Love

[Queen Mab]

So I spent most of Valentines Day reading about the social construction of love, as you do. Much of it was quite interesting. I found quite convincing the case that romantic love has replaced religion as the 'opium of the people' in the famous phrase. In a secular society, the idea of an afterlife isn't available for people to escape the pain of capitalism. But the deification of romantic love creates the idea that anyone can be happy no matter their lot in life, if you just find that perfect relationship (represented as monogamous and heterosexual of course). You know those Beatles songs; "All You Need Is Love", "Money Can't Buy Me Love" and so on. And that's just off the top of my head so far as popular culture is concerned.

There's also other points, obviously the commodification of romantic relationships into gifts and such that fuels consumption. And the class nature of romance as its generally presented; candlelit dinners, weekend trips to Paris, expensive jewelry, which are particularly bourgeois experiences unavailable to much of the working class.

Anyway, the Gang of Four said it better than I can:

2NTmgFNSLtA

I don't think we're saying there's anything wrong with love,
We just don't think that what goes on between two people
Should be shrouded with mystery.

I think critiquing ('Kritik') contemporary portrayals of romantic love as a sort of mystification can be quite helpful. Not in a nihilistic way, of course.

Full disclosure: I've never actually been in love, only in love with love as it were.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You big old romantic, you

[Sabot Cat]

I don't agree that romantic love is an opiate of the people, because it's not false joy or based upon fundamentally wrong premises. You can sustain healthy, mutually beneficial relationships with other people and enjoy each others' company more often than not, until you all die. One shouldn't feel like it's a requirement of being human or something, or that monogamy is necessarily the best way to go, but it's a thing I personally find to be worth sustaining.

I suppose I do have a tendency to put love on a pedestal, but all of what it embodies (empathy, compassion, cooperation, caring for someone other than yourself) are of paramount importance for any communist, and really, any person.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No, you've got it all wrong. The goal of any communist should be to stew in jaded cynicism and constantly remind people that what they're feeling is merely a neurological chemical response involving dopamine, oxytocin etc and that someday they will rot in the ground. ;) We don't want none of that hippy shit 'round here.

[Sentinel]

OP:

Love seems to be one of a whole bunch of feelings I'm free/devoid of, but I do think it comes naturally enough to most of us. That said, it is of course true that the capitalists exploit it like everything else, both to sell crap and to distract the workers in the opiat sense. That is, as part of the propaganda aimed to usher in a more individualistic mindset, living ones own life rather than sacrificing oneself for the collective, living for the revolution etc etc.

But it's still undoubtedly one of the good things in life for many (just not everyone). The key with all the sweet things that might get one addicted is moderation, to not get absorbed with them and keep a clear head. Love seems to be a particularly detrimental 'drug' in that sense though..



I suppose I do have a tendency to put love on a pedestal, but all of what it embodies (empathy, compassion, cooperation, caring for someone other than yourself) are of paramount importance for any communist, and really, any person.


People can be capable of acting in a cooperative fashion without the emotional side of it though, on a purely rational basis as well. 'Treat others as you want to be treated' and so on.

I for example may have a hard time producing those feelings, but still I'm a communist because capitalism doesn't work as a system, and it's in my interests asa worker to abolish it.



No, you've got it all wrong. The goal of any communist should be to stew in jaded cynicism and constantly remind people that what they're feeling is merely a neurological chemical response involving dopamine, oxytocin etc and that someday they will rot in the ground. ;) We don't want none of that hippy shit 'round here.


People are free to have their emotions as far as I'm concerned, and I actually envy them, but the above is still the truth and the end of the day. ;)

[Sabot Cat]

No, you've got it all wrong. The goal of any communist should be to stew in jaded cynicism and constantly remind people that what they're feeling is merely a neurological chemical response involving dopamine, oxytocin etc and that someday they will rot in the ground. ;) We don't want none of that hippy shit 'round here.

Duly noted comrade. But then, I don't think being a series of chemical reactions or the eventuality of death makes anything less worthwhile. :)

[Queen Mab]

You big old romantic, you

I actually am. The reason I started looking into this is because I did one of those stupid online tests that told me my 'love style' was of the classically romantic sort. Which made a great deal of sense when I thought about it. My avatar is of a Romantic poet after all.

[Queen Mab]

No, you've got it all wrong. The goal of any communist should be to stew in jaded cynicism and constantly remind people that what they're feeling is merely a neurological chemical response involving dopamine, oxytocin etc and that someday they will rot in the ground. ;) We don't want none of that hippy shit 'round here.

That's just ridiculous. I'm not complaining that romantic love isn't actually 'real' and reducing it to chemical reactions. It's very much real. I just want to explore the sociological basis of love. If I can't do that on a forum full of Marxists, where can I?!

[Os Cangaceiros]

4chan?

[Queen Mab]

I don't agree that romantic love is an opiate of the people, because it's not false joy or based upon fundamentally wrong premises.

That's a fair objection. Romantic love in itself isn't an irrational impulse like religion is, but I think it can be when deified. Sentiments like "love conquers all" are what I have in mind. I'm not criticising the idea of romance in itself, but a certain manifestation in modern society.


You can sustain healthy, mutually beneficial relationships with other people and enjoy each others' company more often than not, until you all die. One shouldn't feel like it's a requirement of being human or something, or that monogamy is necessarily the best way to go, but it's a thing I personally find to be worth sustaining.

There's nothing really to disagree with there. But I don't think that love in popular culture is always represented as that sort of relationship. Romantic love is usually depicted as an intense, non-stop infatuation, not a long-lasting affection.


4chan?

Ew, god no.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

how the fuck is a candlelit dinner bourgeois?

[The Feral Underclass]

Love is for the weak.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy"...Lols.

[Rafiq]

Actually, romantic love is a dying trend, being replaced by the modern equivalent of arranged marriages, dating websites and so forth. Today, passionate love is too chaotically imbalanced and dangerous for our timid, bourgeois liberal politically correct sensitivities. Talk of a "healthy, beneficial relationship" Is a testament to this. People in love don't concern themselves with such thoughts. They just do, even if it means both of their demise, they cosmically reduce the entire world to each other in spite of any consequences. You can see how this is dangerous within the context of modern bourgeois ideologies.

Of course romantic love itself has a class character. Proletarian love stands opposed to marriage and to purely individual 'love'. The magic isn't broken by neurology as a science, it's broken by our understanding of what romantic love served as in relation to capitalist production, when there was still space for proletarian struggle. Besides, individual love is a rather boring endeavour, with nothing to look at but each other, problems are bound to occur. Still, its not nearly as reactionary as this degenerate postmodern 'love', which extends the influence of capital in such a total fashion that there is no room for its basic prerequisites. Instead, we're left with its shell.

[Sabot Cat]

Actually, romantic love is a dying trend, being replaced by the modern equivalent of arranged marriages, dating websites and so forth. Today, passionate love is too chaotically imbalanced and dangerous for our timid, bourgeois liberal politically correct sensitivities. Talk of a "healthy, beneficial relationship" Is a testament to this. People in love don't concern themselves with such thoughts. They just do, even if it means both of their demise, they cosmically reduce the entire world to each other in spite of any consequences. You can see how this is dangerous within the context of modern bourgeois ideologies.

I meant as opposed to an abusive, parasitic relationship, which shouldn't be construed as love, because love involves valuing the other(s) you're with and showing affection for them; an abuser does neither of these things consistently enough to count.

[Art Vandelay]

how the fuck is a candlelit dinner bourgeois?

I almost always have candles lit in my apartment, one of my many bourgeois habits.

Anyways love is one of the few things I live for. Be it romantic love, or the possibility of it, or the love of family/friends.

[human strike]

I would say love is perhaps my main driving force in life. I definitely see love as being central to my understanding of communism. bell hooks has some interesting ideas in her trilogy on love that I recommend as an interesting perspective.

[human strike]

b44IhiCuNw4

Addresses some of the things mentioned in the OP.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Love is for the weak.

False, love is a battlefield.

[human strike]

Love is for the weak.

Look at the intense violence love wreaks in everyday life when it takes control; how can you say love is for the weak? It's the coward who shirks that, who is afraid of love and won't take that gamble. The strong embrace love and its violent domination of ourselves, of our emotions and our lives. Furthermore, love is found in struggle, in the unifying bond - the solidarity - of acting against domination.

Though really there are lots of reasons people fear love and who can blame them?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Love is counterrevolutionary!

N5kWu1ifBGU


All the worse for him if he has any relations with parents, friends, or lovers; he is no longer a revolutionary if he is swayed by these relationships.

Seriously though, I waver between being a hardcore 'rationalist' about love and grudgingly admitting that this is just a way to feel better about lacking a love life.

Short version, I have feelings for this girl I partnered with on the debate team at university and had a bunch of the same classes with (I recently graduated into unemployment *for now, I hope, haha* but she's in her final year). We've kept in touch online and after a lengthy back-and-forth of one or both of us saying we should, we finally made plans to go out for coffee recently but they fell through, and I guess I'll ask again but I dunno. :unsure:

[The Intransigent Faction]

Love is for the weak.

False, love is a battlefield.

Are those things mutually exclusive? :grin:

[tallguy]

Bugger me, there is a major whiff of the old puritans about some folks on this board. That is to say, unless there is some major opportunity for self flagellation/self denial/guilt involved, it just aint worth doing.

At it's heart, "love" is a psychological construct, born of a biological imperative. However, we humans, having the preposterously large brains that we do, have culturally evolved definitions and expressions of love that far exceed the sum of it's underlying Darwinian parts. So, it's a partially culturally fabricated construct to cover (or, even, fully diverge from) our Darwinian blushes. So what?

Most things, apart from being born, shitting, pissing, fucking, eating and dying are social constructs.

That doesn't mean such social constructs are not real and cannot have real value.

[tallguy]

Love is counterrevolutionary!

N5kWu1ifBGU...

Fuck me....that's funny....:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Thank's man.

made my morning

[The Feral Underclass]

Look at the intense violence love wreaks in everyday life when it takes control; how can you say love is for the weak? It's the coward who shirks that, who is afraid of love and won't take that gamble. The strong embrace love and its violent domination of ourselves, of our emotions and our lives. Furthermore, love is found in struggle, in the unifying bond - the solidarity - of acting against domination.

Though really there are lots of reasons people fear love and who can blame them?

Lol.

[Thirsty Crow]

So I spent most of Valentines Day reading about the social construction of love, as you do. Much of it was quite interesting. I found quite convincing the case that romantic love has replaced religion as the 'opium of the people' in the famous phrase. In a secular society, the idea of an afterlife isn't available for people to escape the pain of capitalism. But the deification of romantic love creates the idea that anyone can be happy no matter their lot in life, if you just find that perfect relationship (represented as monogamous and heterosexual of course). You know those Beatles songs; "All You Need Is Love", "Money Can't Buy Me Love" and so on. And that's just off the top of my head so far as popular culture is concerned.

The premise that the idea, belief in and ritual practices based on the notion of an afterlife isn't available in a "secular society" is patently false. People still do this kind of stuff in a variety of ways. So, to speak of the replacement of religious alienation with the notion of love is misleading.

And as other people have stated, I don't think it is entirely accurate to talk about religious alienation and...romantic alienation. This indeed is implied if we do take Marx's phrase "the opiate of the people" not as a vague descriptive term, but as part and parcel of the specific criticism of the former, of religious alienation. The situation is very much different in case of romantic love.

But you're completely wrong in that religion can be called an "irrational impulse" (as I believe people need to be socially induced into cult practices like these;), and I actually think there is a considerable irrational - meaning, biological - aspect to love that is simply not there with religion, which is a social institution that cannot be regarded through the lens of instincts, urges, and impulses. This should not be taken as arguing that love isn't a kind of a social institution, or a phenomenon which is in part ideologically - that is, socially, historically - formed.


I don't think we're saying there's anything wrong with love,
We just don't think that what goes on between two people
Should be shrouded with mystery.
So, it seems to me that you want to talk about the ideological aspect and its intended effects upon people, evident in:


But the deification of romantic love creates the idea that anyone can be happy no matter their lot in life, if you just find that perfect relationship (represented as monogamous and heterosexual of course)....which could be differently described as an ideological construction of what should be considered good life in which folks have no reason to question other aspects of their social existence (and especially, God forbid, act upon those considerations). It would amount to a kind of story telling us that no matter the shit wage, or unemployment benefits, the lack of control over common matters, means really nothing when we can cuddle at night and feel great since obviously all there is to leading a meaningful life is precisely this. Forget about other stuff.

And yeah, I'd agree that this specific story is out there so to speak, but also that it is a result of a wider dynamic of social atomization (itself born of generalizing competition of capitalist society), perhaps with a link with conservative family values ideologies. I also believe that the sex drive is a component which makes it easier to understand why such stories and narratives are really compelling (since it "grounds" the stories in an immediate, tangible reality of...yeah, wanting to have sex and to connect with another human being - and yes I do think the latter is also a part of this biological "basis", perhaps not as in "instinct", but rather "predisposition" towards this).

And....where do we go on from here? Obviously, the picture arising from what I wrote above implies that this ideology can be countered with a tempered, sustained critique of the existing order and its consequences for proletarians.

Perhaps another possibility is to do some old fashioned revolutionary (martyr) personality - fuck love and anything to do with it, it is only a liability. I don't think this perspective makes sense, either in relation to our subject matter here, or politically in general (as I believe it tends to imply all sorts of crappy political and strategic positions, either actual or potential).

It's somewhat surprising that these motifs pop up where I wouldn't expect them at all:


... living ones own life rather than sacrificing oneself for the collective, living for the revolution etc etc.


Now, let's picture a bunch of communists approaching workers and arguing they should sacrifice themselves for the collective. Forget about yourself, think about...well, yourself plus some other people, but forget about yoursekf. I think this is an inherently self-contradictory position and that its value in organizing is ridiculously small, non-existent in fact, and that's not even to go into the problems and pitfalls of the specialists' "living for the revolution" deal (one that can be pointed out here is the creation of a resentful and elitist mentality which stands in obvious connection with a) this distorted specialist role and b) politically disastrous positions such as substitutionism)

EDIT: actually, I'd endorse this article on some of the issues raised above: http://libcom.org/library/give-up-activism

And for the purposes of this thread, this excerpt is clear:


The key to understanding both the role of the militant and the activist is self-sacrifice - the sacrifice of the self to 'the cause' which is seen as being separate from the self. This of course has nothing to do with real revolutionary activity which is the seizing of the self.

[cyu]

We've kept in touch online and after a lengthy back-and-forth of one or both of us saying we should, we finally made plans to go out for coffee recently but they fell through, and I guess I'll ask again but I dunno.


Love is for the persistent.

...but love is not for the obsessive. The border between the lands of persistence and obsession is marked by a change from finding your attention flattering, to finding your attention annoying :grin:

[The Feral Underclass]

Love is for the week.

[tallguy]

Love is for the persistent.

...but love is not for the obsessive. The border between the lands of persistence and obsession is marked by a change from finding your attention flattering, to finding your attention annoying :grin:

Wk2l2WZq1Xo

[bricolage]

how the fuck is a candlelit dinner bourgeois?
the reactionary glorification of feudal life and of poverty by those that can escape it.
communism is the inevitable victory of of the lightbulb over previous forms of material-light-relations.

[AnaRchic]

Love is one of the most liberating aspects of human life and we ought to cherish it. To genuinely love another human being for who they are, rather than what you can get out of them, is a dynamic that fundamentally challenges entrenched systems/norms of power. It breeds the confidence and the joy necessary for self-assertion and the cultivation of a rebellious free spirit. Love is a wonderful thing.

However, we must challenge many of the unspoken assumptions about love. There is no reason for it to necessarily be confined to monogamous and/or heterosexual dynamics. One can have multiple lovers, of whatever sex, and it can still be genuine love in my opinion. We must embrace love itself as free association; free love in other words.

The Anarchist tradition has much to say about free love, and it is certainly worth reading into.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Anarchist tradition has much to say about free love, and it is certainly worth reading into.

Does it? I think 'free love' is quite different to actual love.

[AnaRchic]

Does it? I think 'free love' is quite different to actual love.
By "free love" i simply mean free and voluntary love, expressed however the individuals involved choose to express it. Monogamy can be as much a part of this category of "free love" as polyamory or anything else.

Free love requires that people be open and honest with each other, and pursue mutually desired relations for mutual satisfaction and happiness. It is the anarchist ideal of free association in the area of love relationships.

[Red Economist]

So I spent most of Valentines Day reading about the social construction of love, as you do. Much of it was quite interesting.I would recommend Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" as it has some really good ideas and observations on the kind of sociological understanding of love and Wilhelm Reich's "The Sexual Revolution" because it shows the extent to which romantic love and sexual relations are socially conditioned.


Full disclosure: I've never actually been in love, only in love with love as it were. You have a lot to look forward to. Even with the heart ache, love and sex are still the best things human beings can experience. :grin:



I just want to explore the sociological basis of love. If I can't do that on a forum full of Marxists, where can I?! A "theory" of love crosses a line between rational debate and the psychological and emotional aspect of human behavior. In talking about the sociology of love, almost any theory is going to be deeply offensive because everyone gets hurt, even if some are better at coping with it than others. It is important to note that this is NOT universal, because sexual life changes considerably depending on the cultural context. The Trobrianders (studied by Malinowski) had an extremely casual sexual culture which according to Wilhelm Reich did not suffer from the acute problems of unrequited love, sexual inhibition etc.

Given the nature of the subject some personal background is useful; I've been in love once (unrequited and homosexual), I had two crushes before hand and I am a virgin, bisexual and still suffer from considerable inhibitions. In principle, I support free love, but it would require a lot of responsibility and thought to make sure you don't end up hurting other people. Most of the following remarks are based on a combination of psychoanalysis (not hugely accurate!) and reading up and around the subject.


I found quite convincing the case that romantic love has replaced religion as the 'opium of the people' in the famous phrase. In a secular society, the idea of an afterlife isn't available for people to escape the pain of capitalism. But the deification of romantic love creates the idea that anyone can be happy no matter their lot in life, if you just find that perfect relationship (represented as monogamous and heterosexual of course). The 'deification' of romantic love is less a conscious decision, than the unconscious projection of unfulfilled sexual desires into a monogamous relationship. Monogamy, or rather- the requirement that relationships be life long 'till death do us part'- does not correspond to the natural sexual-emotional desires. Hence you have widespread adultery. This is evidenced by Dr. Alfred Kinseys research on human sexuality (through anonymous questionnaires and personal interviews), which show statistically, that sexual behavior and sexual morality are poles apart; not because people are destructive but because sexual desires are independent of our personal control and not susceptible to purely 'moral' restraint.

A concept of "romantic alienation" follows on from the alienation of natural sexual desires within monogamous relationships. The problem is the [I]compulsive nature of Monogamy as a moral-legal institution in marriage. In order to 'reproduce' capitalist or feudal social relations- a society must necessarily regulate the process of sexual reproduction. (monogamy itself is a natural chemical bond based on association).
Marriage and inheritance serves as a way for property- and property relations themselves- to be perpetuated from one generation to another. The family serves as the educational institution for both sexual morality and the ideology of the ruling class.
Therefore adultery and promiscuity are a problem because they produce 'illegitimate' children which can screw up the process of inheritence through legal proceedings- this happens anyway, but society still tries to prevent it by thinking sexual desire as destructive, dangerous and sinful.

Marriage- in it's most conservative form- is therefore based on heterosexuality, and sex is considered as a purely 'economic' task for 'procreation'. I personally would take the view that homosexuality/bisexuality has strong environmental predictors based on personal experience- not scientific knowledge; (i.e. repress your sexuality enough, you start fancying the same sex- as happens in the military, especially in the navy). Though, this position makes it much harder to justify a 'natural' right' to express homosexuality in liberal societies.

To some extent the concept of sexual orientation itself is monogamous; as it is about who your going to marry- not who you sleep with, according the the Kinsey Reports, most people have same sex attractions or relationships in their life-time. Also, Sexual orientation (arguably) changes over the course of a lifetime.

The belief that sexual desire is negative however, is not a 'thought' but an organization of psychological instincts within the brain. Wilhelm Reich referred to this as 'sex-economy' (think of the 'economy' in terms of burning up the chemicals we produce as biological organism). In extreme case, according to Reich, sexual repression produces Sadistic and Masochistic Behavior (not simply as a sexual behavior, but as psychopathic- there is a distinction as the BDSM community will point out). He later used this idea to argue that fascism was the product of sexual repression (and he didn't have a great view of Marxist-Leninists either).


There's also other points, obviously the commodification of romantic relationships into gifts and such that fuels consumption. And the class nature of romance as its generally presented; candlelit dinners, weekend trips to Paris, expensive jewelry, which are particularly bourgeois experiences unavailable to much of the working class.The nature of romantic relationships has changed since the nineteenth century, where marriages were still arranged or forced. the concept of romantic love (I think) emerged in with the development of feminism in the early twentieth century and the sexual revolution of the 1960's and 1970's. By the standards of 19th century anarchists and 20th century Freudian, the 'sexual revolution' is only a liberalization of sexual relations.

Being blunt, the idea that we chose our partners has very much capitalistic characteristics. People behave like commodities in a market place [think of speed dating as the most extreme version], whose 'price' they attach to potential partners is measured according to a comparison of 'attractiveness'. This is usually a combination of sexual attractiveness and social status. Ideas of 'body-image' are superficial; Lasting attraction is based on personality and sexual satisfaction with a partner.
"Relationships" are voluntary contracts between two people (acting as property) based on what they expect one another to do- people who 'break' this contract (typically by sleeping with someone else, but people fall in and out of love with the same partner) voids it and it all goes sour. The use (and abuse) of Facebook to say your "in a relationship with so and so" is an extreme version of this.

The idea of a 'perfect' relationship with the 'perfect' partner is probably a form of projection. In looking for "the one", we are really looking for someone to fit in the compulsive monogamous straight jacket that property relations set on us, but this won't happen because our natural sexual desires will catch us out and we'll look longingly at someone else eventually. Everyone we fall in love with is special, and the moments we spend with them are probably some of the best that we can experience, but human beings also fall out of love as well and morality/psychology has yet to catch up with this as a social problem.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Love is for the persistent.

...but love is not for the obsessive. The border between the lands of persistence and obsession is marked by a change from finding your attention flattering, to finding your attention annoying :grin:

Haha, I know. There's a time to talk and a time to keep your distance and move on, but considering she usually initiates our conversations, I've hardly been obsessive (insofar as someone with OCD can say that! lol) or stalkerish. If anything I always had a mental barrier against being too emotionally attached (call it fear, rationalism, or whatever) So, what, let her do the asking this time, and just forget about it otherwise? Sounds fine, lol.

Anywho, on topic, romantic love can, I would hope, be separate from contemporary traditions like Valentine's Day & diamonds, etc., and it's more that sort of commercial crap that I find insufferable.

[Leo]

"The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman. The relation of man to woman is the most genuine relation of human being to human being. It therefore reveals the extent to which man’s natural behaviour has become human, or the extent to which the human essence in him has become his natural essence. The relationship also reveals the extent to which man’s need has become a human need: the extent to which, therefore, the other person as a person has become for him a need.
(...)
Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune." - Marx, 1844 Manuscripts

[Queen Mab]

how the fuck is a candlelit dinner bourgeois?

Probably spoke poorly, but I was imagining the expensive dinner dates with a specific dress-code and etiquette that is seen as the epitome of romance. And even in romantic dinners at home, working class women are less able to participate in them. Because of housework and childcare the home becomes more a workplace than a potential romantic venue.

[Queen Mab]

A "theory" of love crosses a line between rational debate and the psychological and emotional aspect of human behavior. In talking about the sociology of love, almost any theory is going to be deeply offensive because everyone gets hurt, even if some are better at coping with it than others. It is important to note that this is NOT universal, because sexual life changes considerably depending on the cultural context. The Trobrianders (studied by Malinowski) had an extremely casual sexual culture which according to Wilhelm Reich did not suffer from the acute problems of unrequited love, sexual inhibition etc.

Thanks, Red Economist. I was beginning to wonder if I was stir-crazy. :grin: Really interesting post too. I've heard about Erich Fromm before, he's definitely on my reading list.


Being blunt, the idea that we chose our partners has very much capitalistic characteristics. People behave like commodities in a market place [think of speed dating as the most extreme version], whose 'price' they attach to potential partners is measured according to a comparison of 'attractiveness'. This is usually a combination of sexual attractiveness and social status. Ideas of 'body-image' are superficial; Lasting attraction is based on personality and sexual satisfaction with a partner.
"Relationships" are voluntary contracts between two people (acting as property) based on what they expect one another to do- people who 'break' this contract (typically by sleeping with someone else, but people fall in and out of love with the same partner) voids it and it all goes sour. The use (and abuse) of Facebook to say your "in a relationship with so and so" is an extreme version of this.

Funny you should say this, I actually have a friend (degree in marketing) who consciously takes this exact approach to human relationships. She analyses herself as a commodity and develops a 'marketing strategy' to beat out her competitors on the dating scene. I think it's sad and rather alienating.

[Red Economist]

Thanks, Red Economist. I was beginning to wonder if I was stir-crazy. :grin: Really interesting post too. I've heard about Erich Fromm before, he's definitely on my reading list.

No, you're not crazy. I've thought the same thing because the majority of people go 'weird' or really quiet on this subject. it makes people very neurotic.

The Far left has the same problem as everyone else; The USSR had a brief sexual revolution in the 1920's (legalized homosexuality, abortion, experiments with 'free unions' (non-martial relations) and communal living) to try and 'abolish the family' but it started to die out because people weren't ready for it and then Stalin finished them off, and that's pretty much the only communist sexual tradition outside of the few psychologists in the Frankfurt school I know of.
There seemed to be an explosion of really radical stuff in the 1920's and 1930's because of Freud and then .... nothing. the 1960's and 70's appear to be a 'blip' by comparison because they simply inherited what had been done back then, but I'm not sure. most of the stuff is buried because the 'most' of the subject is still taboo. despite saying love and 'sex' as a physical thing is ok, the psychology of it really gets under people's skin.

Wilhelm Reich is THE authority on the subject from a 'Freudo-marxist' standpoint, but it was a bit of a culture shock when I first read him as I was really conservative when it came to sex. It was a "so the earth isn't flat?" moment when your head spins because you suddenly realize that a lot of the thing you think are natural, aren't. So, if you want the detail, he is your best bet.

You'll have to ask the anarchists what they've got in the subject as I don't know and by comparison they have a much stronger tradition of free love going back into the nineteenth century, probably because they're so insistent on the issue of choice.

The evidence and literature exist for alternative approaches and you have to train yourself to not listen to the "but that's wrong" voice in your head and approach it slowly and methodically to overcome the inhibitions when you find them.

[Queen Mab]

Didn't Reich go insane and succumb to pseudoscience? At least that's the bourgeois attitude to him.

[cyu]

There's a time to talk and a time to keep your distance and move on, but considering she usually initiates our conversations, I've hardly been obsessive (insofar as someone with OCD can say that! lol) or stalkerish. If anything I always had a mental barrier against being too emotionally attached (call it fear, rationalism, or whatever) So, what, let her do the asking this time, and just forget about it otherwise? Sounds fine, lol.


Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you're a stalker :lol: It's probably best to keep some kind of balance - it would help if you were good at reading her reactions. If she seems happy that you're reaching out, keep doing what you're doing. If she doesn't seem so happy, back off a bit. Like a dance to try to stay safely outside the unacceptable... but if you stay too far away, she may get the wrong idea that you're not interested and move on herself =/

[Red Economist]

Didn't Reich go insane and succumb to pseudoscience? At least that's the bourgeois attitude to him.

Yeah. He came up with idea of a physic orgasm energy known as 'orgone' in his later life. He updated many of his books to fit his new ideas, but left the overwhelming majority of the original text intact. He was eventually diagnosed as insane and his later life is kind of written off.
I am selective when looking at his ideas because of this and probably a bit soft on him because of the respect I have for his earlier work on psychoanalysis. That's bias to be honest given that his theories fit Marxism's predisposition to environmental influences in psychology.
But, if your going to have a major personal failing, I think you kind of earn the right to go insane if you're fleeing the nazis.


Funny you should say this, I actually have a friend (degree in marketing) who consciously takes this exact approach to human relationships. She analyses herself as a commodity and develops a 'marketing strategy' to beat out her competitors on the dating scene. I think it's sad and rather alienating.

I studied economics for a year. The underlying assumptions about human behavior ('rational choice theory') are just too hardline and get exported all over social science and to a lesser extent biology. Put me off capitalism for life. :lol:

I saw a book that dealt with the same approach a while back; I think this is it-

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Needed-Economics-Learned-Online/dp/1422191656/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389022189&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+oyer

[La Guaneña]

I think that love is unique, and I love lots of people at the same time, but in unique fashions. Em vez de um único amor, amores únicos.

Who said that we can only love one person at a time? And who the hell said that I should love everyone in the same fashion?

[Marshal of the People]

I have never felt love. What does it feel like?

To me it seems like a silly and dangerous emotion.