Do you want to destroy the family?

[Tautininkas]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

Do you want to destroy it?

If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?

[Sasha]

yes, we want to make your wife a radical feminist lesbian, we want to forcibly gay marry you to a leatherclad bear, we want to send your kids into white slavery at the court of a black communist dictator, we want to paint your church red with the blood of christian babies, we want to set fire to your ikea and your SUV, we want to rape your labrador with the broken pieces of your white picketed fence.
we want to wage nuclear war on the nuclear family.
why? because we are pinko freedom hating commienazi atheist bastards, its just what we do.

[Questionable]

Yes. The bourgeois family is the nucleus for capitalist society. It will be abolished and domestic labor will become socialized.

That's the plan, anyway. Who really knows what form familial relations will take after the revolution?

[Djoko]

Familly, as we know it, appeared as a result of private property that passed from father to son. It's logical to think that when private property dissapear, familly will change it's form drastically with time if don't dissapear completely.

[Tautininkas]

yes, we want to make your wife a radical feminist lesbian, we want to forcibly gay marry you to a leatherclad bear, we want to send your kids into white slavery at the court of a black communist dictator, we want to paint your church red with the blood of christian babies, we want to set fire to your ikea and your SUV, we want to rape your dog with the broken pieces of your white picketed fence.
we want to wage nuclear war on the nuclear family.
why? because we are pinko freedom hating commienazi atheist bastards, its just what we do.



I hope you're not revlefts exemplary poster par excellence. Are you capable of having a discussion without degenerating into a passive aggressive teenager?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.
What a ridiculous assertion; that 50% of the population need to be oppressed in order to have a basis for 'civilisation'. If that's your concept of civilisation then I want no part of it and will aid its destruction in any way I can. The concept of the family unit has been slowly destroyed in recent history anyway and good riddence.

[Brutus]

Communist manifesto:
Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? 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.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

[Paul Pott]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

No it isn't, particularly not the western nuclear family.


Do you want to destroy it?

If you mean 'abolish it by decree', no. If you mean 'eliminate the primacy of the husband', yes. Conservative politics tends to view them as the same.

[Sasha]

I hope you're not revlefts exemplary poster par excellence. Are you capable of having a discussion without degenerating into a passive aggressive teenager?

My reply was no more a proposturous emotional red herring than your question.
Besides, I gave you the exact confirmative answer you came here to get didn't I?

[Fourth Internationalist]

It depends on how you define 'the family'.

[Questionable]

It depends on how you define 'the family'.

Clearly he's referring to the television drama that aired in the 1970s.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/[email protected]_ V1_SY317_CR7,0,214,317_.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't see why communists have to destroy the family, when capitalism seems to be handily destroying it without our help. It looks like the family will have been completely eradicated by proletarian immiseration and the pursuit of profit by the time the radical left gets its shit together.

[rednordman]

[email protected] question:rolleyes:

[Fourth Internationalist]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

Do you want to destroy it?

If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?

Yes and no. Say a group of people decide to live in a community where there is no family unit. Who is to say they cannot do that and raise their children non-family based? Say two adults want to create a family. Why should we tell them they cannot do so? Also, who would enforce something like this in communism? There would be no state to enforce such a thing.

But the bourgeois family that is based on private property, yes, will be abolished because there will be no private property (which is different from personal property).

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The whole archetypal western nuclear family is pretty much a myth now. There's nothing left to destroy. I didn't grow up in an idealized nuclear family, and most of my friends didn't either. I turned out fine, and so did they.

OP, I suggest you enroll in a local community college's anthropology courses, cultural anthropology, it will be fairly cheap and they will go in depth within the history and mutability of the so-called family unit. Failing that, National Geographic did an excellent article on the Hadza people a few years ago, one of the oldest surviving societies; it, too, contradicts the notion that the western nuclear family is the ... natural state of things. Here's the link, it's a great read at about 13 pages: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text


There are no wedding ceremonies. A couple that sleeps at the same fire for a while may eventually refer to themselves as married. Most of the Hadza I met, men and women alike, were serial monogamists, changing spouses every few years. Onwas is an exception; he and his wife, Mille, have been with each other all their adult lives, and they have seven living children and several grandchildren. There was a bevy of children in the camp, with the resident grandmother, a tiny, cheerful lady named Nsalu, running a sort of day care while the adults were in the bush. Except for breast-feeding infants, it was hard to determine which kids belonged to which parents.

[#FF0000]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

No


Do you want to destroy it?

If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?

What constitutes a "family" changes as societies do. The nuclear family is a product of urban, industrial, capitalist society. Changing society is going to change "the family" no matter what one might want.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Family" by today's standard gradually emerged with proto-industrialisation in the 16th century only, hardly the "basis" for civilisation which predates it by thousands of years. Personally, I'm emotionally attached to the notion of a 'family' when I imagine myself with children, so in that sense I do not "want" to "destroy" the "family". Rationally, communal upbringing is highly likely to decrease social problems that arises in wrongful upbringing today. In the Netherlands 1 and 5 children is subject to abuse, 1 in 3 amongst migrant families. Today's family structure enables such abuse enclosed within the walls of the family's home. We may want to ask ourselves what entitles someone to be a parent? Is the mere ability to have sex sufficient reason to allow such immense authority over a child? Or should we raise our children in an environment tested by pedagogical science?

[WelcomeToTheParty]

Without property marriage as we know it just doesn't exist and that should be celebrated. No one is trying to stop you from committing to monogamy, just the creation of situations where one spouse depends on the other and therefore is open to abuse.

[Revenant]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

Do you want to destroy it?

If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?

I don't really think communism will be too much about destroying things, I think it's more about widening the concepts of family and love to include more than just 1 person, or those that could be said in Law to be one's property.

I think the American and Aboriginal tribes understood this reality, the elders of the community were the parents, the mediators, structure, the men of the community were the warriors and hunters, the expansive force acting on the world, the women the magnetic force that the men returned to, and who gave form and structure to the expansive force, the interplay of these two force within the confines and traditions instituted by the elders gave rise to the next generation and so on.

There was none of this Mr and Mrs Jones and the next door neighbour trying to keep up with them, at some point (possibly in the garden of Eden) it became customary to divide the community into separate self contained patriarchies.;)1

[Ele'ill]

is this going to be one of those users who makes a thread like this and then never returns to it

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Family is not about genes, or who gives birth to who.

A REAL family is based on love, affection comradery. A good family is a family that genuinely loves and takes care of each other. These kinds of families take many forms, not just the 'traditional' family structure that the ultra-conservative bourgeoisie advocates with the fanaticism of a desperate junkie.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Family of Choice"? People who are either orphaned and never adopted, or were the victims of parental abuse as children, will often form their own families from various close friends, almost none of whom are actually related.

Again, this is what a REAL family is based on: Love, affection, and mutual support.

THAT type of family is nothing to oppose, because its something that comes about naturally.



But the patriarchal 'traditional' family wherein a jealouse tyrannical father makes all of the decisions? Yeah, that deserves to be dead and buried.

[Red Nightmare]

Yes, we want to destroy the authoritarian bourgeois family structure as it currently exists as it is a reflection of capitalism at large.

[slum]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

no
at least not in the sense you seem to mean
the creation of the nuclear family is associated with the rise of class society, of civilization in the anthropological sense- human organization, socially stratified, with food surplus and some urbanization
it is the basic unit of reproduction of any class society where property and power is concentrated in a few hands, including capitalism. it is also the root of women's oppression. so yes in that sense it is the 'basis of civilization'. it has ensured inheritance for the ruling class and reproduction of the lower classes; or at least the idea of it has. this is not a glowing endorsement, especially not for those of us who fall into the category of 'women'



Do you want to destroy it?

yes



If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?

i know people overquote this but i'm tired and dont want to make shit up myself. enjoy 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.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.What do you mean specifically by family? Lions and wolves and Heyenas live in family groups... and their ballet is for shit, so I don't know if you could call them civilized one bit - pfft.


Do you want to destroy it?Do we want to destroy the specific social instiution of bourgoise family units? Yes.


If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?We want to replace the socail insitution of the modern family with interpersonal relationships built on mutual love and trust and desire to live together.

The family as it exists as an institution in capitalist society is one in which all the effort of daily reproduction, making yourself or your spouce ready for daily labor, prepareing your children so that a new generation of laborers can be raised is privitized and pushed onto the family unit, producing fincancial stress and alienation from the family itself, disfunction and misary. And sometimes good times and genuine interpersonal relationships - despite the pressures of the unit as an economic institution.

Family is important in capitalism - especially in the neoliberal era - because it often takes two incomes to support children; because if you loose your job and are not wealthy, then you need to rely on family (and sometimes friends) for support, because if you have emotional problems or grow old, you need a family to help you deal with it because the system will just throw you out. What is not important in the family in capitalism is actual mutual love and desire to live in that way, that is secondary.

We want to replace the modern family with interpersonal loving relationships where there are not financial pressures and moralistic deictates and power dynamics involved. That's not love, that's just a way to keep social order for the people at the top.

[RedAtheist]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period

Prove it.

More over, the Australian Census Data tells us this about the family;

- 46% of Australians live in a family with children
- 11% of Australians live in a one parent family

I'm assuming that the "family with children" category includes people who live in one parent families, therefore;

46% - 11% = 35% of Australians living in standard nuclear families (at the most)

Of course children under the age of 16 are not surveyed during the Census, so the data applies to the adults, but nevertheless the majority of adults in Australia do not live in nuclear families. Therefore I don't see how it can be claimed that the nuclear family is necessary in order to have a civillisation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

is this going to be one of those users who makes a thread like this and then never returns to itThat's too bad because other posters have been hitting this prompt out of the park.:)

[o well this is ok I guess]

Family is great, like the ones that keeps their kids on str8 up leashes in public. Cute ones!

[Crux]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

Do you want to destroy it?

If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?
Which family unit are you talking about? The modern idea of the family is less than 200 years old.
If you had been talking about the mutual aid in hunter gatherer societies, personally I see that kind of family as reminiscent of our ideal, indeed Marx and Engels talked about it as primitive communism. Of course, as a nationalist your entire worldview is probably, unwittingly, based on the idea that the world suddenly appeared fully formed in the 1800's. Your ancient family and nation ideal isn't so ancient at all.

[Crux]

is this going to be one of those users who makes a thread like this and then never returns to it
Now it is.

[Luís Henrique]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

Says who?

What exactly is a "family"? We use that word for very different things, such as the Roman patriarchal family and the modern nuclear family. I am pretty sure that an ancient Roman would call the modern nuclear family "contubernium" and be horrified by it. And I am pretty sure you would be staggered by what the ancient Roman called "family", and probably label it "slavery" instead.


Do you want to destroy it?

It seems to be destroying itself.


If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?

It seems that we are replacing it with a much more lax system of cohabitation between people. Which seems to me to be a good thing, don't you agree?

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

The family will not be destroyed through direct conscious impositions. It will wither away as the mechanisms which necessiate it are done away with. In other words, as the mode of production changes with a new class at helm, as will the family. The state will undoubtedly combat the influence of the family, though. It will not be destroyed because "we want it so" but because the family sustains the hegemony of the enemy class.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[GerrardWinstanley]

Wanting to destroy the bourgeois family doesn't imply wanting to break up families. However, the bottom line is, parents, and I would says elders in general, have far too much unaccountable power over children, which I believe to be the underlying reason for the majority of child abuse (the majority of child rapists, for one, are fathers).

Corporal punishment is accepted as the secret to child discipline and the logical outcome of parental discretion, even though (a) the line between corporal punishment and abuse is a fine one (b) it is not recommended by children's welfare charities, (c) nobody would dream of behaving in such a way towards an adult (d) the erosion of traditional parental authority and corporal punishment is correlated with a marked decline in crime rates.

I don't claim to be able to approach this issue dispassionately nor am I appealing to any kind of authority here, but I know people who were abused as children and later threatened with ostracism from their family if they ever talked about it. It's also worth noting that if this person's mother had been persuaded to leave the abuser, there would have been no systems in place to support a single mother financially (at least this was the excuse). This was a generation for whom dishonouring your parents was unthinkable. If they had committed horrendous crimes against you, it was your duty to forgive and forget.

So if you must know. I'm fortunate enough to say I love my parents, but yes, I hate the nuclear family and I don't see any automatic reason for trusting two adults with the welfare of a child.

[Comrade #138672]

is this going to be one of those users who makes a thread like this and then never returns to itHit and run trolls.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hit and run trolls.

I think we should punish such shitheads by replacing their posts with three full stops. If they're not going to at least stick around and defend their nonsense, why should we bother wasting disk space hosting their pathetic anti-communist drivel?

[Rusakov]

Do I wish to destroy the family? if by "destroy the family", you mean ensure that the old model of the faimly, centred around the patriarchal husband, continues its path into oblivion, then yes. Otherwise, no.

[Let's Get Free]

The 'Bourgeois family' is a product of industrialization, not necessarily civilization or even capitalism. The concentration of production in urban areas and the building of national labor markets was the main thing that converted the extended family of many interacting relatives into the nuclear family limited to parents and children.

[Ironfront]

It's called the "nuclear family" because it is so volatile it can explode at any minute in a "nuclear reaction."

For the first few hundred thousand or so years of humanity we lives among extended families with everyone chipping in. Now we live in little boxes with, ideally, a mother, father and children. Mothers end up usually doing most of the work at home and fathers end up usually making more money to keep the family afloat. Children are open to abuse with just two at most people looking out for them, and in the more and more common single parent "family" there is even more abuse.

As we move towards socialism, families will be able to live together again in larger traditional units, and when we arrive at communism I imagine it will be like it was in the old days, with aunts, uncles, cousins and the rest living in close proximity with other large family units or "villages" if you will.

It never ceases to amuse me how right-wingers always chirp on "traditions," be they the suburban "tradition" or the nuclear family "tradition", when in fact said "traditions" are always recent inventions.

[Rooiakker]

I'd argue that the capitalist family ideal of the nuclear family isn't possible unless you are wealthy to begin with.

Growing up shit poor in the USA:
1: Both Parents work.
2: No time with kids, whom are seen as an economic burden.
3: Forced to provide stationary "safe" entertainment in the form of TV. (Can't have our kids playing alone at the park. Too "dangerous".)
4: Family meals are almost non-existant and are often replaced with quick fixes like frozen pizza.
5: Added parental stress (From Work-Necessity) leads to higher levels of substance abuse and alcoholism. These things in turn fuel an even greater rate of child abuse and neglect...

Really, I'd say that capitalism is one of the MOST anti-family things out there.

[human strike]

I do not wish to see the family destroyed, I wish to see it totalised, that is to say, extended to include everyone within a community. If such a thing were to happen this would effectively mean the abolition of the concept of family, but not the destruction of family in practice. Though this would, of course, mean the "destruction", as well as abolition, of the traditional concept of the nuclear family, which is patriarchal and oppressive. As others have pointed out above, the popular idea of what constitutes family evolves with society - it is not something directly subject to the whim of avowed revolutionaries and nor is it something that can be dictated in a political or social programme. The family will be abolished by ordinary women, children and men et al. struggling, consciously or otherwise, against a form of social organisation that constrains their experience of life and joy in communal bonds with others, that they find to be at best restrictive and alienating and at worst deeply exploitative and oppressive.

P.S. MAKE TOTAL DESTROY!

[Luís Henrique]

I'd argue that the capitalist family ideal of the nuclear family isn't possible unless you are wealthy to begin with.

Growing up shit poor in the USA:
1: Both Parents work.

Or one of them, usually the father, is in in jail, or dead, or has simply disappeared.


3: Forced to provide stationary "safe" entertainment in the form of TV. (Can't have our kids playing alone at the park. Too "dangerous".)

More likely dangerous - without quotes.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

More likely dangerous - without quotes.

Really? I know that the mass media would have us believe that there's a paedo hiding behind every bush, but I'm pretty sure US streets are actually safer than they were decades ago.

[Luís Henrique]

Really? I know that the mass media would have us believe that there's a paedo hiding behind every bush, but I'm pretty sure US streets are actually safer than they were decades ago.

I don't think pedophiles are the actual safety problem with regards to children playing alone in the streets, though.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think pedophiles are the actual safety problem with regards to children playing alone in the streets, though.

True that, road traffic can be dangerous.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Once, I was in a sort of "couple of three" - the three of us going on dates, sleeping together, sharing an emotional closeness typically imagined to be unique to a relationship of two. It only ended because two of us were moving across to the the side of the country.
While I wouldn't assert that this arrangement in and of itself was somehow "revolutionary", I think it does speak to the potential for the flourishing of a variety of "unconventional" relationships when unconstrained by bourgeois legal frameworks, heteropatriarchy, etc.

[Marxaveli]

yes, we want to make your wife a radical feminist lesbian, we want to forcibly gay marry you to a leatherclad bear, we want to send your kids into white slavery at the court of a black communist dictator, we want to paint your church red with the blood of christian babies, we want to set fire to your ikea and your SUV, we want to rape your labrador with the broken pieces of your white picketed fence.
we want to wage nuclear war on the nuclear family.
why? because we are pinko freedom hating commienazi atheist bastards, its just what we do.

I Lol'd. :D

Anyways, I'm not sure I understand the question exactly. If you mean do we want to eliminate the family structure as we currently know it, then yes, we do. The currently family structure is still highly patriarchal, marriage itself devolved from private-property, children are viewed to be future worker bees to keep the capitalist and imperialist war machine going (this is especially emphasized in military families).

[Ele'ill]

I think we should punish such shitheads by replacing their posts with three full stops. If they're not going to at least stick around and defend their nonsense, why should we bother wasting disk space hosting their pathetic anti-communist drivel?

I agreed with this for a second but there are two types of threads like these. The ones where the accusations, statements, or questions are so ridiculous that very few people respond and the user gets banned and the thread drops off the face of the forum. There is then this type of thread here where the question is actually fairly legit in it's presentation at least and honestly it only serves to illustrate our ideas to a greater degree, That we will pour the boiling blood of our enemies into our open wounds to carry their spirits with us forever so they can see the never conclusion of the total war. It's like a library when you really think about it.

[Sea]

Clearly he's referring to the television drama that aired in the 1970s.Married with children?

[soso17]

Family is not about genes, or who gives birth to who.

A REAL family is based on love, affection comradery. A good family is a family that genuinely loves and takes care of each other. These kinds of families take many forms, not just the 'traditional' family structure that the ultra-conservative bourgeoisie advocates with the fanaticism of a desperate junkie.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Family of Choice"? People who are either orphaned and never adopted, or were the victims of parental abuse as children, will often form their own families from various close friends, almost none of whom are actually related.

Again, this is what a REAL family is based on: Love, affection, and mutual support.

THAT type of family is nothing to oppose, because its something that comes about naturally.



But the patriarchal 'traditional' family wherein a jealouse tyrannical father makes all of the decisions? Yeah, that deserves to be dead and buried.ala

[Bostana]

yes, we want to make your wife a radical feminist lesbian, we want to forcibly gay marry you to a leatherclad bear, we want to send your kids into white slavery at the court of a black communist dictator, we want to paint your church red with the blood of christian babies, we want to set fire to your ikea and your SUV, we want to rape your labrador with the broken pieces of your white picketed fence.
we want to wage nuclear war on the nuclear family.
why? because we are pinko freedom hating commienazi atheist bastards, its just what we do.

new sig

[MaoandMummar]

I cannot speak for the Marxists or even a majority of "the Left", but I can speak for my own personal tendency, and that answer is no. "To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race is the individual and the family, but not the state." While I say that all property and land is to be shared regardless of the
family one belongs to it is not necessary to destroy the family in Islamic Socialism. The answer however I am sure would be different from any form of Marxist. If you are interested in learning more on this view I would recommend you read The Green Book.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Really? I know that the mass media would have us believe that there's a paedo hiding behind every bush, but I'm pretty sure US streets are actually safer than they were decades ago.
lived in the ATL since I was 13 and as long as you can buck and square up ain't nobody gonna fuck with you most of these pieces of shit lookin for an easy target, never been mugged, never been robbed, people def tried, just know how to buck and you're alright


90% of the shit in this place is TALK

[Akshay!]

“ Free love? As if love is anything but free! Man has bought brains, but all the millions in the world have failed to buy love. Man has subdued bodies, but all the power on earth has been unable to subdue love. Man has conquered whole nations, but all his armies could not conquer love. Man has chained and fettered the spirit, but he has been utterly helpless before love. High on a throne, with all the splendor and pomp his gold can command, man is yet poor and desolate, if love passes him by. And if it stays, the poorest hovel is radiant with warmth, with life and color. Thus love has the magic power to make of a beggar a king. Yes, love is free; it can dwell in no other atmosphere. In freedom it gives itself unreservedly, abundantly, completely. All the laws on the statutes, all the courts in the universe, cannot tear it from the soil, once love has taken root.”

- Emma Goldman

[Hexen]

Not to destroy it but to render it irrelevant due to change.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Have you even seen civilization? Why would you not want to destroy it?

[Yuppie Grinder]

yes, we want to make your wife a radical feminist lesbian, we want to forcibly gay marry you to a leatherclad bear, we want to send your kids into white slavery at the court of a black communist dictator, we want to paint your church red with the blood of christian babies, we want to set fire to your ikea and your SUV, we want to rape your labrador with the broken pieces of your white picketed fence.
we want to wage nuclear war on the nuclear family.
why? because we are pinko freedom hating commienazi atheist bastards, its just what we do.

Not the first time you've posted a rape joke. Smh.

[Sasha]

You want some redherring with that strawman?
Like that was the most horrible thing I wrote, I presume baby butchering would rank slightly above animal abuse, its satire dude, stop fighting windmills.

[Yuppie Grinder]

jokes about dog rape are what i expect from 14 year olds on reddit
just sayin

[Sasha]

:nazi troll banned, vile shit post gone

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I agreed with this for a second but there are two types of threads like these. The ones where the accusations, statements, or questions are so ridiculous that very few people respond and the user gets banned and the thread drops off the face of the forum. There is then this type of thread here where the question is actually fairly legit in it's presentation at least and honestly it only serves to illustrate our ideas to a greater degree, That we will pour the boiling blood of our enemies into our open wounds to carry their spirits with us forever so they can see the never conclusion of the total war. It's like a library when you really think about it.

Fair point, but there are definitely certain kinds of hit-and-run shitposting that are so plainly unoriginal or bring up points that have been rehashed again and again that I don't think it's worth discussing such posts.


lived in the ATL since I was 13 and as long as you can buck and square up ain't nobody gonna fuck with you most of these pieces of shit lookin for an easy target, never been mugged, never been robbed, people def tried, just know how to buck and you're alright


90% of the shit in this place is TALK

It's just that the whole "streets are dangerous for lonely kids" argument just doesn't square at all with my actual experiences. I distinctly remember being a kid and running around Lewisham in south-east London while unsupervised, and I must say that it was better than being stuck indoors all day.


Have you even seen civilization? Why would you not want to destroy it?

Civilisation isn't a capitalist conspiracy, good grief.

[Luís Henrique]

True that, road traffic can be dangerous.

And street gang fights, and muggers.

And let's not forget the police.

Luís Henrique

[PC LOAD LETTER]

It's just that the whole "streets are dangerous for lonely kids" argument just doesn't square at all with my actual experiences. I distinctly remember being a kid and running around Lewisham in south-east London while unsupervised, and I must say that it was better than being stuck indoors all day.
That's what I was getting at, I'm just not very articulate when I'm sloppy drunk.

[bcbm]

Civilisation isn't a capitalist conspiracy, good grief.

its a conspiracy of the powerful against everyone else

[Yuppie Grinder]

Someone hasn't read any Bordiga, Cammatte, or Dauvé.

[Klaatu]

No doubt the OP's definition of "family" does not include LBGT people. :(

[Vercingetorix]

Families will grow in size, not shrink.

See the quote in my signature.

Extended families will work together for trade and training, and while they won't be patriarchal, there will be an exchange of skills and mutual support.

Money is the destroyer of families, the cause of most divorces. When families no longer see each other as possessions, but instead see each other as loved ones, the family can do nothing but grow in strength.

[Luís Henrique]

Someone hasn't read any Bordiga, Cammatte, or Dauvé.

Most people, I suppose.

Is there some reason we should read such authors?

Luís Henrique

[Flying Purple People Eater]

its a conspiracy of the powerful against everyone else

How is this the case?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Gemeinwesen!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

its a conspiracy of the powerful against everyone else

The powerful don't need conspiracies, least of all against the powerless.

[Ele'ill]

they conspire to maintain power

[rylasasin]

I have to wonder... is there a point to this thread anymore?

The OP's been banned so he's not coming back, the original question's been answered, and the whole thread's seemingly devolved into chit-chattery.

[Thewhitesea]

Fuck yh skrew parents \m/\/m\/m\/\m/

[Sotionov]

Bakunin wrote this as one of the goals:


Abolition not of the natural family but of the legal family founded on law and property. Religious and civil marriage to be replaced by free marriage. Adult men and women have the right to unite and separate as they please, nor has society the right to hinder their union or to force them to maintain it. With the abolition of the right of inheritance and the education of children assured by society, all the legal reasons for the irrevocability of marriage will disappear. The union of a man and a woman must be free, for a free choice is the indispensable condition for moral sincerity. In marriage, man and woman must enjoy absolute liberty. Neither violence nor passion nor rights surrendered in the past can justify an invasion by one of the liberty of another, and every such invasion shall be considered a crime.

[Anti-White]

Someone hasn't read any Bordiga, Cammatte, or Dauvé.

Because most of us have better things to do.

[Luís Henrique]

Because most of us have better things to do.

I don't know of that. Indeed, I want to be convinced that reading Bordiga, Cammatte, or Dauvé is important or necessary.

... but up to then, I am reading Harry Braverman and Adam Tooze, and do not intend to redirect my reading efforts.

Luís Henrique

[ChiefTiburon]

If by family you mean bonds of affection between humans, whether they are kin by blood or by friendship then no .

[Sky Hedgehogian Maestro]

The family unit is the basis of civilization period.

Do you want to destroy it?

If you answer my question in the affirmative, why and what will you replace it with?

Although we say we want to destroy the family, we still have to accept that we're apes and thus animals and thus something resembling a family- though not its modern form- will still come through since it's through evolution that we inherited our current desires. Civilization merely redirected them, but it certainly didn't create them.

[Sotionov]

Being that most of those talking about perserving the familiy are Christian, it's also interesting to note that Christianity pretty much wants to destroy the family, too. Not to talk about the monasticism that existed from it's first centuries and continues to exist in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the interesting fact is that the first Christians lived communaly. No 'nuclear family' or extended family, but a commune:

Acts 2:42–47
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need.

Acts 4:32–35
"No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need."

So, Christians, don't talk about perserving the nuclear family, but go Hutterite :grin:

[Luís Henrique]

Being that most of those talking about perserving the familiy are Christian, it's also interesting to note that Christianity pretty much wants to destroy the family, too. Not to talk about the monasticism that existed from it's first centuries and continues to exist in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the interesting fact is that the first Christians lived communaly. No 'nuclear family' or extended family, but a commune:

Acts 2:42–47
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need.

Acts 4:32–35
"No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need."

So, Christians, don't talk about perserving the nuclear family, but go Hutterite :grin:

That's relatively moderate talk; consider this:


Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Luís Henrique

[Sasha]

So thats basically what I said in the second post of this thread, always knew I had the makings of a messiah in me.

[Luís Henrique]

So thats basically what I said in the second post of this thread, always knew I had the makings of a messiah in me.

Yeah, you just outChristianed the Christians.

Luís Henrique

[PC LOAD LETTER]

So thats basically what I said in the second post of this thread, always knew I had the makings of a messiah in me.
all hail ... psycho

[Vostok17]

Yes. Destroy the family. No longer hold people in suspended animation until their offspring are out the door, making them endure years of mind-numbing theme parks and recreational activities that benefits none!

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Yes. Destroy the family. No longer hold people in suspended animation until their offspring are out the door, making them endure years of mind-numbing theme parks and recreational activities that benefits none!
But I like theme parks and rollercoasters


If I can't have rollercoasters and copious amounts of recreational activities, recreational alcohol, and recreational drugs, I don't want to be a part of your revolution etc etc

[Vostok17]

But I like theme parks and rollercoasters


If I can't have rollercoasters and copious amounts of recreational activities, recreational alcohol, and recreational drugs, I don't want to be a part of your revolution etc etc

Revolution or entertainment & Bohemian debauchery? Is that the choice we are left with?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Revolution or entertainment & Bohemian debauchery? Is that the choice we are left with?
If it's theme parks and drugs and social fun versus some historical cosplay prolier-than-thou bullshit with strict adherence to some ostensibly revolutionary asceticism then fuck communism


I'd rather wander around town sloppy drunk with my friends than sit around sober discussing the nuances of Lenin while wearing ushankas and acting bitter and condescending.


Life's too short for this roleplaying crap. It's debauchery or death!

[Vostok17]

If it's theme parks and drugs and social fun versus some historical cosplay prolier-than-thou bullshit with strict adherence to some ostensibly revolutionary asceticism then fuck communism


I'd rather wander around town sloppy drunk with my friends than sit around sober discussing the nuances of Lenin while wearing ushankas and acting bitter and condescending.


Life's too short for this roleplaying crap. It's debauchery or death!

Then you must be happy with capitalism that wants to keep you drunk and mindless. Now, go watch a sitcom or reality TV with the rest of the lemmings.

[liberlict]

Families are not a the basis of civilization, that's ridiculous, but nepotism is an immutable part of humanity, and all other species.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Then you must be happy with capitalism that wants to keep you drunk and mindless. Now, go watch a sitcom or reality TV with the rest of the lemmings.

"Lemmings"? If your opinion of the working class is so low, why are you a communist?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I want the 'family' to be something that is fluid and open to interpretation without prejudice from persons or state. I have a wife and two kids, but I like the idea of families down the street being whatever they want to be (two dads, no dad, communal set up), so long as the children (well, everyone really) are cared for and loved, the make-up of the family 'unit' doesn't matter.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Then you must be happy with capitalism that wants to keep you drunk and mindless. Now, go watch a sitcom or reality TV with the rest of the lemmings.
I don't have cable. Also, I could have sworn humans were using drugs and having fun way before capitalism was even a thing but hey, whatever, have a boring life.

[MarxArchist]

That's the plan, anyway. Who really knows what form familial relations will take after the revolution?

Marriage/family would be completely voluntary, non hierarchical with no economic dependence with either party. Systems of accumulating vast amounts of resources via inheritance would also be abolished. I think too many conservatives picture some "brave new world" scenario where people are breed by the state or are subject to strict communal living.

Have a read everyone: http://isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml

[Vostok17]

"Lemmings"? If your opinion of the working class is so low, why are you a communist?

I did not say a fucking thing about the "working class". I am part of that class. My reference was in regard to a glib response to a post I made on this thread. That person is who I referred to as a lemming. You read something into it that does not apply.

Those who are glib, superficial entertainment seekers are too much a part of the bourgeoise class to be a true revolutionary.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I did not say a fucking thing about the "working class". I am part of that class. My reference was in regard to a glib response to a post I made on this thread. That person is who I referred to as a lemming. You read something into it that does not apply.

I can assure you that Mr PC LOAD LETTER is no lemming. I would rather assume that he is not of the "hair shirts and auto-flagellation" school of revolutionary praxis.

Also, you made a reference to "the rest of the lemmings", which implies that you believe in the existence of a certain group of people with no sense of initiative or self-preservation. What do you imagine is the primary class composition of these "lemmings" to which you refer?


Those who are glib, superficial entertainment seekers are too much a part of the bourgeoise class to be a true revolutionary.

One's class is all about one's relationship to the means of production, it has nothing to do with whether one likes trashy entertainment or not.

[Vostok17]

I believe that the family unit should be destroyed. That is the subject of this thread.

If you want to discuss what you think you know about the working class or just regurgitate something that you have read, start another thread.

Now, really, shouldn't you be at the mall with the rest of those dancing to capitalists tune and seeking entertainment?

[MarxArchist]

Now, really, shouldn't you be at the mall with the rest of those dancing to capitalists tune and seeking entertainment?

I have a copy of "One Dimensional Man" next to the toilet and use it to wipe. One can partly accept it's critique but reject it's conclusion as far as the working class in western nations goes. What makes it even more useless is the rejection of worsening crisis, which, at the time written, maybe seemed plausible but history has shown Marcuse to be wrong. Then he goes and completely throws historical materialism aside and says the working class in general anywhere under any circumstances cannot be the revolutionary agent. Only a peasantry, slave population or any other person experiencing total subjugation/immiseration can be the revolutionary agent. Even if that person has no idea what communism is and especially if that person is not a proletariat. It was all basically one giant philosophical/idealist excuse for Maoism. How did Maoism work out in China? Skipping phases of production (ignoring historical materialism) forcing industrialization (capitalism's job) forcing a "cultural revolution" on an undeveloped population and in the end had to give in to capitalism in order to properly develop the nation.


I would argue most of the current conditions we now see were a result of both the Russian attempt at socialism (while ignoring historical materialism) and capitals reaction to it. It's not just a matter of workers in the first world being "lazy, ignorant, shallow slobs" as most are alienated, most are exploited, most are commodified, most hate their jobs and the never ending grind; where you're right is, all manner of distraction has been crafted to distract from this core sense that everything is wrong. The answer isn't to degrade first world workers, it isn't to ignore them or frame them as reactionary it should be to embrace them, help explain why they have so many negative feelings even though they're supposedly "free and living in some of the wealthiest nations on earth". That we also understand imperialism and colonialism is paramount.

Take me for instance. I have a degree in literature, went to community then state college. Lived in a 400 sq ft studio the whole time and did so for another 3 years after college. I can't find work in my chosen field so I'm in construction. After 10 years in construction I can afford a larger apartment, I can afford to buy healthy food, not designer but quality clothes, I can afford to go to the bar, movies, a cell phone bill etc. Non of this justifies the fact that for my entire adult life I've been exploited. Admittedly it was the material experience of being a non union carpenter that 'drove' me into communism so a certain amount of direct physical misery was behind the choice but now that I'm self employed and less exploited it's not like I'm not going to understand why humans should not have to work for a boss in order to survive, I still understand why we should not be forced to pay a landlord or bank in order to survive. I still understand historical materialism and why our relation to the means of production largely determines the amount of freedom we experience. This "Matrix" that has been created for us isnt freedom and I think that's the point you're trying to make but rather than insult people help "unplug" them with proper materialist analysis. Am I making sense?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe that the family unit should be destroyed. That is the subject of this thread.

If you want to discuss what you think you know about the working class or just regurgitate something that you have read, start another thread.

Now how would you know how I came to form my opinions, without discussing them? I find it curious that you are suddenly so hot on this thread's original topic when the current trend of discussion was just getting to an interesting juncture.


Now, really, shouldn't you be at the mall with the rest of those dancing to capitalists tune and seeking entertainment?

Really, are you saying that communists shouldn't enjoy entertainment? Or what are you saying?

[bcbm]

I believe that the family unit should be destroyed. That is the subject of this thread.

If you want to discuss what you think you know about the working class or just regurgitate something that you have read, start another thread.

Now, really, shouldn't you be at the mall with the rest of those dancing to capitalists tune and seeking entertainment?

now this is a quality troll

[Vostok17]

I find it curious that you are suddenly so hot on this thread's original topic when the current trend of discussion was just getting to an interesting juncture.

Really, are you saying that communists shouldn't enjoy entertainment? Or what are you saying?

I am just responding to your replies. I will be happy to follow the trend. However, I do not think this is the intent of the thread. It is really quite amusing to see how I have riled the pedantic ones on this forum.


People who say that about entertainment have bought the capitalist line that communism is monolithic. I NEVER said that. Look at my original posts. I merely said that debauchery and vile or drunken behavior should not be part of a true communist order. That behavior is the playground of the current state of things.

[Ele'ill]

I am just responding to your replies. I will be happy to follow the trend. However, I do not think this is the intent of the thread. It is really quite amusing to see how I have riled the pedantic ones on this forum.


People who say that about entertainment have bought the capitalist line that communism is monolithic. I NEVER said that. Look at my original posts. I merely said that debauchery and vile or drunken behavior should not be part of a true communist order. That behavior is the playground of the current state of things.

The problem is that you are not posting with a big enough font. If you make your font bigger people will then immediately agree with what you are saying.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What the fuck happened to this thread. Alcohol is now a past-time of capitalist lackeys? What?


The problem is that you are not posting with a big enough font. If you make your font bigger people will then immediately agree with what you are saying.

FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME.

[bcbm]

I merely said that debauchery and vile or drunken behavior should not be part of a true communist order.

just what a humanity-for-itself needs, morality police

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I merely said that debauchery and vile or drunken behavior should not be part of a true communist order. That behavior is the playground of the current state of things.
The point of communism is so we can all do drugs, drink, and party for free.

[liberlict]

The point of communism is so we can all do drugs, drink, and party for free.

Do communists support the legalization of drugs?

[Nevsky]

So communists want to destroy my family, ban theme parks and take away my drugs? What the fuck?

Marxism is about economics, you genius!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Do communists support the legalization of drugs?

420 blaze it comrade.

[Brutus]

The point of communism is so we can all do drugs, drink, and party for free.

Each according to his ability, each according to his weed.

Class=no grass

More marajuana based communist slogans! PC, you have just changed my view on Marxism entirely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am just responding to your replies. I will be happy to follow the trend. However, I do not think this is the intent of the thread.

Threads don't have intentions, but forum users do. My intention as a forum user is to determine the thinking behind your statements. Hence the dialogue.


It is really quite amusing to see how I have riled the pedantic ones on this forum.

Why the multiple? I think I'm the only one being pedantic here. The others are mainly making fun of you, it seems.


People who say that about entertainment have bought the capitalist line that communism is monolithic. I NEVER said that. Look at my original posts. I merely said that debauchery and vile or drunken behavior should not be part of a true communist order. That behavior is the playground of the current state of things.

What's wrong with debauchery and drunken behaviour? It's fun, and humans need to have fun, at least now and then, otherwise we go strange. Really strange.

[Igor]

i find it very hard to believe that even post-revolutionary society would be interesting and fulfilling enough i wouldnt want to engage in 'debauchery'

[#FF0000]

Do communists support the legalization of drugs?

Some do some don't. Around here, a lot of people are all about the decriminalization/legalization of everything, but then there's leftist groups that are very anti-drug when it's a problem in their communities.

[Vostok17]

but then there's leftist groups that are very anti-drug when it's a problem in their communities.

Thank you for saying that.

[liberlict]

420 blaze it comrade.

I had to urban dictionary "420 blaze it" lol. Thanks for that.

[liberlict]

Some do some don't. Around here, a lot of people are all about the decriminalization/legalization of everything, but then there's leftist groups that are very anti-drug when it's a problem in their communities.

Well, I hope the anti-drug briggade are comfortable with totalitarianism, because that is the only way you are going to stop people (ab)using drugs. And not even that works---for example the heroin addiction is rampant in Afghanistan, dispite:


Allah Ta’ala states in the Holy Qur’aan: -

O You who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones and (divination by) arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. Avoid (such abominations) that you may prosper. (5:90)

[liberlict]

Each according to his ability, each according to his weed.



Rad. I've been searching for something for my signature.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

wait what the fuck is the point in being a communist if i can't get drunk in student union bars and wave leaflets at people

[Comrade #138672]

wait what the fuck is the point in being a communist if i can't get drunk in student union bars and wave leaflets at peopleWell, I don't know, maybe a decent living for our class and its emancipation.

But if we can achieve this by waving leaflets at people in student union bars when drunk, then we should definitely do that.

[Comrade #138672]

Some do some don't. Around here, a lot of people are all about the decriminalization/legalization of everything, but then there's leftist groups that are very anti-drug when it's a problem in their communities.Understandable. However, I believe that drugs cause problems in certain communities because they are unregulated, but this is something we don't necessarily have to agree over.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

that was more or les the (pardon the pun) spirit of the thing :P

although on a more serious note I really don't see the utility in all that "hair shirts" stuff. I'm aware that revolution is a serious matter but tbh I think unsmiling self-denial is already covered well enough by religious fanatics. It smells of moralising, if you catch my drift.

On a similar note I often wonder if we'd see drug and drink problems reduced anyway in a socialist world - a lot of people get fucked out of their heads because it's a preferable alternative to what currently passes for the reality of life. When those dreary "realities" are safely consigned to the history books people will be more satisfied (in general)

[Jimmie Higgins]

that was more or les the (pardon the pun) spirit of the thing :P

although on a more serious note I really don't see the utility in all that "hair shirts" stuff. I'm aware that revolution is a serious matter but tbh I think unsmiling self-denial is already covered well enough by religious fanatics. It smells of moralising, if you catch my drift.

On a similar note I often wonder if we'd see drug and drink problems reduced anyway in a socialist world - a lot of people get fucked out of their heads because it's a preferable alternative to what currently passes for the reality of life. When those dreary "realities" are safely consigned to the history books people will be more satisfied (in general)

Well I hope that drugs/drink wouldn't be as much of a "problem" and people wouldn't use it as a crutch in a more fufilling life; but I have a feeling that use of these things across all societies means that it would continue. In fact I think there would be something wrong if people didn't at least expirament more in all sorts of experiences.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I have a feeling that weed smoking would become a much more social activity, like going to a pub after work.

"Well comrade, we have contributed a couple of hours of labor. Let us go to comrade olaf's weedery to smoke herb and debauch ourselves with strange women."

"I do love socialism, comrade."

[PC LOAD LETTER]

that was more or les the (pardon the pun) spirit of the thing :P

although on a more serious note I really don't see the utility in all that "hair shirts" stuff. I'm aware that revolution is a serious matter but tbh I think unsmiling self-denial is already covered well enough by religious fanatics. It smells of moralising, if you catch my drift.

On a similar note I often wonder if we'd see drug and drink problems reduced anyway in a socialist world - a lot of people get fucked out of their heads because it's a preferable alternative to what currently passes for the reality of life. When those dreary "realities" are safely consigned to the history books people will be more satisfied (in general)
No I'll still get high after work off of many different things even in a socialist paradise

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

No I'll still get high after work off of many different things even in a socialist paradise

But what will you do in communist paradise, when work as such has been abolished?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

But what will you do in communist paradise, when work as such has been abolished?
Then I'll just hang out with my friends and get fucked up and explore the far reaches of the universe on our NCC-1701 Starship Enterprise. Hopefully there won't be intergalactic DUI checkpoints. Flashing blue lights. Come off the warp drive, slow down, roll the window slowly, try not to act nervous. "Do you realize how fast your starship was traveling? Double the warp limit. You're going to jail tonight, son." Can you imagine what jail would be like on Arrakis? Yikes

[Le Communiste]

yes, we want to make your wife a radical feminist lesbian, we want to forcibly gay marry you to a leatherclad bear, we want to send your kids into white slavery at the court of a black communist dictator, we want to paint your church red with the blood of christian babies, we want to set fire to your ikea and your SUV, we want to rape your labrador with the broken pieces of your white picketed fence.
we want to wage nuclear war on the nuclear family.
why? because we are pinko freedom hating commienazi atheist bastards, its just what we do.

Hmm, with responses like this, it's a wonder why all people aren't some sort of leftist

[bcbm]

Hmm, with responses like this, it's a wonder why all people aren't some sort of leftist

get out of here, breeder

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

No I'll still get high after work off of many different things even in a socialist paradise

aaaaah that was what I was getting at. You'll be getting blitzed on your own terms though, so to speak.

what i was saying was that drugs and booze would be less about "oh god i want to drink the world away" more about just having a nice time :D

[Vireya]

The OP fails to realize that Capitalism (especially liberal capitalism) has been degrading the family unit for generations.

[LovingEmbrace]

there won't be any families in the future. we will all be like sisters.

all adults must be wiped out.

the world is run by men who fuck their own daughters.

[Comrade Jacob]

Yes, if you are talking about the family as we know it because it is the result of the bourgeoisie, we aim to make society the "family", not just those you fell out of.

[Vireya]

Yes, if you are talking about the family as we know it because it is the result of the bourgeoisie, we aim to make society the "family", not just those you fell out of.

I think it'd still be better to have a solid family unit as the basis of society, the communal hippie thing doesn't sound particularly stable.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think it'd still be better to have a solid family unit as the basis of society, the communal hippie thing doesn't sound particularly stable.

I dated a woman from a communal-hippie-thing for three years (non-monogamously, obvs.). Counter-intuitively, her extended hippie-family didn't like me because they thought I was a negative ne'er-do-well with no work ethic.

Anyway, during the years I wasn't posting on RevLeft because I was too drunk, I wrote a song about "the family":

D A
I used to believe in anarchy
G D
Now I believe in rule by the punx
A
A rotating dictatorship
G D
Of whomever is most drunk
A
There'll LSD in the water
G D
And we'll all bathe in beer
A
While the anti-national anthem
G D
Rings in our ears
x
It goes:
D A D
Up the punx!
D A D
Off the pigs!
D A D
Kill your parents,
G D A D
Fuck everything!
D A D
Up the punx!
D A D
Off the pigs!
D A D
Kill your parents,
G D A D
Fuck everything!

Unfortunately, RevLeft takes out the spacing that indicates where the chord changes are supposed to be, but maybe I'll record it some day.

[audiored]

Do you want to destroy it?



Gosh I sure hope everyone here does.

[Bea Arthur]

Yes, I want to destroy the institution of the family. It is a breeding ground for racism, sexism, homophobia, and imperialism. Under a socialist society, children will be communally raised and adults will enter intimate relationships at their will without binding legal contracts and cohabitation.

[Klaatu]

I hope you're not revlefts exemplary poster par excellence. Are you capable of having a discussion without degenerating into a passive aggressive teenager?

um... you asked a stupid question, and you are surprised to get a stupid answer? ;)

[RedBen]

Yes, I want to destroy the institution of the family. It is a breeding ground for racism, sexism, homophobia, and imperialism. Under a socialist society, children will be communally raised and adults will enter intimate relationships at their will without binding legal contracts and cohabitation.
says who? i live with my significant other, we're happy. we choose to live together and have for almost 5 years. if we choose to have children, they most certainly will not be made vulnerable to strange people. too many perverts and abusive people out there. my sister in and father in law are fans of corporal punishment, i'm against it. i'll be goddamned if someone else is gonna hit my kid, or hurt them, or try to indoctrinate them into a regimented way of thinking. it will be up to my significant other and i.

[Consistent.Surprise]

says who? i live with my significant other, we're happy. we choose to live together and have for almost 5 years. if we choose to have children, they most certainly will not be made vulnerable to strange people. too many perverts and abusive people out there. my sister in and father in law are fans of corporal punishment, i'm against it. i'll be goddamned if someone else is gonna hit my kid, or hurt them, or try to indoctrinate them into a regimented way of thinking. it will be up to my significant other and i.

I *think* (& Bea Arthur can correct me if wrong) I'm reading her comment as when we socialize. Not our current structure. Some folks already do a community raising when friends & blood family are a large part of a child's growth.

[RedBen]

I *think* (& Bea Arthur can correct me if wrong) I'm reading her comment as when we socialize. Not our current structure. Some folks already do a community raising when friends & blood family are a large part of a child's growth.
we live in a 4 story building with her father and uncle upstairs, sister, mother and niece and nephew downstairs. all doors between floors remain unlocked minus the exterior doors so to allow the children(3 years old) access and to never be far from an adult. i agree in the idea of community, i would just be too worried about the safety of my children. the twins don't get hit often, but i do hear them getting hit periodically and hear them get screamed at. my siblings(5) and i got beat as kids, i strongly disagree with hitting children.

[Consistent.Surprise]

I disagree with hitting children as well (& I was). Even though these two are yelled at, the availability to other adults creates a community raising.

In a socialist country (& really should exist no matter what), the raising of children should be communal. Think of it like daycare only your neighbors; everyone is actually looking out for everyone. I had that childhood on a few blocks in my neighborhood.

[RedBen]

I disagree with hitting children as well (& I was). Even though these two are yelled at, the availability to other adults creates a community raising.

In a socialist country (& really should exist no matter what), the raising of children should be communal. Think of it like daycare only your neighbors; everyone is actually looking out for everyone. I had that childhood on a few blocks in my neighborhood.
i agree. i think everyone should look out for children, and eachother in general. maybe it does take a village.

[bcbm]

I think it'd still be better to have a solid family unit as the basis of society, the communal hippie thing doesn't sound particularly stable.

it worked for a lot longer than the family, which has generally proved itself to be a miserable arrangement for all involved.

[Comrade Chernov]

Why not just combine the communal hippie thing with families? It's what worked for quite a long time. Seven, eight, nine, ten families, looking after their village.

[bcbm]

well more or less the 'village' would be your 'family' with distinctions of paternity and the like being irrelevant.

[Vireya]

Yes, I want to destroy the institution of the family. It is a breeding ground for racism, sexism, homophobia, and imperialism. Under a socialist society, children will be communally raised and adults will enter intimate relationships at their will without binding legal contracts and cohabitation.

I hope you're prepared to have an increase in children with developmental problems.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think people are indulging in utopian project-mongering a bit here - and I am surprised at the implication that there will be the One Divinely (Communally?) Ordained Method of raising children. Obviously any sort of abuse should be stopped, and obviously the bourgeois family unit should be destroyed - and that means destroying unpaid female domestic labour and forced birth - but this still leaves room for a plurality of forms, to be decided by the people involved.

[Vireya]

I think people are indulging in utopian project-mongering a bit here - and I am surprised at the implication that there will be the One Divinely (Communally?) Ordained Method of raising children. Obviously any sort of abuse should be stopped, and obviously the bourgeois family unit should be destroyed - and that means destroying unpaid female domestic labour and forced birth - but this still leaves room for a plurality of forms, to be decided by the people involved.

What is meant by "abuse". Are we speaking of indiscriminate beatings or normal corporal discipline (spanking)?

Also, why must the nuclear family be abolished? What makes it connected to the bourgeois?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What is meant by "abuse". Are we speaking of indiscriminate beatings or normal corporal discipline (spanking)?

That, in truth, is a question for child psychologists - but off the cuff, I fail to see how corporal discipline is anything but gratuitous and counterproductive. Its "normality" is besides the point - a lot of things have become normalised even though they have no place in a rational, liberated society.


Also, why must the nuclear family be abolished? What makes it connected to the bourgeois?

I am not talking about "the nuclear family" in the sense of a couple raising children as a unit. In the communist society, if a couple and their children wish to form such a unit, who is to stop them? The government over men will have been abolished.

No, I am talking about the bourgeois family unit - the family (not necessarily a nuclear family in the usual sense) in its role as a mechanism for the reproduction of the labour force. This bourgeois family unit rests, not on individual as opposed to communal raising of children, but on the special oppression of women through forced sex and birth and unpaid domestic labour.

[Vireya]

That, in truth, is a question for child psychologists - but off the cuff, I fail to see how corporal discipline is anything but gratuitous and counterproductive. Its "normality" is besides the point - a lot of things have become normalised even though they have no place in a rational, liberated society.



I am not talking about "the nuclear family" in the sense of a couple raising children as a unit. In the communist society, if a couple and their children wish to form such a unit, who is to stop them? The government over men will have been abolished.

No, I am talking about the bourgeois family unit - the family (not necessarily a nuclear family in the usual sense) in its role as a mechanism for the reproduction of the labour force. This bourgeois family unit rests, not on individual as opposed to communal raising of children, but on the special oppression of women through forced sex and birth and unpaid domestic labour.

I'd consider well utilized corporal punishment to be a valueable parental tool. Of course, one shouldn't use it for minor offenses.

Wouldn't reproduction of the labor force be a good thing? Also a socialist society would need that as well.

Ok what? You lost me on that one. How does the family unit force women to have sex? I certainly agree with the idea that the liberal capitalists most definitely encourage women, and the populace in general, to endulge in promiscuous and degenerate sexual behavior, but they don't force them to. What unpayed domestic labor?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I certainly agree with the idea that the liberal capitalists most definitely encourage women, and the populace in general, to endulge in promiscuous and degenerate sexual behavior

OK, this is the part where it gets really problematic for me.

What do you mean by 'promiscuous and degenerate' sexual behavior, and why exactly do you judge it so?

[Vireya]

OK, this is the part where it gets really problematic for me.

What do you mean by 'promiscuous and degenerate' sexual behavior, and why exactly do you judge it so?

Degenerate Sexual behavior :Premarital sex, multiple sexual partners, S&M, furry/beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, fetishes (scat...etc), rape....etc.

They all threaten proper civil discourse and are corrosive to stable and benificial social values.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Degenerate Sexual behavior :Premarital sex, multiple sexual partners, S&M, furry/beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, fetishes (scat...etc), rape....etc.

They all threaten proper civil discourse and are corrosive to stable and benificial social values.

Ok, the fact that you think rape and premarital sex are somehow equally bad is fucked up in and of itself, but this stuff about 'civil discourse and beneficial social values'.....

Explain to me WHY you think this. You can't just rely on such superficial rhetoric without stating your case. You can't just expect us to swallow all of that wholesale.

[Vireya]

Ok, the fact that you think rape and premarital sex are somehow equally bad is fucked up in and of itself, but this stuff about 'civil discourse and beneficial social values'.....

Explain to me WHY you think this. You can't just rely on such superficial rhetoric without stating your case. You can't just expect us to swallow all of that wholesale.

Yeah, see....I don't think rape and premarital sex are equivalent transgressions, you asked what I consider to be deviant sexual behavior, you didn't ask me to place them into tiers. Stop assuming things about me merely because I happen to be caged in your site's OI section. I'm doing my best not to succumb to my preconceived notions of your ideology, I'd like you to do the same with mine. Is that fine with you?

Anyways....those acts are part of the liberal agenda to erode societies sense of responsibility, community, and stability. They are instruments of hedonism, selfishness, and perversion.

[Hivemind]

I can agree to some degree that some of the things that Vireya listed can be negative on a societal level...under capitalism. For example, BDSM porn explicitly made and propagated to a wide audience (relatively speaking) can influence people to act a certain way. For example, imagine a boy who starts watching that stuff and he grows up thinking that's the way things should be. He sees women get degraded in the porn that he watches and he eventually becomes what is universally known as a douchebag (:laugh:).

In that scenario, BDSM would be a negative sexual behaviour; would it not seem so? To a lot, it would, and that's why stuff like BDSM gets demonized. The real problem lies in the alienation and atomization of individuals in a capitalist society, and a lack of communication between individuals (in this case, between parents and children, or children and their friends, as a lot of people are unwilling to discuss "taboo" topics such as extreme porn, in this case).

There is nothing wrong with BDSM, so to speak. You could say that BDSM is a natural extension of sex as it has evolved over time under capitalism, as it mimics relationships that are visible in our modern day society: ruling class vs working class, refined into boss versus worker, refined into leader and follower, which ends up as top and bottom in BDSM. This is of course a very rough and vague portrayal of what BDSM actually is but it is enough to get the point across. You could say that BDSM is "wrong" in that it reproduces relationships that we as communists/anarchists see are wrong, but a little play never hurt anyone. It's when it is taken too far that it becomes a negative thing, with the strongest example being the porn industry and how it affects individuals who consume porn, and those who make it, with respect to alienation, atomization, and just capitalism in general.


Degenerate Sexual behavior :Premarital sex

What a riot :laugh:


They all threaten proper civil discourse and are corrosive to stable and benificial social values.

those acts are part of the liberal agenda to erode societies sense of responsibility, community, and stability. They are instruments of hedonism, selfishness, and perversion.

No wonder you're restricted.

[Vireya]

I can agree to some degree that some of the things that Vireya listed can be negative on a societal level...under capitalism. For example, BDSM porn explicitly made and propagated to a wide audience (relatively speaking) can influence people to act a certain way. For example, imagine a boy who starts watching that stuff and he grows up thinking that's the way things should be. He sees women get degraded in the porn that he watches and he eventually becomes what is universally known as a douchebag (:laugh:).

In that scenario, BDSM would be a negative sexual behaviour; would it not seem so? To a lot, it would, and that's why stuff like BDSM gets demonized. The real problem lies in the alienation and atomization of individuals in a capitalist society, and a lack of communication between individuals (in this case, between parents and children, or children and their friends, as a lot of people are unwilling to discuss "taboo" topics such as extreme porn, in this case).

There is nothing wrong with BDSM, so to speak. You could say that BDSM is a natural extension of sex as it has evolved over time under capitalism, as it mimics relationships that are visible in our modern day society: ruling class vs working class, refined into boss versus worker, refined into leader and follower, which ends up as top and bottom in BDSM. This is of course a very rough and vague portrayal of what BDSM actually is but it is enough to get the point across. You could say that BDSM is "wrong" in that it reproduces relationships that we as communists/anarchists see are wrong, but a little play never hurt anyone. It's when it is taken too far that it becomes a negative thing, with the strongest example being the porn industry and how it affects individuals who consume porn, and those who make it, with respect to alienation, atomization, and just capitalism in general.



What a riot :laugh:




No wonder you're restricted.

I agree with everything you stated about BDSM, except for the "there's nothing wrong with it" part.

Yes, I'm restricted for two reasons; I'm not a communist (I'm a non-anarchist syndicalist), and I'm not socially libertarian.

Big suprise! I'm restricted on an anarcho-communist forum!

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

those acts are part of the liberal agenda to erode societies sense of responsibility, community, and stability. They are instruments of hedonism, selfishness, and perversion.

Again, you're using superficial rhetoric without any evidence to back it up. WHY are these things instruments of 'hedonism, selfishness, and perversion?"

And for that matter, who are you to say that promiscuity or BDSM is perversion? Because from the sound of it you just find these things icky and want to impose your own prejudices on others.

[Hivemind]

I agree with everything you stated about BDSM, except for the "there's nothing wrong with it" part.

If you can objectively prove that there's something wrong with it, I'm all ears.


Big suprise! I'm restricted on an anarcho-communist forum!

Hah, if only! I wish that would be the case but there's way too many name-ist communists on here for this to be considered an anarchist forum, which makes me a sad panda :lol:

[Rugged Collectivist]

Anyways....those acts are part of the liberal agenda to erode societies sense of responsibility, community, and stability. They are instruments of hedonism, selfishness, and perversion.

You know what's really a threat to people's sense of community? Ostracizing other people because they have some weird, harmless fetish.

What's wrong with hedonism?

[Philo]

The big problem here is that Vireya seems to be doing what a lot of the authoritarian "left" does; conflating pre-modern/anti-enlightenment communitarianism with communism/socialism.

Capitalism has indeed been a "liberalizing" force. Marx famously described its effect on traditional social structures as "all that is solid melts into air." After all, if some norm gets too much in the way of the functioning of the market, something will have to give.

This is why reactionary communitarians are often anti-capitalist, or at least skeptical of capitalism; they see the traditional structures that capitalism has eroded as in some way a good thing. But this is just "anti-capitalist" in the way that monarchists would have been "anti-capitalists" 300-400 years ago, that is to say in a way only tangentially related to the anti-capitalism of the left.

I won't presume to speak for all leftists, but I definitely think I speak for a lot when I say that socialism/communism is the radicalization of the modernist project, not its rejection. Capitalism is pernicious to us because it preaches freedom and equality when that mostly refers to the freedom to engage in market exchange and the equality of the ubiquity of exchange value and the commodity, rather than the freedom to freely invent and carry out new forms of life, new projects, and new meanings, and the equality of not being systematically exploited, a mere tool in the free-wheeling machinations of capital.

Leftism is the project of replacing the anemic forms of freedom and equality so duplicitously promised by liberalism, but concealing of and propped up by so much exploitation, suffering, and authoritarianism -the authoritarianism of the market, of property, of the state, of racism, of sexism, of heterosexism and all those little fascisms- with the substantive freedom and equality to lead maximally fulfilling lives. Our problem with modernity is not its luxuries and freedoms but the fact that most of those luxuries and freedoms are available only to a very few at the expense of the great many, and take a form and purpose dictated not by the desires and aims of the majority of those involved but by the dictates of capital. And that includes sexual liberation (see the abusiveness of mainstream porn).

In short, I agree with the poster who said "I can see why you're restricted."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'd consider well utilized corporal punishment to be a valueable parental tool. Of course, one shouldn't use it for minor offenses.

How is it valuable? It is valuable if you want your child to behave "properly" - not to mention how problematic the notion that parents should decide what constitutes "proper behaviour" is - out of a Pavlovian impulse. Perhaps there are situations when such tools are "better than nothing", but in the long term, methods of persuasion produce better results than methods of coercion, in politics as well as in education.


Wouldn't reproduction of the labor force be a good thing? Also a socialist society would need that as well.

It is good to the bourgeoisie - factories do not operate by themselves - and it is detrimental to the proletariat because of the methods of coercion and violence used. In the socialist society, there will be no need for the reproduction of the capitalist labour force, since capitalism will have been abolished. Capitalism doesn't simply require workers - it requires a particular sort of workers.


Ok what? You lost me on that one. How does the family unit force women to have sex? I certainly agree with the idea that the liberal capitalists most definitely encourage women, and the populace in general, to endulge in promiscuous and degenerate sexual behavior, but they don't force them to. What unpayed domestic labor?

The bourgeois family unit is a particular social structure that includes forced sex and childbirth, unpaid domestic labour etc. etc. It does not "force women to have sex", just as robberies do not take people's possessions. Men force women to have sex - through marital rape, coercion and so on. Women preform domestic labour, and are not paid for it, leaving male proletarians free to focus on work for the bourgeoisie.

[RedBen]

Degenerate Sexual behavior :Premarital sex, multiple sexual partners, S&M, furry/beastiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, fetishes (scat...etc), rape....etc.

They all threaten proper civil discourse and are corrosive to stable and benificial social values.
i don't know where you get this from but you may consider seeking professional help

[Vireya]

i don't know where you get this from but you may consider seeking professional help

I need professional help for (rightfully) believing rape, pedophiles, beastiality/furrism, etc, are evil? Perhaps it is you that ought to seek "professional help".

Philo and Sem, I'll respond to you guys in a bit.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I need professional help for (rightfully) believing rape, pedophiles, beastiality/furrism, etc, are evil? Perhaps it is you that ought to seek "professional help".

For one, I don't see anyone advocating rape in this thread, nor are traditional sexual mores in any way an effective means of combating it. If anything, rape has been the de facto (boys will be boys)where not de jure (e.g. laws concerning marital rape, legal definitions of consent) "obscene supplement" to the sexual norms you advocate.

Also, if you can't tell the difference between fucking an animal, and fucking a person dressed up as an animal, I question whether or not you have sufficient sexual experience to weigh in on any of this meaningfully.

[RedBen]

I need professional help for (rightfully) believing rape, pedophiles, beastiality/furrism, etc, are evil? Perhaps it is you that ought to seek "professional help".

Philo and Sem, I'll respond to you guys in a bit.

you missed my point, my point was that if you think socialism or the left promotes these things you need help. i was't advocating any of it, the normal person doesn't think about these things

[Vireya]

The big problem here is that Vireya seems to be doing what a lot of the authoritarian "left" does; conflating pre-modern/anti-enlightenment communitarianism with communism/socialism.

Capitalism has indeed been a "liberalizing" force. Marx famously described its effect on traditional social structures as "all that is solid melts into air." After all, if some norm gets too much in the way of the functioning of the market, something will have to give.

This is why reactionary communitarians are often anti-capitalist, or at least skeptical of capitalism; they see the traditional structures that capitalism has eroded as in some way a good thing. But this is just "anti-capitalist" in the way that monarchists would have been "anti-capitalists" 300-400 years ago, that is to say in a way only tangentially related to the anti-capitalism of the left.

I won't presume to speak for all leftists, but I definitely think I speak for a lot when I say that socialism/communism is the radicalization of the modernist project, not its rejection. Capitalism is pernicious to us because it preaches freedom and equality when that mostly refers to the freedom to engage in market exchange and the equality of the ubiquity of exchange value and the commodity, rather than the freedom to freely invent and carry out new forms of life, new projects, and new meanings, and the equality of not being systematically exploited, a mere tool in the free-wheeling machinations of capital.

Leftism is the project of replacing the anemic forms of freedom and equality so duplicitously promised by liberalism, but concealing of and propped up by so much exploitation, suffering, and authoritarianism -the authoritarianism of the market, of property, of the state, of racism, of sexism, of heterosexism and all those little fascisms- with the substantive freedom and equality to lead maximally fulfilling lives. Our problem with modernity is not its luxuries and freedoms but the fact that most of those luxuries and freedoms are available only to a very few at the expense of the great many, and take a form and purpose dictated not by the desires and aims of the majority of those involved but by the dictates of capital. And that includes sexual liberation (see the abusiveness of mainstream porn).

In short, I agree with the poster who said "I can see why you're restricted."

I agree with your premise that I and the typical leftist have differing reasons leading us to an anti-capitalist stance, and to an extent with your comparison of "reactionary communitarians" with the pre-capitalist monarchists. Though you seem to be insinuating that I'm not a socialist. The only thing I could even be consider "reactionary" on is my thoughts on sex culture, which I believe should be reverted back to the way it was before the plague known as the "Sexual Revolution."

Whether I could be considered for Modernism, would depend on what is meant by the term. I don't consider anything proposed by liberals or modern feminism or "sexual liberation" to be "modernist" or progressive. The goals of the LBGT community generally are, but they've been close to the liberals too long and it is threatening to discredit their whole movement.

Another difference between me and leftists is that I'm opposed to the use of "freedom" as a talking point, it does have any real meaning. It is an empty concept the doesn't truly exist on society, and it indeed shouldn't. "Freedom" is the absence of regulation, in essence, I oppose both liberalism and social libertarianism. If what you say is true, that you don't oppose liberal luxuries and "freedoms", only that you wish to make these more accessible to the populace, it is difficult for me too fathom how it is your ideas are any better. For my POV, that'd make you and liberals, for all intents and purposes, the same.

[Vireya]

For one, I don't see anyone advocating rape in this thread, nor are traditional sexual mores in any way an effective means of combating it. If anything, rape has been the de facto (boys will be boys)where not de jure (e.g. laws concerning marital rape, legal definitions of consent) "obscene supplement" to the sexual norms you advocate.

Also, if you can't tell the difference between fucking an animal, and fucking a person dressed up as an animal, I question whether or not you have sufficient sexual experience to weigh in on any of this meaningfully.

I didn't say anyone here was advocating that, I was asked what was unacceptable behavior and the I what I provided. Just the same, you assume I support the status quo that it's "a ok" for males to be promiscuous and not females. I don't support anyone going that.

Furry fetish and beastiality are essentially the same thing, there's no reason you'd have sex with person dressed up as an animal if you weren't attracted to animals.

[RedBen]

I didn't say anyone here was advocating that, [i]Furry fetish and beastiality are essentially the same thing, there's no reason you'd have sex with person dressed up as an animal if you weren't attracted to animals.
i never understood the furry thing but it is in my opinion completely different. being one is an animal and one is a person. as i understand it has something to do with hentai/anime fetishes? though i could be way off:confused:

[Consistent.Surprise]

my thoughts on sex culture, which I believe should be reverted back to the way it was before the plague known as the "Sexual Revolution."

Let me go grab my apron & pearls & get my ass back into the kitchen. I guess these shoes & empty womb need to be dealt with as well.


Furry fetish and beastiality are essentially the same thing, there's no reason you'd have sex with person dressed up as an animal if you weren't attracted to animals.

Please. Stop talking about things you have no clue about. Let the Furries Yiff in peace. They aren't hurting anyone (at least not without their consent) And most aren't really on the sadistic/masochistic side.

[RedBen]

Let me go grab my apron & pearls & get my ass back into the kitchen. I guess these shoes & empty womb need to be dealt with as well.

now you're gettin it!:D

[Vireya]

Let me go grab my apron & pearls & get my ass back into the kitchen. I guess these shoes & empty womb need to be dealt with as well.



Please. Stop talking about things you have no clue about. Let the Furries Yiff in peace. They aren't hurting anyone (at least not without their consent) And most aren't really on the sadistic/masochistic side.

I said sex culture, not gender roles...... :glare:

No. "Yiffing" is the attempted normalization of beastiality, it should be illegal.

[Consistent.Surprise]

I said sex culture, not gender roles...... :glare:

No. "Yiffing" is the attempted normalization of beastiality, it should be illegal.

So you wish to have this "deviant" behavior hidden? I can't get off how I want to but that man over there (pointing at some random guy) gets his Playboys. Great. Here's my vibrator & strap on. You want to burn the lube as well. Everyone is exploited. You're looking at returning to just women being sex objects with no power over their sexual lives. Way to empower your fellow woman.

And no, Yiffing has NOTHING to do with beastiality. I know. I know Furries. I'm also a part of this sexually deviant lifestyle you have no education of past 50 Shades (or so it seems because you're spewing the thoughts mass media has about BDSM. Good job!)
.

[RedBen]

I said sex culture, not gender roles...... :glare:

No. "Yiffing" is the attempted normalization of beastiality, it should be illegal.
who made you in charge of how people should love eachother? do you support sodomy laws used to lock up homosexuals?

[Vireya]

So you wish to have this "deviant" behavior hidden? I can't get off how I want to but that man over there (pointing at some random guy) gets his Playboys. Great. Here's my vibrator & strap on. You want to burn the lube as well. Everyone is exploited. You're looking at returning to just women being sex objects with no power over their sexual lives. Way to empower your fellow woman.

And no, Yiffing has NOTHING to do with beastiality. I know. I know Furries. I'm also a part of this sexually deviant lifestyle you have no education of past 50 Shades (or so it seems because you're spewing the thoughts mass media has about BDSM. Good job!)
.

There is a huge difference between someone reading Playboy (or Playgirl), and someone getting off to a person dressed up as a flamingo. How did it jump to "Furries are great!!! To "my fellow women being oppressed"? WTF do furries have to do with women's rights?

Furrism is all about beastiality. Also, 50 Shades of Gray, I've never layed an eye on that demonic pile of shit passed off as "literature", and I never plan to.

[Vireya]

who made you in charge of how people should love eachother? do you support sodomy laws used to lock up homosexuals?

That's not love, that's perversion.

No, I already said I'm pro-LBGT. Though, it would depend on what you mean by sodomy. I'm "ok" with oral and anal, though I find them repulsive. Beastiality/Zoophilia/Furrism isn't acceptable, it is also part of the term sodomy.

[RedBen]

That's not love, that's perversion.
says you. again, i don't understand it but we disagree. i'm not ready to condemn something i don't understand. one is a person, one an animal, not the same in my eyes. why don't you define what you mean by perversion? a definition from your opinion?

[Consistent.Surprise]

There is a huge difference between someone reading Playboy (or Playgirl), and someone getting off to a person dressed up as a flamingo. How did it jump to "Furries are great!!! To "my fellow women being oppressed"? WTF do furries have to do with women's rights?

Furrism is all about beastiality. Also, 50 Shades of Gray, I've never layed an eye on that demonic pile of shit passed off as "literature", and I never plan to.

Those were two separate paragraphs. Did I link the idea of people playing their gender/sex roles to any BDSM? No. I did not.

For some reason, I cannot understand your ideas on spanking children, return to sex roles, & the idea that the destruction of the bourgeois familial concept because you only say what you think & do not explain.

You never hit a child; physical punishment in any form is not constructive. Ever.

I'm a cis gender white woman. I don't want kids. I should be forced to have them & nurture them? No. I will not stay at home while my man goes out & brings back food. If this isn't what you mean by the return to sex roles, then I'm tapped because your strong desire for sexual repression is just beyond my thought process.

The community as a family works. Maybe if folks are rural, it can't. This isn't hippie dippy love crap. Groups of immigrants moved to the US and settled in the same area. They went to school, work, & church together. They would get after each others children. & they would help each other. Sounds like a neighborhood to me. Sounds like my neighborhood.

[Philo]

I agree with your premise that I and the typical leftist have differing reasons leading us to an anti-capitalist stance, and to an extent with your comparison of "reactionary communitarians" with the pre-capitalist monarchists. Though you seem to be insinuating that I'm not a socialist. The only thing I could even be consider "reactionary" on is my thoughts on sex culture, which I believe should be reverted back to the way it was before the plague known as the "Sexual Revolution."

The premises, and forms of reasoning, that lead you to oppose the sexual revolution amount to a reactionary framework. What I'm saying is that any agreement you have with the revolutionary left on what I guess we could call "policy" questions is merely incidental and not due to sharing any deep principles. It's a familiar intellectual trajectory that has already been traveled by people like Alasdair MacIntyre.


Whether I could be considered for Modernism, would depend on what is meant by the term. I don't consider anything proposed by liberals or modern feminism or "sexual liberation" to be "modernist" or progressive. The goals of the LBGT community generally are, but they've been close to the liberals too long and it is threatening to discredit their whole movement.

By "modernity" I mean the the political and cultural legacy of the Enlightenment inasmuch as it is opposed to pre-capitalist society; that is, having an emphasis on freedom (or autonomy) and equality. Obviously I am opposed to aspects of modernity -such as capitalism- but from the "other side" of history, as it were.


Another difference between me and leftists is that I'm opposed to the use of "freedom" as a talking point, it does have any real meaning. It is an empty concept the doesn't truly exist on society, and it indeed shouldn't. "Freedom" is the absence of regulation, in essence, I oppose both liberalism and social libertarianism. If what you say is true, that you don't oppose liberal luxuries and "freedoms", only that you wish to make these more accessible to the populace, it is difficult for me too fathom how it is your ideas are any better. For my POV, that'd make you and liberals, for all intents and purposes, the same.

The fact that you're more concerned with being anti-liberal than pro-socialism/communism is telling. I'm finding it hard to swallow that a supposed socialist thinks "freedom" is just the absence of regulation. You've made it abundantly clear that your beef is with some "lifestyle" norms of contemporary society, not with systematic exploitation, alienation, inegalitarianism, and the destruction of the planet.

For me, the bolded says it all. This isn't Kommunismus, it's Linksfashcismus.

[Vireya]

The premises, and forms of reasoning, that lead you to oppose the sexual revolution amount to a reactionary framework. What I'm saying is that any agreement you have with the revolutionary left on what I guess we could call "policy" questions is merely incidental and not due to sharing any deep principles. It's a familiar intellectual trajectory that has already been traveled by people like Alasdair MacIntyre.

I have no idea who Alasdair MacIntyre is, but I agree with what has been said on this portion.


By "modernity" I mean the the political and cultural legacy of the Enlightenment inasmuch as it is opposed to pre-capitalist society; that is, having an emphasis on freedom (or autonomy) and equality. Obviously I am opposed to aspects of modernity -such as capitalism- but from the "other side" of history, as it were.
I'm not entirely opposed to the enlightenment either, and like you my main issue with it is the capitalist values. Not am I opposed to the notion of equality, I simply don't find the concept of "freedom" to be a...how should I put it, I don't find it to be an actual value with any grounding in how societies, actual or theoretical, operate.

I also suppose a fundamental rift between my own ideas and those of Communism/Anarchism is that I'm a proponent of the social contract theory.


The fact that you're more concerned with being anti-liberal than pro-socialism/communism is telling. I'm finding it hard to swallow that a supposed socialist thinks "freedom" is just the absence of regulation. You've made it abundantly clear that your beef is with some "lifestyle" norms of contemporary society, not with systematic exploitation, alienation, inegalitarianism, and the destruction of the planet.

For me, the bolded says it all. This isn't Kommunismus, it's Linksfashcismus.

Why would you think so? The main issues I have with the communist branch of socialism are relatively minor as far as the argument against capitalism goes, I pretty much only disagree with what the outcome should look like (as in the form socialism should take) and that I believe social libertarianism and liberalism are foolish.

Hence, that is why I've mostly commented on social policy issues, I agree with the basics of your opposition to capitalism (that it is exploitative and that the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the upper class is unacceptable, that rampant consumerism is wasteful and destructive.)

While it is obvious I'm not communist, I'm not a "left fascist" or a fascist at all. I'm a socialist.