38
Most of those who go on and on about "Free Love" are loud-mouth white dudes trying to trick new activist girls into fucking them. "It's really revolutionary to spread your legs, baby."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/main.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Lily_Braun.jpg
http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/images/BB/itoNoe3.jpg
bloodbeard
14th June 2010, 08:03
Lol I'd hate to "feed the troll" but that gave me a good laugh.
I'd prefer a life long monogamous partnership with mutual understanding sans the relationship or marriage status. That way you could not take each other for granted since the other person does not "belong" to you. And it really does lessen the guilt if you develop a crush on someone else or flirt etc, I should add though that respect for your partner should keep you from considering being with someone else.
Yazman
14th June 2010, 11:15
Users 9 and Zoster:
There will be no more flaming of any kind in this thread, or anywhere else on this forum from you two outside of Chit Chat. This is not your personal blog, it is a thread in a subforum intended for serious political discussion.
I don't want to see any more worthless posts from either of you in here again.
This constitutes a verbal warning.
Palingenisis
14th June 2010, 11:34
It's just blatantly true that "Free Love" is almost always used as a form of cover for pushy white douchebags in pseudo-Left groups (anarchos, Trots, etc) to pressure girls into fucking them. Women in these groups often complain about it.
Very true....Often people who join Trotskyite groupings are basically middle class failures who seek a small pond where they can assert themselves and feel powerful and important.
Palingenesis, I can smell your bile from here. Sure you shouldn't go to your doctor about that? Maybe he could help you make an argument instead of throwing around ad-hominems, too.
ÑóẊîöʼn
14th June 2010, 12:11
If I can love more than one film, type of food or family member, why can't I love more than one partner?
Palingenisis
14th June 2010, 13:20
Palingenesis, I can smell your bile from here. Sure you shouldn't go to your doctor about that? Maybe he could help you make an argument instead of throwing around ad-hominems, too.
There is no bile. Its just an observation. Zooster also made a very true observation and look at all the neg-rep they got for it....Is that not bile?
Palingenisis
14th June 2010, 13:23
If it's against the rules to flame someone when their very first post is that astronomically stupid, then the rules should be amended.
Actually it was proletarian feminism and not astronomically stupid.
chegitz guevara
14th June 2010, 21:49
Most actual proletarian feminist revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries were in favor of free love, and not having to get married to some dude first in order to have sex or worry about getting knocked up and having to take care of a child all by herself if she weren't married.
dawt
14th June 2010, 21:59
<- polyamorous ... but in a monogamous relationship. Srsly, finding a partner who accepts me being poly = fucking H A R D -.-
They say they do, but when it comes down to business... OHWUT, surprise! They're not so cool with it after all. Seems logic and emotions don't go together all too well for most people.
Meh!
Adi Shankara
2nd July 2010, 13:12
You are a pusillanimous, whining Babbit who cringes before the bourgeoisie's fake god."
How old are you, man? You're just being childish, now.
:laugh: lol, for now on I'm definetly using "babbit" as a pejorative. :lol:
Robocommie
2nd July 2010, 13:49
:laugh: lol, for now on I'm definetly using "babbit" as a pejorative. :lol:
Aw man, Tommy, did you really have to go and resurrect this fucking trainwreck of a thread. :p
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.