The "Bonobo Masturbation Society"

[Let's Get Free]

I was reading a blog post that describes America, and the West in general, as a "Bonobo Masturbation Society." Bonobos are a species of Great Apes, very closely related to the Chimpanzee.

Whereas Chimpanzees are aggressive, Bonobos are generally passive, as they evolved in region with plenty of food. Another big difference between the apes; Chimps have sex primarily for reproduction. Bonobos, on the other hand, have sex all the time. Everybody has sex with everybody. Sex in Bonobo society is like "shaking hands." Sex is primarily for fun and pleasure.

The author then compares modern Western society with Bonobo society. People in the Western world, like the Bonobos, live in relative abundance and luxury, compared to the rest of the world. The majority of the hard, dangerous work that people used to do is either automated or exported to the poor countries. People in the Western world therefore no longer have to concern themselves with survival. So people seek out "masturbatory activities." Sex is social, and the society is full of meaningless pleasure and fun, the "Bonobo Masturbation Society."

Most leftists will probably disagree, but I think there's some truth to this. If you look at wealthier societies worldwide, you can see the same pattern in operation. They struggle for generations to get wealthy and when they do, an anomic misery sets in. There is no longer a purpose to life, it seems, so they try to invent one through empty sex, drinking too much, lots of toys, mass consumption, mass entertainment, etc.

What do you think?

[Nicolas_Cage]

When you get as wealthy as I am, sex comes to you in the form of a paycheck sent out weekly.

dDKgVtbGhmI

I haven't masturbated in years, and that was only because I was in visiting Calcutta and I don't trust that those women will have a weekly STD test...

[Leftsolidarity]

When you get as wealthy as I am, sex comes to you in the form of a paycheck sent out weekly.

dDKgVtbGhmI

I haven't masturbated in years, and that was only because I was in visiting Calcutta and I don't trust that those women will have a weekly STD test...

Warning for trolling. I don't care about your stupid thing of pretending to be Nicolas Cage. Either make constructive posts or expect administrative action.

[Nicolas_Cage]

Warning for trolling. I don't care about your stupid thing of pretending to be Nicolas Cage. Either make constructive posts or expect administrative action.

I wouldn't normally go off topic, but since this is only responding to someone else who's going off topic I think it will be ok.

You accuse me of "pretending" to be Nicolas Cage. You're making assumptions. I'd also like to see how anyone could get angry from reading my post. I doubt it would happen, so how am I trolling? Trolling requires me to try to piss people off. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to a more sensitive topic and say something which will actually piss people off!.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

People in the Western world therefore no longer have to concern themselves with survival. So people seek out "masturbatory activities." Sex is social, and the society is full of meaningless pleasure and fun, the "Bonobo Masturbation Society."

Most leftists will probably disagree, but I think there's some truth to this. If you look at wealthier societies worldwide, you can see the same pattern in operation. They struggle for generations to get wealthy and when they do, an anomic misery sets in. There is no longer a purpose to life, it seems, so they try to invent one through empty sex, drinking too much, lots of toys, mass consumption, mass entertainment, etc.

What do you think?

I think phrases I have underlined are utterly meaningless. How is casual sex "empty"? Why should people care about some "purpose of life"?

[Orange Juche]

I generally think there's a point to be made there. Not to say the west is living the high life, a lot of people are struggling and there needs to be worldwide solidarity - but I think it would be foolish not to acknowledge the difference between the first and third world, and how we live - generally - as people

It's in the vein of what I bring up to people who try to debate me sometimes - it's easier to debate that capitalism "works" when you live in a heated house playing your X-Box, rather than living in a crap overstocked communal work home working insane hours making that X-Box.

To be clear - I'm not a third-worldist, but there are cultural differences due to being "more" or "less" "developed" economically.

[Brutus]

I think by purpose, he means the main goal, so to speak.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think by purpose, he means the main goal, so to speak.

Possibly, but that either requires some sort of overriding purpose not assigned by individual humans, social tendencies etc. etc. - which is a theological notion - or it collapses into irrelevance since everyone has goals.

I don't know, a lot of this talk about how our lives are meaningless etc. etc. just strikes me as reactionary pining, and it's outright dangerous.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Most leftists will probably disagree, but I think there's some truth to this. If you look at wealthier societies worldwide, you can see the same pattern in operation. They struggle for generations to get wealthy and when they do, an anomic misery sets in. There is no longer a purpose to life, it seems, so they try to invent one through empty sex, drinking too much, lots of toys, mass consumption, mass entertainment, etc.

What do you think?Well I don't know about this, it's sort of projecting maybe interpersonal relationships onto much larger and dispassionate systems.

As far as induviduals (and by extention families) who become wealthy beyond what they could actually use, well there are a lot of examples of pretty messed-up privilaged families where wealth is just inhereted and there is little need to actually personally manage it or do anything but sign checks. I lived in LA for a little while and knew a guy who went to a privite art high school for eliete kids and all of his friends were fucked up straight out of "Less than Zero" on every incredibly addictive drug you could imagine from perscription pills to heroin. These kids still probably weren't so wealth that their families had no expectations of them and most probably straightened up or went to rehab at some point - or are just wealthy enough that a little addiction maybe wouldn't prevent them from being able to function (i.e. they can survive some period of lack of employment and just dip into their trusts if they got in a bad place whereas other people would have to start hawking things).

But my guess would be that this has more to do with a sense of "purpouslessness" and alienation in a society that typically evaluates people on what they do (for the market). And probably just some period of experamentation - which really isn't a bad thing IMO... it just can be bad in this society where your life could get fucked up from legal consaquences of drug-use or just not being able to keep up with the demands of wage-work.

I would hope/imagine that a liberated society would de-couple "work" from "life's purpose" and so the point of life would be up to people to make of it what they can. I personally don't think this would result in apathy - even today there are pleanty of independantly wealthy people (or aristocrats in the past) that never had any real economic motivation to work, but did so because they thought it would be interesting or self-fufilling. I have no facts on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people from wealth dynasties who never HAVE to work, seek a professional area to work, in academia, or as a lawyer, or surgeon. If they are interested in these things, there are little barriers in their way. Also their position of having some power in society can also influence the rich I think. Bill Gates doesn't need money, but he wants to use his political influence to privitize education for whatever ideological or other reasons and so I'm sure he feels the responcibility to act (as fucked up for the rest of us as his philathropy is).

If society was organized so we all have some say and power over things, then I think that would also be motivation for many people. Getting rid of oppression doesn't just make things automatic - there'd still be pleanty of challenges... even if these challenges would seem like blessings to us today (how do you organize mass decision-making, how do you reorganize the material workings of this society so that things are based around us and not profit, etc).

As for the Bonobs - the standard thing on the Left that they represent is a real-world counter to claims of "human-nature" particularly claims which used our biological closeness to Chimps to explain rape, war, and violence as inherent and fixed human behaviors. Bonobs complicate that argument since we are similarly biologically close to them. But I think really neither one or the other represents "human nature" - though the "abundance"/"scarsity" aspects are provocative. Humans seem to have the capacity for both violence and altruism and circumstance (definately not biology) seems to play a much bigger role in which human aspect is expressed more often.

As far as sex specifically - I think there is more of a biological case for this - we are more like Bonobos in the sense that I believe we are sort of designed for enjoyable sex pretty much whenever we want it. The disfunction of sexual relations in our society has much more to do in my view with the power-relationships and property relationships caught up in sex and socially used to regulate when and where and who we have sex with.

I'm counting on much more sex and much more fufilling sexual and interpersonal relationships after a revolution when we interact and couple/tripple/whatever as equals and don't have social pressures on us. I wouldn't call that "decadent" or an escape at all - there's nothing wrong with enjoying sex, there's a whole lot wrong with how people relate to eachother now though.

[Rafiq]

Repressive desublimation.

There is no metaphysically objective state of human sexuality. The act is universal but the social context, the means of which sex mediates and serves in society varies from according modes of production. There is no "revolutionary" essence in sexual relations, or the pleasure itself. Sexual pleasure can very well be incredibly repressive (I.e. Master - slave sex in ancient rome) which is why it is so incredibly terrifying from an intellectual standpoint. For Communists, there should be no objection to promiscuity, i.e. No moral qualms with it, but it should not be politicized (except through feminism) in an absurd manner. Though I always imagined "revolutionary sex" as like rough sex in the sense that it exposes directly the act with no social mystifications, i.e. For example, if we subtract a repressive relationship, a patriarchial one; if this is done away with sex becomes raw and direct and all tension between the genders is mediated not through a repressive relationship, but in bed, thus, like a revolution, rough sex is a brutal act of honesty.

Of course I know how ridiculous I sound, I'm only half joking.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Jimmie Higgins]

Repressive desublimation.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2Ha, I read the wiki article on this after you posted it - still have no idea what they mean. Oh Philosophy.

Does it just mean that the drive for sexual liberation was ultimately channeled into market- and ideologically-friendly avenues? That sounds about right. Or are they saying that this co-option had wider effects on moderating consiousness and struggle? That would be interesting to read more about, if so, but on the surface of it, I'd be a bit skeptical.

[Rafiq]

It means like everything else from '68, sexual liberation has been bastardized by capitalism to serve the process of capital accumulation, but sex is not liberated today, it is entangled in several structural complexities and in the end remains repressive.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Let's Get Free]

I think by purpose, he means the main goal, so to speak.

Precisely. What motivates humans, in my best estimation, seems to be a need to have our attention focused on some task or goal.



Possibly, but that either requires some sort of overriding purpose not assigned by individual humans, social tendencies etc. etc. - which is a theological notion - or it collapses into irrelevance since everyone has goals.

I don't know, a lot of this talk about how our lives are meaningless etc. etc. just strikes me as reactionary pining, and it's outright dangerous.

I contend that our actions in life are based on deprivations. Deprivations of basic needs comes first usually, such as thirst, hunger etc.. But after this initial deprivation level, comes more refined ones such as comfort and boredom. We are constantly adjusting ourselves and readjusting ourselves to be comfortable.. getting away from annoying circumstances and moving towards less annoying circumstances. As far as boredom, we are always moving away from a state of boredom and towards a state of being entertained.

In the Western world, people no longer have to worry about exerting themselves to meet their physical needs, and therefore have time that must be put to good use, lest we fall into the trap of 'boredom.' Profound boredom we cannot tolerate, as it leads to existential angst, which we cannot deal with as it brings us close to the reality of an existence voided of meaning and comprehensibility. This need to not feel the void, might lead us to pursue the things I was talking about in the OP.... So our attention must constantly be occupied, lest we fall into an existential void.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Most people in the "Western World" have to continuously exert themselves, often in a repetitive and tedious manner, in order to survive. Yes, the quality of life is much higher in the imperial centres than it is in the periphery, but this third-worldist cliche of "First World" workers as effete and indolent is just nonsense.

As for "empty" sex, drinking, toys (of both varieties), popular entertainment, and so on, why are these things bad, exactly? Some people might find them unsatisfying, of course, but why do their personal preferences take precedence over the preferences of other people?

And what is "empty" sex? I regret to say this, but in most cases this is code for sexual behaviour that violates patriarchal norms.

Oh, and the workers, and people in the third world, also have lots of "empty" sex. It's not like the proletariat and the plebeian masses are all puritans. Some of them also drink quite heavily, which is admittedly a problem in the current economic conditions. And if they do not have many toys or watch a lot of movies, that is because they are in crushing poverty, not because they are somehow happier than us decadent Westerners.

[Let's Get Free]

Most people in the "Western World" have to continuously exert themselves, often in a repetitive and tedious manner, in order to survive.

By “exert themselves,” I meant physically exert themselves to directly meet their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter. Very few people in the industrialized world do this, this is done rather through employment and market consumption.


As for "empty" sex, drinking, toys (of both varieties), popular entertainment, and so on, why are these things bad, exactly? Some people might find them unsatisfying, of course, but why do their personal preferences take precedence over the preferences of other people?

When I was reading the blog, I think the authors contention wasn't that these things were morally “bad,” rather, these things offer an exuberant escape to help us forget our loss of freedom


And what is "empty" sex? I regret to say this, but in most cases this is code for sexual behaviour that violates patriarchal norms.


When it comes to sex, I’ve found that most societies are to one extreme or the other- sexually repressed on one end, and sexually indulgent on the other end.


Oh, and the workers, and people in the third world, also have lots of "empty" sex. It's not like the proletariat and the plebeian masses are all puritans. Some of them also drink quite heavily, which is admittedly a problem in the current economic conditions. And if they do not have many toys or watch a lot of movies, that is because they are in crushing poverty, not because they are somehow happier than us decadent Westerners.

I’m not saying people in poor countries are ironside puritans. But what I’ve noticed is that the more industrialized and technically rational a society becomes, the more people need to escape into irrational pursuits that bring temporary amnesia or pleasure. Humans cannot stand to have their lives fully rational, subject to timetables, lists, and rules. Their instincts require an outlet that produces an altered state of consciousness.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

By “exert themselves,” I meant physically exert themselves to directly meet their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter. Very few people in the industrialized world do this, this is done rather through employment and market consumption.

Fair enough, but scavenging for food, building temporary shelters and making one's own clothes isn't really widespread in the "Third World" either.


When I was reading the blog, I think the authors contention wasn't that these things were morally “bad,” rather, these things offer an exuberant escape to help us forget our loss of freedom

That doesn't help, really. The term "exuberant" carries connotations of excess. Why are these behaviours excessive? Under whose standards are they excessive?

And what of this freedom we have allegedly lost? Comparing the present society to the feudal one, or even to liberal capitalism, it rather seems to me that there has been a small, though not negligible, increase in real freedom. Communists can not allow themselves to imagine previous epochs of social development as some sort of golden age - particularly when these epochs were murderously backward and bigoted.


When it comes to sex, I’ve found that most societies are to one extreme or the other- sexually repressed on one end, and sexually indulgent on the other end.

Why "indulgent"? I think many modern societies are relatively sexually liberated, at least compared to the previous modes of production. In the communist phase of social development, can we expect anything but a further loosening of sexual mores, if not their outright disappearance? I don't think we can.


I’m not saying people in poor countries are ironside puritans. But what I’ve noticed is that the more industrialized and technically rational a society becomes, the more people need to escape into irrational pursuits that bring temporary amnesia or pleasure. Humans cannot stand to have their lives fully rational, subject to timetables, lists, and rules. Their instincts require an outlet that produces an altered state of consciousness.

But you're using the terms "rational" and "irrational" in a colloquial way. Rationality means using reliable methods in order to accomplish one's goals. If I want to have sex - and, I mean, most people do - then having sex is, in general, rational.

[Let's Get Free]

Fair enough, but scavenging for food, building temporary shelters and making one's own clothes isn't really widespread in the "Third World" either.

As industrial capitalism continues to develop in the "Third World," yes, these things are becoming less and less widespread.




That doesn't help, really. The term "exuberant" carries connotations of excess. Why are these behaviours excessive? Under whose standards are they excessive?

The pursuit of sex and love is not exuberant. Because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they went on with their lives without ever having a romantic relationship. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be considered exuberant.)


And what of this freedom we have allegedly lost? Comparing the present society to the feudal one, or even to liberal capitalism, it rather seems to me that there has been a small, though not negligible, increase in real freedom. Communists can not allow themselves to imagine previous epochs of social development as some sort of golden age - particularly when these epochs were murderously backward and bigoted.


The kind of freedom that actually counts, in my opinion. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. People celebrate the gaining of superficial freedoms (weed, same sex marriage, etc), but i think we're losing more meaningful freedoms everyday.


Why "indulgent"? I think many modern societies are relatively sexually liberated, at least compared to the previous modes of production. In the communist phase of social development, can we expect anything but a further loosening of sexual mores, if not their outright disappearance? I don't think we can.


Sex is absolutely ubiquitous in Western culture. We're obsessed with it. After centuries of repression, when the repression comes to a point where you cannot repress it anymore it explodes: people go berserk.


But you're using the terms "rational" and "irrational" in a colloquial way. Rationality means using reliable methods in order to accomplish one's goals. If I want to have sex - and, I mean, most people do - then having sex is, in general, rational.

Irrational, in comparison to an overly rational environment. As bureaucratic and technical rules proliferate, humans sense that they have lost personal control over their lives. Escaping into the realm of ecstasy seems to be rebellion against a too rational, too orderly existence. Drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, music, and video games are all forms of ecstatic escape.

[MarxArchist]

The author then compares modern Western society with Bonobo society. People in the Western world, like the Bonobos, live in relative abundance and luxury, compared to the rest of the world. The majority of the hard, dangerous work that people used to do is either automated or exported to the poor countries. People in the Western world therefore no longer have to concern themselves with survival. So people seek out "masturbatory activities." Sex is social, and the society is full of meaningless pleasure and fun, the "Bonobo Masturbation Society."

Most leftists will probably disagree, but I think there's some truth to this. If you look at wealthier societies worldwide, you can see the same pattern in operation. They struggle for generations to get wealthy and when they do, an anomic misery sets in. There is no longer a purpose to life, it seems, so they try to invent one through empty sex, drinking too much, lots of toys, mass consumption, mass entertainment, etc.

What do you think?

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-aliens/

This is the American myth. Everyone on jet skies with some lame metal song playing in the background. Tanning oil on half naked perfect bodies and volleyball games on the beach. Like a Budweiser commercial or any commercial. It's what sell's capitalism in the west. The 'lifestyle'. A large portion of the population doesn't live this way and can't afford it but indeed some people can. Youth will max out credit cards, beg parents for cash etc. Those making over 50k a year without kids can live a life of relative leisure but still have to work. In the real world those who do have this leisure lifestyle, and it does exist, are in the minority but that's what everyone is chasing. Freedom from perpetual worry about work, bills, retirement, what to do about healthcare, teeth rotting, no time. Time is a major issue for working people. We're all now actually working more hours for less pay compared to the 1940's/50's/60's.

Personally, in boom cycles (I'm a self employed carpenter), I have nothing but work on my hands where I need to save money for slow times not so I can go rock climbing or boating or skying in Tahoe but so I can keep a roof over my head, eat and survive. The difference in the US and other advanced capitalist nations is there's an infrastructure in place to distract us from the hamster wheel but the hamster wheel is as real as ever and this system of cheap entertainment/distraction isn't freedom. Movie theaters, stores selling all sorts of cheap things, TV with 300 channels (if you can afford it), internet and yes there are bars/alcohol. Most (over 25) people in bars aren't living like 'the most interesting man in the world they're partly miserable with their jobs, overworked, tiered and looking for an avenue of escape. Just because the bird cages in the west have a mirror and a little whistle and swing bar in them compared to the empty bird cages of the third world it doesn't mean we aren't in a bird cage.

http://images01.olx.co.za/ui/18/62/12/1329203590_315166012_1-Pictures-of--Bird-Cage-for-Sale.jpg

Above is the reality. Below is the lie.

OuBVwrClLKU

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The pursuit of sex and love is not exuberant. Because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they went on with their lives without ever having a romantic relationship. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be considered exuberant.)

"More than one really needs"? And who decides how much sex we "really need"? Why is more than that arbitrary amount bad?


The kind of freedom that actually counts, in my opinion. Freedom means having power; not the power to control other people but the power to control the circumstances of one's own life. People celebrate the gaining of superficial freedoms (weed, same sex marriage, etc), but i think we're losing more meaningful freedoms everyday.

Oh, and what are those "more meaningful" freedoms that "we" are losing? People, the vast majority of people at least, have never been able to control the circumstances of their own life.


Sex is absolutely ubiquitous in Western culture. We're obsessed with it. After centuries of repression, when the repression comes to a point where you cannot repress it anymore it explodes: people go berserk.

People are fucking in ways you disapprove of. How horrible. And who is obsessed with sex? Methinks it is the puritans that are obsessed with sex, more than the most eager libertine.


Irrational, in comparison to an overly rational environment. As bureaucratic and technical rules proliferate, humans sense that they have lost personal control over their lives.

Again, you're using the term "rational" in a colloquial sense. If I want to have sex, it is rational for me to have sex. "Bureaucratic and tecnical rules" have nothing to do with that. These lay out, in certain cases, the rational course of action for large economic and state entities. That's an entirely different matter, though. Someone who follows timetables and formal rules in their personal life is not more rational than someone who does not, they just have a fetish for bureaucracy.


Escaping into the realm of ecstasy seems to be rebellion against a too rational, too orderly existence. Drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, music, and video games are all forms of ecstatic escape.

Or perhaps people find these activities enjoyable! Why do people have the need to weave grand existential narratives in order to explain something that is obvious to a child?

[Tenka]

MarxArchist made the best post in this thread. That aside: it is not just people in wealthy countries who can be likened to bonobos in their habits. :rolleyes:

Let's Get Free:

Sex is absolutely ubiquitous in Western culture. We're obsessed with it. After centuries of repression, when the repression comes to a point where you cannot repress it anymore it explodes: people go berserk.

Sex is absolutely ubiquitous in all cultures!! Please don't start referring to "decadent immoral western filth". I live in the western world; I'm 23 and a virgin, though due to my consumption of free porn some fuckwits might be inclined to label me a "sex addict" anyway... (this post ends where an off-topic tangent begins).

[Let's Get Free]

"More than one really needs"? And who decides how much sex we "really need"? Why is more than that arbitrary amount bad?

I don’t know. No one, I guess. But I personally would say that when it assumes a compulsive quality and is consumed like liquor or a drug, it becomes "more than one really needs."

Oh, and what are those "more meaningful" freedoms that "we" are losing? People, the vast majority of people at least, have never been able to control the circumstances of their own life.

More than ever before, our personal lives are dependent on the decisions made by other people. We have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. People learn that there are mysterious powers that bring about higher taxes, higher prices, diminished job opportunities, shortages, etc, but no one seems to know exactly who these people or what these forces are.


People are fucking in ways you disapprove of. How horrible.

Lol, why should I bother myself with what two consenting adults do with their genitals?


Again, you're using the term "rational" in a colloquial sense. If I want to have sex, it is rational for me to have sex. "Bureaucratic and tecnical rules" have nothing to do with that. These lay out, in certain cases, the rational course of action for large economic and state entities. That's an entirely different matter, though. Someone who follows timetables and formal rules in their personal life is not more rational than someone who does not, they just have a fetish for bureaucracy.


Perhaps you're misunderstanding my use of the words 'rational,' and 'irrational.' By "rational" i mean the vast and elaborately choreographed coordination necessary to keep the system running. In order to keep everything running, people must arrive at their workplaces at precisely designated times, and do their work in accord with detailed rules and procedures in order to ensure that every individual's performance meshes with everyone else's. For traffic to flow smoothly and without accidents or congestion, people must follow numerous traffic regulations. Appointments must be kept, taxes have to be paid, licenses have to be procured, laws have to be obeyed, and on and on and on.
Humans are simply not able to tolerate such vast and elaborately choreographed coordination over their lives, which all of us who live in this society have to deal with. They thus try to rebel against this by seeking activities that produce temporary pleasure or amnesia. I think it was Jacques Ellul who noted this.
Here's a useful analogy: when faced with stress or irritation, an organism has two principal means of restoring equilibrium to the central nervous system. The first is the elimination of the irritant by overcoming or escaping it. The second is counter irritation in which the central nervous system "amputates" (ie numbs) the affected limb or organ at the point of stress. The mass consumption and insatiable hedonism in mass capitalist society can be seen as a kind of "counter irritant" to an "irritation," if that makes sense.


Or perhaps people find these activities enjoyable! Why do people have the need to weave grand existential narratives in order to explain something that is obvious to a child?

I think it’s somewhat interesting to look into the question of why people do things. People enjoy these activities, of course. But do they pursue them solely out of enjoyment, or because they secretly hate their child-proofed, predictable lives, and fantasize about doing something where their actions have meaningful and immediate consequences?

Society and advertisement has manufactured a whole new product: the consumer, perpetually unsatisfied, restless, anxious, and bored. It 'educates' the masses into an unappeasable appetite not only for goods but for new and fun experiences and personal fulfillment. It plays seductively to the malaise peculiar to industrial civilization: Is your job boring and meaningless? Is your life empty? Consumption promises to fill the aching void.


Sex is absolutely ubiquitous in all cultures!! Please don't start referring to "decadent immoral western filth". I live in the western world; I'm 23 and a virgin, though due to my consumption of free porn some fuckwits might be inclined to label me a "sex addict" anyway... (this post ends where an off-topic tangent begins).


It's not a matter of "the decadence of the west." I think most societies go through certain cycles. The Middle-East is sexual repressive; but sooner or later, it is going to become indulgent.

In the U.S., the repressive trend is beginning to arise again. There are many cults which now preach "celibacy," "purity," "chastity," etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The pursuit of sex and love is not exuberant. Because most people, even if their existence were otherwise satisfactory, would feel deprived if they went on with their lives without ever having a romantic relationship. (But pursuit of an excessive amount of sex, more than one really needs, can be considered exuberant.)Who's to say what an "excessive amont" is objectivly? Don't people have different levels of desire at different time and different situations and different points in their life?

Personally I think there would be a lot more "casual sex" and bonobo-like behavior in a society where you didn't have to worry about basic things and life could be fufiling in of itself and so sex just becomes a fun mutual activity and relationships are just love without all the other social pressures of today.

But that being said, I think I kind of know what you are getting at, but I see it differently. IMO the problem is not that people have diversions that somehow lead to emptyness, it's that people feel empty and consumer commodities are sold as the way to create pleasure or identity or whatever. But just like a quick bite to eat on the go, as a capitalist commodity, becomes an empty shallow thing that tastes good, but actually makes you thirstier and is full of empty calories that ensure you are feeling hungry again in an hour. I read an article - reposted by someone on this site I think - that argued that porn as a commodity does the same thing - part of the mysogany of male-female porn and violence in porn in general it is to heighten emotion and responce in the viewer that is fufilling but somewhat unfufilling (i.e. not romantic... something kept at arms length). It's constructed to be empty like fast food is constructed to be tasty but unfufilling.

More generally in culture sex or relationships are presented as a personal cure all. In romantic comedies and sex comedies: Love conquors all/Hey Bro's Let's get our lonly frat-brother laid this summer and he'll become cool in the process. So people do sometimes use sex or relationships - not for the things in of themselves but as an esscape from alienation or lonliness. But I think this is secondary - people fill the gaps with whatever's at hand: food, alcohol, religion, hobbies, work, etc. IMO it's not that sexual liberation has created a sort of shallow condition or reinforces capitalism, it's that the pull of capitalist society ensures that we can't really have full sexual liberation while the rest of our lives are still enslaved in the capitalist world.


Irrational, in comparison to an overly rational environment. As bureaucratic and technical rules proliferate, humans sense that they have lost personal control over their lives. Escaping into the realm of ecstasy seems to be rebellion against a too rational, too orderly existence. Drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, music, and video games are all forms of ecstatic escape.Why wouldn't people want to escape in this society? It's prefectly natural - a rational responce, in fact, to alienation and powerlessness. If the option is this life as the best of possible worlds, why not escape... if the real option is this life or self-emancipation, then people will choose to hold off on going to see a concert or just have to have sex on the barricades instead of their appartments. For most folks today, the choice that's apparent is a life of meaninglessness or having some diversions, not a choice of capitlaism or revolution.

If people are arguing that smoking weed and fucking in the streets will liberate us - then that's one thing and obviously an illusion. But if people are seeking a little enjoyment in a joyless world, then why the hell not? I don't think these things demobilize people - I do think that capitalism seeks anything of value in order to turn it into a commodity, so any joy we have will be in some way influenced if not controlled in the interests of capitalism as a system generally and making money specifically.

In addition I think that the battles themselves over sexual liberation or more freedoms from social restrictions - while as single-issue things are not going to lead directly to liberation - are a worthy battle. Primarily and practically, the criminalization of sex and drugs and even youth just hanging out in the street is a class issue and impacts the power of our rulers over us as well as our self-confidence. It is hard to fight homophobia when everyone is closeted, it's hard to fight against the right-wing trying to control women's bodies and sexuality, if we concede that some of it is "excessive". But even on a social level, social norms are contested and people can push back against the expectations placed on us by capitalist society. This is more of a "war of position" because we can gain ground, but as the trajectory of things like women's rights shows, capitalism is quite adaptable and will eventually either push back against things, or take the new social norms and bend them around market or bourgoise ideological interests. But the fight over these things contains the potential for mobilizing people for a much bigger project.

[bcbm]

Whereas Chimpanzees are aggressive, Bonobos are generally passive, as they evolved in region with plenty of food. Another big difference between the apes; Chimps have sex primarily for reproduction. Bonobos, on the other hand, have sex all the time. Everybody has sex with everybody. Sex in Bonobo society is like "shaking hands." Sex is primarily for fun and pleasure.

The author then compares modern Western society with Bonobo society. People in the Western world, like the Bonobos, live in relative abundance and luxury, compared to the rest of the world. The majority of the hard, dangerous work that people used to do is either automated or exported to the poor countries. People in the Western world therefore no longer have to concern themselves with survival. So people seek out "masturbatory activities." Sex is social, and the society is full of meaningless pleasure and fun, the "Bonobo Masturbation Society."

actually this sounds closer to how human beings lived before the advent of agriculture when we were gatherer-hunters than any sedentary society in history. even the most 'open' societies are still more controlled than our ancestors, where sex was a useful group strengthening mechanism and useful for raising children as well as just being a whole lot of fun. that said, i don't think a drift back towards this is a bad thing by any means.


Sex is absolutely ubiquitous in Western culture. We're obsessed with it. After centuries of repression, when the repression comes to a point where you cannot repress it anymore it explodes: people go berserk.

sex has always been ubiquitous and in fact the so-called 'repression' of sex in societies could more accurately be described as an obsession, where different forms of sex are being created through this 'repression'


Irrational, in comparison to an overly rational environment. As bureaucratic and technical rules proliferate, humans sense that they have lost personal control over their lives. Escaping into the realm of ecstasy seems to be rebellion against a too rational, too orderly existence. Drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, music, and video games are all forms of ecstatic escape.

before bureaucratic and technical rules, we had the church and kings and gods and all manner of things 'controlling' us. probably no surprise then that we have also always been fans of drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, music and well, obviously not video games but equivalents like theater, etc.


But I personally would say that when it assumes a compulsive quality and is consumed like liquor or a drug, it becomes "more than one really needs."

human beings have always loved to fuck and polyamorous partner swapping and group sex used to be a p big deal


More than ever before, our personal lives are dependent on the decisions made by other people. We have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. People learn that there are mysterious powers that bring about higher taxes, higher prices, diminished job opportunities, shortages, etc, but no one seems to know exactly who these people or what these forces are.

seems like a pretty common historical story to me, actually.


I think it’s somewhat interesting to look into the question of why people do things. People enjoy these activities, of course. But do they pursue them solely out of enjoyment, or because they secretly hate their child-proofed, predictable lives, and fantasize about doing something where their actions have meaningful and immediate consequences?

how are these mutually exclusive?


It's not a matter of "the decadence of the west." I think most societies go through certain cycles. The Middle-East is sexual repressive; but sooner or later, it is going to become indulgent.

In the U.S., the repressive trend is beginning to arise again. There are many cults which now preach "celibacy," "purity," "chastity," etc.

but its still ultimately an obsession with sex.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don’t know. No one, I guess. But I personally would say that when it assumes a compulsive quality and is consumed like liquor or a drug, it becomes "more than one really needs."

So, why is consuming liquor bad? Why is taking drugs bad? I mean, why should communists care about the personal habits of other people, unless they impact revolutionary discipline?


More than ever before, our personal lives are dependent on the decisions made by other people. We have no control over these decisions and usually we do not even know the people who make them. People learn that there are mysterious powers that bring about higher taxes, higher prices, diminished job opportunities, shortages, etc, but no one seems to know exactly who these people or what these forces are.

All of these factors figured in previous stages of social development. And certain power structures, that further constrained an individual's life in the past, have been partially destroyed. It is the task of communism to destroy them in full, not to advocate a return to some idealised past.

I mean, higher prices, unemployment and shortages have always been a feature of capitalist economies, excepting certain very short periods in the imperialist centres. But there were other factors. Unions were almost nonexistent, with organisers often being killed. Abortion was illegal, and women little more than chattel. And so on, and so on.


Lol, why should I bother myself with what two consenting adults do with their genitals?

I don't know. But you seem to concern yourself, at least, with the frequency with which they use their genitals.


Perhaps you're misunderstanding my use of the words 'rational,' and 'irrational.'

No, I understand it, but it's colloquial.


I think it’s somewhat interesting to look into the question of why people do things. People enjoy these activities, of course. But do they pursue them solely out of enjoyment, or because they secretly hate their child-proofed, predictable lives, and fantasize about doing something where their actions have meaningful and immediate consequences?

I don't know, but surely the former is the default assumption, and the latter needs to be demonstrated?

[Ele'ill]

revolutionary discipline

What's revolutionary discipline?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

What's revolutionary discipline?

It's a fancy word that basically means that socialists should live like monks.

It's total bullshit, of course. Both Marx and Engels were quite fond of their adult beverages and strange women.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's a fancy word that basically means that socialists should live like monks.

Except that this is the complete opposite of my position on the issue, and, incidentally, the complete opposite of how the notion of revolutionary discipline is commonly employed. I don't want communists to live like monks, unless they want to. I think the communist movement should be completely unconcerned with the private life of its members - unless it influences their ability to participate in collective action. That is what revolutionary discipline means. It doesn't mean that people shouldn't drink. It means they shouldn't show up at picket lines drunk and acting like idiots. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have whatever kind of sex they want, with whatever consenting partners they want, for however long they want. It just means that their sexual life shouldn't interfere with their party duties etc.

I think that we should be concerned with the lifestyle choices of others only if they impact revolutionary discipline or, in the communist society or in the dictatorship of the proletariat, if they impact labour discipline. Anything else would be an obnoxious moralistic imposition. I think many people have still not broken with this notion that the movement or the state should be used to make people happy or moral, but it's nonsense, it can only lead to stupid brutalities, and it is, in the last analysis, merely a fig leaf over a particularly oppressive aspect of bourgeois dictatorship.

[Ele'ill]

I think that we should be concerned with the lifestyle choices of others only if they impact revolutionary discipline or, in the communist society or in the dictatorship of the proletariat, if they impact labour discipline.


Anything else would be an obnoxious moralistic imposition.


sounds like it already is

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Except that this is the complete opposite of my position on the issue, and, incidentally, the complete opposite of how the notion of revolutionary discipline is commonly employed. I don't want communists to live like monks, unless they want to. I think the communist movement should be completely unconcerned with the private life of its members - unless it influences their ability to participate in collective action. That is what revolutionary discipline means. It doesn't mean that people shouldn't drink. It means they shouldn't show up at picket lines drunk and acting like idiots. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have whatever kind of sex they want, with whatever consenting partners they want, for however long they want. It just means that their sexual life shouldn't interfere with their party duties etc.

The problem with this as I see it is that it could lead to misguided "interventions" on the part of comrades who may be well-meaning but who are approaching the issue in a fundamentally incorrect manner, because it's focused on the political desires of the organisation rather than the personal needs of the individual under concern.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

sounds like it already is

How so? I am not saying that breaking party discipline is immoral. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. That is perfectly irrelevant. But in any organisation, it is entirely unreasonable to expect other members to tolerate behaviour that seriously undermines collective action by the organisation.

I am surprised that some comrades would oppose the very mention of revolutionary discipline, as if all of us do not already oppose those who break strike discipline, for example. Is opposing scabs a moralistic imposition? I don't think so.


The problem with this as I see it is that it could lead to misguided "interventions" on the part of comrades who may be well-meaning but who are approaching the issue in a fundamentally incorrect manner, because it's focused on the political desires of the organisation rather than the personal needs of the individual under concern.

I disagree that this approach is incorrect. Revolutionary organisations are not circles of friends, though members of such organisations can be friends nonetheless. Needs of individuals are secondary to the political line of the group - of course, working members to exhaustion is an idiotic strategy (as Healy's group found out the hard way) and most party members will be concerned about other party members as individuals, but you really can't expect the politburo (or the political committee or whatever) to be your friends.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I disagree that this approach is incorrect. Revolutionary organisations are not circles of friends, though members of such organisations can be friends nonetheless.

My point wasn't about friendship - it was about treating people as individuals rather than cogs in some political machine.


Needs of individuals are secondary to the political line of the group - of course, working members to exhaustion is an idiotic strategy (as Healy's group found out the hard way) and most party members will be concerned about other party members as individuals, but you really can't expect the politburo (or the political committee or whatever) to be your friends.

Which is exactly why I think parties and organisations should steadfastly keep their noses out of the lifestyles of their individual members.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My point wasn't about friendship - it was about treating people as individuals rather than cogs in some political machine.

Every organisation ultimately treats people "as cogs in some machine", though. Not because the members or the leadership of these organisations are bastards, but because organisations are instrumental associations.


Which is exactly why I think parties and organisations should steadfastly keep their noses out of the lifestyles of their individual members.

In general, I agree. Obviously I think the ridiculous crusades against "bourgeois decadence" (whether that means homosexuality or porn or whatever) belong in the dustbin of history. I am also highly suspicious of various lifestyle gurus and similar nonsense.

But, like I said, political parties are instrumental associations, and if one member constantly shows up drunk on picket lines (just an example, I have nothing against alcohol) and behaves disruptively, I think the party is well within their rights to discipline them.

[Rafiq]

sounds like it already is

It's not though. Revolutionary discipline is important in the sense that individual hedonism, while good, is a neutral phenomena which is not necessarily revolutionary, just like taking a shit. Which means so long as we live in the confinds of a state of affairs in which we are forced to struggle, as revolutionaries we cannot cede to the enemy our contentness with the existing state of affairs through acts of dignified, political hedonism. So long as such acts are committed within the confinds of bourgeois society, they serve capital, just like drinking a bottle of water. What this means is not that these acts are to be avoided, there is nothing wrong with excessive sex or having fun, but that these acts can never substitute our duties as communists. Hedonism is good, but it has no political basis. Lenin noted that the problem with free love was that they reduced sexual relations as a mere individual, personal matter when in fact it is a social phenomena. This means that so long as existing social relations persist, sexual relations will never change, and in a crude sense have not since the foundations of capitalism, they have merely been rhetorically altered, guised and mystified to serve the existing order in a more efficient manner. There is nothing wrong with having the ability to control ourselves in the midst of duty. We do not live in a post capitalist society where the luxury exists for mindless fun in all circumstances.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Ele'ill]

It's not though. Revolutionary discipline is important in the sense that individual hedonism, while good, is a neutral phenomena which is not necessarily revolutionary, just like taking a shit. Which means so long as we live in the confinds of a state of affairs in which we are forced to struggle, as revolutionaries we cannot cede to the enemy our contentness with the existing state of affairs through acts of dignified, political hedonism. So long as such acts are committed within the confinds of bourgeois society, they serve capital, just like drinking a bottle of water. What this means is not that these acts are to be avoided, there is nothing wrong with excessive sex or having fun, but that these acts can never substitute our duties as communists. Hedonism is good, but it has no political basis. Lenin noted that the problem with free love was that they reduced sexual relations as a mere individual, personal matter when in fact it is a social phenomena. This means that so long as existing social relations persist, sexual relations will never change, and in a crude sense have not since the foundations of capitalism, they have merely been rhetorically altered, guised and mystified to serve the existing order in a more efficient manner. There is nothing wrong with having the ability to control ourselves in the midst of duty. We do not live in a post capitalist society where the luxury exists for mindless fun in all circumstances.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I don't mean this in a rude way but what does this have to do with what I posted?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Every organisation ultimately treats people "as cogs in some machine", though. Not because the members or the leadership of these organisations are bastards, but because organisations are instrumental associations.

Just because political organisations have a tendency to be instrumental associations doesn't mean that political organisations should embrace that tendency, especially in situations like this where it is completely inappropriate and counter-productive.


In general, I agree. Obviously I think the ridiculous crusades against "bourgeois decadence" (whether that means homosexuality or porn or whatever) belong in the dustbin of history. I am also highly suspicious of various lifestyle gurus and similar nonsense.

But, like I said, political parties are instrumental associations, and if one member constantly shows up drunk on picket lines (just an example, I have nothing against alcohol) and behaves disruptively, I think the party is well within their rights to discipline them.

If their friends and comrades within the party fail to do something about it in the first instance, then I fail to see what would be achieved by having some detached body of strangers "disciplining" them. People who have troubles with drugs/alcohol, relationships and other lifestyle factors don't need "discipline", they need help and support from friends and professionals.

[Rafiq]

I don't mean this in a rude way but what does this have to do with what I posted?

I have a tendency to ramble on but yeah

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Ele'ill]

I have a tendency to ramble on but yeah

I don't think you rambled on that much I just think that you misunderstood that I was criticizing the moralist implications of such organizations deeming certain things sacred - I wasn't even really talking about the current hedonism aspect of the conversation.

[Ele'ill]

it is entirely unreasonable to expect other members to tolerate behaviour that seriously undermines collective action by the organisation.

can an organization actually offer the possibility of collective action in an insurrectionary/revolutionary sense

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Just because political organisations have a tendency to be instrumental associations doesn't mean that political organisations should embrace that tendency, especially in situations like this where it is completely inappropriate and counter-productive.

I am not sure the instrumental character of political organisations is simply a "tendency", as if we were talking about some deformation or something to that effect.

Let me put it this way. Associations, I think, formal or informal, can be broadly divided into two groups: first, instrumental associations that are formed with specific goals in mind, and second, associations based on some form of camaraderie or attachment between members. And revolutionary parties, it seems to me, are firmly in the first category, as are most political associations, scientific societies, gaming conventions, and the nonexistent god knows what else. Most organisations are of this sort.


If their friends and comrades within the party fail to do something about it in the first instance, then I fail to see what would be achieved by having some detached body of strangers "disciplining" them. People who have troubles with drugs/alcohol, relationships and other lifestyle factors don't need "discipline", they need help and support from friends and professionals.

Of course. And, in private capacity, other members of the party might help them. But in their official capacity, the party leadership needs to look after the interest of the party first. Some might see this as callous, but this is how all organisations operate.

Also, I have no idea what people think I mean by "discipline". At this point in the class struggle, the worst that can happen in a sane organisation is that someone is dragged in front of the control commission and expelled. But people sometimes act as if I'm proposing that everyone who makes the slightest mistake be lined up against the wall and shot.


can an organization actually offer the possibility of collective action in an insurrectionary/revolutionary sense

Of course. The history of the labour movement is evidence enough.

[Ele'ill]

The history of the labour movement is evidence enough.

:lol:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

An extremely convincing argument. But the October Revolution is a clear example of, well, revolutionary action organically developing out of collective action by a political party. Oh, undoubtedly you'll complain that it did not result in a society "where everyone is free". Big fucking deal. It still resulted in the world's first workers' state.

I honestly don't know why I bother debating perhaps half the people on this site, when our goals become the same only in the remote future, at best.

[Jimmie Higgins]

it is entirely unreasonable to expect other members to tolerate behaviour that seriously undermines collective action by the organisation.can an organization actually offer the possibility of collective action in an insurrectionary/revolutionary senseI think the other poster meant that a collective organization can set limits to induvidual behavior (of members of that collective) which undermines what that collective decided on and wants to try and achieve. If a union votes to strike, then if you decide you want to go to work anyway, then that union basically kicks you out and sees you as a scab.

This is much different, IMO, than what you seem to be implying: one small collective group enforcing dicipline on a larger collective of people not necissarily in that group. Either that or I don't understand what you are saying: can an organization (a collective) possibly take collective action? Yes. Can they stand-in for the entire class or a larger collective of people they don't actually have any organic connection to? They can try, but it will probably blow-up in their face eventually.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think the other poster meant that a collective organization can set limits to induvidual behavior (of members of that collective) which undermines what that collective decided on and wants to try and achieve. If a union votes to strike, then if you decide you want to go to work anyway, then that union basically kicks you out and sees you as a scab.

Precisely. Thank you. I was beginning to think no one got what I was saying. I would, though, extend this a bit: in the communist phase of social development, all of society will be a grand union. So someone who behaves disruptively will be sanctioned in some manner by society. Other than that, society has no business sticking its nose in the lifestyle of its members.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not sure the instrumental character of political organisations is simply a "tendency", as if we were talking about some deformation or something to that effect.

The degree of such tendencies would depend upon the overall nature and character of the political organisation. I think it would be safe to say that the Republican Party is more instrumental than some local anti-cuts group.


Let me put it this way. Associations, I think, formal or informal, can be broadly divided into two groups: first, instrumental associations that are formed with specific goals in mind, and second, associations based on some form of camaraderie or attachment between members. And revolutionary parties, it seems to me, are firmly in the first category, as are most political associations, scientific societies, gaming conventions, and the nonexistent god knows what else. Most organisations are of this sort.

Fair enough, but the ways and means of the organisation are as important as its end goals, because they say a lot about how that organisation thinks politics should be done. If a political organisation is genuinely concerned with notions of proletarian democracy, as opposed to just employing it in rhetoric, then the structures of the organisation won't simply run roughshod over the lives and behaviours of its members, even if it's supposedly done "for their own good". Democratic and inclusive organisations can override the concerns of individuals, but they have to have a damn good reason for doing so if they are to remain democratic and inclusive.


Of course. And, in private capacity, other members of the party might help them. But in their official capacity, the party leadership needs to look after the interest of the party first. Some might see this as callous, but this is how all organisations operate.

Indeed, but the devil is in the details. If a member's actions or behaviour are in some way hurting the organisation then something should be done. I just don't see how that justifies the organisation becoming some kind of nanny/counsellor combo act for its members. I'm concerned that in taking on such a role any organisation runs the risk of a paternalistic outlook becoming prevalent.


Also, I have no idea what people think I mean by "discipline". At this point in the class struggle, the worst that can happen in a sane organisation is that someone is dragged in front of the control commission and expelled. But people sometimes act as if I'm proposing that everyone who makes the slightest mistake be lined up against the wall and shot.

I think events like the SWP's sexism clusterfuck may be informing our objections. It's certainly informing mine.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This < Marcuse

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The degree of such tendencies would depend upon the overall nature and character of the political organisation. I think it would be safe to say that the Republican Party is more instrumental than some local anti-cuts group.

I am not sure, to be honest; I think anti-cult groups are just as instrumental as the Republican Party, but their goal includes an intrusion into the private life of individuals. Of course, this blurs the distinction somewhat. But surely we can agree that communist parties are not like that; that their goal is (or at least, that it should be) to change the mode of production, not to influence lifestyles?


Fair enough, but the ways and means of the organisation are as important as its end goals, because they say a lot about how that organisation thinks politics should be done. If a political organisation is genuinely concerned with notions of proletarian democracy, as opposed to just employing it in rhetoric, then the structures of the organisation won't simply run roughshod over the lives and behaviours of its members, even if it's supposedly done "for their own good". Democratic and inclusive organisations can override the concerns of individuals, but they have to have a damn good reason for doing so if they are to remain democratic and inclusive.

Indeed, but the devil is in the details. If a member's actions or behaviour are in some way hurting the organisation then something should be done. I just don't see how that justifies the organisation becoming some kind of nanny/counsellor combo act for its members. I'm concerned that in taking on such a role any organisation runs the risk of a paternalistic outlook becoming prevalent.

I agree; I have never said that revolutionary parties know what is good for their members better than they do, or that they should act as nannies for them. These are the characteristics of a cult and not a party, even though quite a few cults mask themselves as parties. In fact, throughout the thread I have argued against this sort of paternalism.

I think the example of an alcoholic disrupting protest action might have been misunderstood; I don't think that, in such cases, the party should stage interventions or something like that. But a clear message should be sent that disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated; if the problem persists the member should be moved to another position, reprimanded, or even expelled. Obviously, the intention is for the member to stop behaving disruptively. But how they do that - by becoming sober or managing their drinking in some way - is no business of the party centre.


I think events like the SWP's sexism clusterfuck may be informing our objections. It's certainly informing mine.

Alright, but I think this proves my point: Delta should have been disciplined for acts that have damaged the party. Nothing his victim did was contrary to the goals of the SWP, so there was no ground for punishing her. The problem was not, I think, that discipline exists in the SWP, but that there was a lack of discipline and a lack of accountability by the "upper echelons" of the party; a perversion of democratic centralism.