Should Those on the Left Be Pro-Libertinism?

[HomelessMaoist]

Recently I made a poll asking if it was possible to be both communist and socially conservative. Many people said no, so now I am asking the polar opposite of that question: Should those on the left be pro libertinism?

For those who don't know what libertinism is, it's the absence of all morals, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I'm pro libertinism, with the exception of being against greed, as most leftists are, and cruelty. Though I don't know how many other Maoists would agree with me.

[Lord Hargreaves]

"Libertinism" is a nonsense. It is the kind of label that rabid social reactionaries use to denounce any person who believes in personal freedom and has an enlightened attitude on sexuality. It is the language of the enemy, and I have no idea why you'd want anything to do with it.

[Tim Cornelis]

Libertinism is not the absence of morality, it's "might makes right" with egoism as ethics.

[The Idler]

"Libertinism" is a nonsense. It is the kind of label that rabid social reactionaries use to denounce any person who believes in personal freedom and has an enlightened attitude on sexuality. It is the language of the enemy, and I have no idea why you'd want anything to do with it.
So is calling yourself a Lord.

[Lord Hargreaves]

So is calling yourself a Lord.

LOL my name is me being ironic, but I have a feeling the use of "libertinism" here isn't intended that way

[Yuppie Grinder]

Libertinism is increasingly becoming the dominant ideology of the west. There's nothing genuinely counterhegemonous about hedonism. It's the natural evolution of pluralistic, consumerist society.

[Brutus]

Liberty, equality, fraternity, no?

[Zanthorus]

KJI pretty much hit the nail on the head. Libertinism seems to me to be not much more than the logical conclusion of the attempt to find freedom in the sphere of consumption rather than of production, an attempt which is ultimately empty.

[HomelessMaoist]

I apologize for my misuse of the word libertine. I did not know it was a capitalist word, as I always associated libertinism with someone of the likes of Marquis de Sade, who I personally look up to as a great role model and writer, though I understand being against someone like him either on the basis of feminism, or the fact that most people think that he was a deranged sociopathic aristocrat. I meant to use a word that meant to be without morals, or to be very hedonistic, which is about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

But now I would like to rephrase the question to what I meant to ask. Should leftists support an amoral (or atleast a society without any morals based around it) and hedonistic (again, in the way of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain) society?

Again, I apologize for my misuse of the word libertine.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

But now I would like to rephrase the question to what I meant to ask. Should leftists support an amoral (or at least a society without any morals based around it) and hedonistic (again, in the way of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain) society?If by morals, you're referring to the typical morality of the middle class, then I would certainly want to get rid of bourgeois morals. But an egalitarian hedonism? I myself am intrigued by such a possible ideal; pure hedonism could only truly become realized on a mass scale through a social revolution, overthrowing the established customs of religion and reactionaries. Once a truly free worker's society arises, who is to stop such a ethical system?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What the hell is Libertinism? I thought it was just a misspelling of libertarianism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Recently I made a poll asking if it was possible to be both communist and socially conservative. Many people said no, so now I am asking the polar opposite of that question: Should those on the left be pro libertinism?

For those who don't know what libertinism is, it's the absence of all morals, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally, I'm pro libertinism, with the exception of being against greed, as most leftists are, and cruelty. Though I don't know how many other Maoists would agree with me.

Should we support the ability of people to express their sexuality in whatever mutual and non-exploitative form they like? Absolutely.

However I don't think we should argue or support the idea that personal rejection of some bourgois moralistic ideas about sex or personal sexual liberation is actually achieving anything significant or challeging sexual repression by itself. But the political problem there isn't in the "libertinism" but the "lifestylism" and idealism of the concept.

[Comrade #138672]

I said "maybe", because I wasn't even sure what it meant. I was thinking it was something like a pragmatic morality, which isn't necessarily anti-Leftist to me.

[Etular]

Should leftists support an amoral (or atleast a society without any morals based around it) and hedonistic (again, in the way of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain) society?

I would say "no". As aforementioned above, from what I can tell, I see this idea as being synonymous with the egoist movement - an "ideal" I'm wholeheartedly against.

My main criticism of this approach (in my opinion) comes from the point where one's own liberty transcends the ideal of equality - for example, in a hedonistic and amoral society (albeit, when taken to extremities), it may be deemed justifiable to take the life of a neighbour who's been giving you grief, on the basis on minimising "pain" and without any concern for the right of the neighbour to live the life they wish. Or, perhaps, it may go the other way around and the neighbour may take the first step. This sort of situation would lead to an apparent state of anomie (which, despite having the label of "Anarchist", is not a state I'm in favour of - regardless of what media stereotypes may tell you).

Albeit, some may argue (from more authoritarian backgrounds), laws may prevent us this extremity - but, with the promotion of being amoral and hedonistic; what, other than social control, is there to prevent the people from flouting these laws?

For me, personally, I also see a contradiction in amorality and our own political mindset - primarily, with our mindset being revolved around the freedom of the proletariat from the tyranny of the bourgeoisie, I would like to imagine that our movement had an innate sympathy (or otherwise understanding) for the proletariat, drawn from our own ethical beliefs (and, thus, sense of morality)? Add on top of that the fact that the bourgeoisie are living the hedonistic lifestyle (often unhappily, despite having all the pleasures of life available to them) at our expense, using their absurd amount of money, and hedonism almost seems like something to be opposed - a product of the old system.

Even regarding bourgeoisie morals, I'm also a tad sceptical - ofcourse, we have to root out and remove morals that were only ever intended to promote a false class consciousness, but there are many morals, particularly within the likes of religion, which could simply be adopted as a philosophical "way of life" basis.

In my opinion, with the fall of religion in the post-capitalist society, there should be a revival of philosophy to provide people without purpose with ways to live and perceive life, and the ability to accept or reject moral and ethical views dependant on whether they agree or disagree with them. Perhaps from there they may form into groups, and grow into the equivalent of former Greek "city states", each promoting a "way of life" that best suits their views? Who knows. :lol:

[Riveraxis]

I said no, to an extent. We could debate about whether or not objective morality exists, but I think we could all agree that subjective morality does not. And by and large, that's the "morality" that people practice. Doing away with that is an essential part in doing away with egotism, at least to an extent.

I won't say "no" entirely because I don't believe in barbarism. Yes, I understand animals follow no laws. We are not simply animals. We are gifted with intelligence and should utilize it.

[Luís Henrique]

Should we support the ability of people to express their sexuality in whatever mutual and non-exploitative form they like? Absolutely.

Yup. But if by "supporting libertinism" we mean to "make the expression of each one's sexuality in every mutual and non-exploitative way mandatory", then no.

People should have the right to have only one partner, or to have only partners of the opposite (or same, fwiw) sex, or to not have sex at all. "Mandatory sexual freedom" is just institutionalised rape.

Luís Henrique

PS I voted "absolutely not" to see the results, but I indeed reject the question in itself.