tendency? [Archive]

consuming negativity

12th June 2014, 16:53

I've become more and more unable to associate myself with any specific tendency/ideology/whatever as time goes on. I'm much too disagreeable and nitpicky about every little thing to describe myself as an X or a Y, knowing that people will assume Z about me based on something that I disagree with the majority of the tendency about. Right now I have tabs open with unfinished readings from both Bakunin and Mao. And although I originally got into the whole idea of "communism" from reading Lenin, I have a particular fondness for Emma Goldman's writings and even quoted her earlier today in another post. Tentatively speaking, when pressed, I answer that I'm an anarchist-communist, but I still draw from Lenin fairly extensively and haven't made up my mind about him as a revolutionary one way or another.

I want to just be able to say I'm not sure and need to research more, but I said the same thing years ago and I'm even more lost now than I was before. The entire debate at this point strikes me kinda like a game of revolutionary team sports where the tendencies, when they're not just trolling each other about some shit that neither side fully understands, are at each other's throats about some shit that happened 200 years ago... that we'll never be able to definitively answer because the information to do so just isn't there. And then when I make a post it always ends up being way too long and full of frivolous information, none of which I feel I can cut out that would allow me to maintain the same accuracy in conveying my thoughts.

Crabbensmasher

12th June 2014, 18:54

Fuck if I know

sixdollarchampagne

13th June 2014, 00:10

¡trotsky, Trotsky, TROTSKY! ¡Forever! :) I've admired L.D. Trotsky for the last 46 years, since I was a university undergraduate. He's the incandescent* sun in my political sky. :)

(*I had to look up the spelling and definition, namely, "Shining brilliantly; very bright," which fits LD to a tee)
__________________

Creative Destruction

13th June 2014, 00:18

¡trotsky, Trotsky, TROTSKY! ¡Forever! :) I've admired L.D. Trotsky for the last 46 years, since I was a university undergraduate. He's the sun in my sky, the skim milk in my iced tea!

goddamn, you're old.

Geiseric

13th June 2014, 17:40

Im 19 and have been a trotskyist since I started in politics 4 years ago.

Geiseric

13th June 2014, 17:43

Perminant revolution is the defining theory of our epoch. It has been proven true by every revolution of the 20th century. And there is no praxis which comes close to the transitional programme in terms of applicability. Of course there are mostly MLs, petit "anarchists", and Left comms on the internet though, they actually have the time to argue their historical bankruptcy.

consuming negativity

13th June 2014, 19:05

LuÃs Henrique

13th June 2014, 19:56

I am a right communist.

Communist, and right!

Luís Henrique

Quail

13th June 2014, 19:59

Anarchist communist.

13th June 2014, 20:48

Oh, we haven't had one of these in a while.

Other: 'orthodox' Marxist.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

13th June 2014, 20:53

Well obviously there needs to be a freestyle rap battle between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

13th June 2014, 21:03

I think the poll is skewed "in favour of" left communists somewhat, since a lot of people seem to have no real understanding of the communist left and think they're like Leninists, only nicer or "more democratic" or whatever. Of course the same goes for Trotskyists probably.

Anti-Archy

13th June 2014, 21:12

Anarchist

13th June 2014, 21:13

Well obviously there needs to be a freestyle rap battle between Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists.
Well, this is a half-arsed attempt at least (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isfiwp0v-eI).

Brutus

13th June 2014, 21:16

Geiseric

13th June 2014, 22:23

Left communism exists on this foum and in the spartacist league.

13th June 2014, 22:32

Left communism exists on this foum and in the spartacist league.
The sparts are hardly left-communist...

Please refrain from utter shitposting everyone.

Brutus

13th June 2014, 22:41

Of course there are mostly MLs, petit "anarchists", and Left comms on the internet though, they actually have the time to argue their historical bankruptcy.

Ah, the ol' "activism" card. How's flogging papers going for you, Geis?

Geiseric

13th June 2014, 22:46

The sparts are hardly left-communist...

Please refrain from utter shitposting everyone.

In practice their members act in an ultra left fashion. Sectarianism and ultraleftism go hand in hand.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

13th June 2014, 22:52

In practice their members act in an ultra left fashion. Sectarianism and ultraleftism go hand I hand.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

motion denied

13th June 2014, 23:21

I'm not even a communist, I'm here just for shits and giggles.

In fact, i don't even know what I am anymore.

Delusional Kid

14th June 2014, 16:49

Anarcho-Fascism

DigitalBluster

15th June 2014, 22:33

Other: socialist.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

15th June 2014, 22:44

;2761176']Anarcho-Fascism

Come again? :confused:

Ceallach_the_Witch

15th June 2014, 23:40

easiest description is anarchist-communist but yeah, like a lot of folks here I take stuff from a variety of anticapitalist streams of thought and i prefer overall not to stick myself in a box. Aside from a tankie phase in my early teens I got interested in libertarian politics via SPGB stuff when i was about 18-19 (I was searching for parties in the UK that remotely lined up with what I thought) and whilst i can't say i'm a SPGB sympathiser they certainly introduced me to libertarian socialism so I can thank whoever sent me a bunch of old (like, fifty year old stock) pamphlets when I subscribed to the Socialist Standard for like a year for that.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 00:41

The sparts are hardly left-communist...

He's right, though. Sure, we maintain a facade of ultra-Cannonite Trotskyism but when no one's looking, we get smashed, cry over a picture of our dear, unfortunately departed comrade Bordiga and wipe our dicks with a reproduction of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

16th June 2014, 00:58

In the real world the majority of communists are M-Ls and M-L-Ms. Just this board is fucked.

In the world most people who identify as communists subscribe to 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics'. Numbers of adherents do not represent a proxy for truth - if it did then Christianity would be right!

16th June 2014, 03:47

To answer the poll question:

I have come to the conclusion that identifying with long dead political thinkers, movements, governments and movements is ahistorical and counterproductive. There was no 'us' and 'them' whomever you think those are back in 1917 because none of us or our close collaborators were around and politically active at the time. Questions of historical interpretation and loyalty to sides in generations old struggles should never take priority over critical, undogmatic, open consideration of the questions of political morality and priority of our time.

Adopting a tendency in reference to a long gone or greatly depleted movement leads others to dismiss their position due to presumed disagreements and encourages uncritical defense of the established line of that position.

So I don't claim to have a tendency.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 04:11

I think tendency is basically an irrelevant question unless one belongs to a party, and even then its usefulness is sometimes questionable.

Sea

16th June 2014, 04:37

Anarchists and Left-Coms make up the majority of the board.

But notice how Marxist seems to be missing.That's because if plain ol' Marxist was on there everybody would choose that cause Marx was cool beans.

Geiseric

16th June 2014, 04:38

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Im glad to be sectarian to anybody whose wrong about a majority of political science. Especially if they are discussing he world cup on the forum.

Geiseric

16th June 2014, 04:41

He's right, though. Sure, we maintain a facade of ultra-Cannonite Trotskyism but when no one's looking, we get smashed, cry over a picture of our dear, unfortunately departed comrade Bordiga and wipe our dicks with a reproduction of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

You also support NAMBLA. Your members are purposely disruptive at events we plan because of our supposed "reformist" anti austerity ideas regarding city college of SF. Also ultraleftism existed before bordiga..

Bad Grrrl Agro

16th June 2014, 04:45

I have a tendency to freak out.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 09:07

synthesis

16th June 2014, 09:25

While I do not disagree with either of you

...there is a huge difference between debating a anarcho-communist and an anarcho-individualist for example.

Tendency places the discussion in context.

What's the "huge difference," though? Which positions one can read into the other person's arguments? The only way I can see it being useful is for one or the other to say that "That's not something an anarcho-communist/individualist would say," which is a valid point if someone is directly identifying themselves as such, but otherwise when it comes to individual debates the tendency shouldn't matter so much as the arguments themselves and the people making them.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 10:50

What's the "huge difference," though? Which positions one can read into the other person's arguments? The only way I can see it being useful is for one or the other to say that "That's not something an anarcho-communist/individualist would say," which is a valid point if someone is directly identifying themselves as such, but otherwise when it comes to individual debates the tendency shouldn't matter so much as the arguments themselves and the people making them.

The difference is the focus on the economic system and interpretation of analysis. This is not immediately apparant but Ac's and AI's usually tend to look at the same situation differently and intepret it differently. This results in different meaning of the same terms.

Thirsty Crow

16th June 2014, 10:51

Im glad to be sectarian to anybody whose wrong about a majority of political science. Especially if they are discussing he world cup on the forum.
Come at me you self-righteous silly prick.

Oh yeah, broadly left communist. Or not that broadly; depends on the perspective.

EDIT:

Left communism exists on this foum and in the spartacist league.
Seems like you know fuck all about the communist left. I might spell it out for you why this represents only a laughable confusion, but I'll let 870 (what a spectacularly terrible change in username) do that.

Also, there are functioning international organizations within this political current.

Zukunftsmusik

16th June 2014, 12:39

Left communism exists on this foum and in the spartacist league.

In practice their members act in an ultra left fashion. Sectarianism and ultraleftism go hand in hand.

Im glad to be sectarian to anybody whose wrong about a majority of political science. Especially if they are discussing he world cup on the forum.

Well, there is at least one thing the left-comms are better at: trolling. Cause these are some really poor attempts at it.

Also, there are functioning international organizations within this political current.

But if they don't participate in the high-point of class struggle that is the campaign going on at the San Francisco Community College, of what use are these organisations?

Thirsty Crow

16th June 2014, 12:51

But if they don't participate in the high-point of class struggle that is the campaign going on at the San Francisco Community College, of what use are these organisations?
Don't forget they don't even recruit predominantly at college campuses and don't prepare their cadre for some NGO well paid positions. That just seems like poor business logic.

Geiseric

16th June 2014, 15:56

Don't forget they don't even recruit predominantly at college campuses and don't prepare their cadre for some NGO well paid positions. That just seems like poor business logic.

Well you didnt answer his question. What is the left communist international actually doing?

Thirsty Crow

16th June 2014, 16:00

Well you didnt answer his question. What is the left communist international actually doing?
Whose question?

What I did though was to refer to the idea that left communism exists on this forum and...in the Spartacists' case. Both points are utterly ridiculous. So I'm not surprised you'd try to shift the debate to e-dick swinging contest of "and what are you doing huh huh huh?". It's reasonable that you'd try to conceal your idiocy in this way.

Geiseric

16th June 2014, 16:12

Whose question?

What I did though was to refer to the idea that left communism exists on this forum and...in the Spartacists' case. Both points are utterly ridiculous. So I'm not surprised you'd try to shift the debate to e-dick swinging contest of "and what are you doing huh huh huh?". It's reasonable that you'd try to conceal your idiocy in this way.

Youd be surprised to see how often the sparts sling the same buzzwords such as "reformist" and "right wing social democrat". They exist to sell their paper, bashing other left groups and acting more radical than everybody else, although when i ask them how their plan differentiates from ours on the main issues, they change the subject, like you just did. We are actually organizing while they disrupt our meetings, call us class traitors, and try to make themselves feel important.

Does this image ring any bells? Any discussion about SYRIZA devolved into this. Its devolved into slander as left communists claim my comrades are members of the SPD.

DOOM

16th June 2014, 16:13

"Neo"-Marxist, probably a left-communist

Thirsty Crow

16th June 2014, 16:25

Youd be surprised to see how often the sparts sling the same buzzwords such as "reformist" and "right wing social democrat". They exist to sell their paper, bashing other left groups and acting more radical than everybody else, although when i ask them how their plan differentiates from ours on the main issues, they change the subject, like you just did. We are actually organizing while they disrupt our meetings, call us class traitors, and try to make themselves feel important.
I changed the subject? I didn't change it - I can say it openly that I'm not qat all interested in that e-dick swinging consisting in boasting magnificent actions by organizations. So I won't do it. If people are interested, they can open a thread in learning or PM me, but as I said, I'm not going along with your stupid little game in this thread.

Does this image ring any bells? Any discussion about SYRIZA devolved into this. Its devolved into slander as left communists claim my comrades are members of the SPD.
I see. So Sparts disrupting meetings is the same as a criticism of Trot stupidity when it comes to SYRIZA. But what do you expect out of a public discussion board, that people won't criticize what they think of as disastrous politics? You do have specific groups here if you can't handle criticism you know.

And oh no the slander. That's horribly shocking; and it surely means that Sparts are functioning as objective left communists (or is it the other way around, that the communist left is objectively Spart).

The beast of the Stalinists' loyal opposition school no doubt - the mighty logic of "X is objectively such and such" flying in the face of reality.

Geiseric

16th June 2014, 16:51

Theres a difference between e dick slinging and explaining the extent of your tendencies political activity. The sparts and left communists have the same wrong, ultra left view about syriza, exactly.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 16:55

probably a left-communist

I have some bad news for you...

Thirsty Crow

16th June 2014, 17:51

Theres a difference between e dick slinging and explaining the extent of your tendencies political activity.
Of course there could be such a difference, but in the context of this particular debate and the likes of yourself I'm not going to expect anything like the latter.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 18:53

Youd be surprised to see how often the sparts sling the same buzzwords such as "reformist" and "right wing social democrat". They exist to sell their paper, bashing other left groups and acting more radical than everybody else, although when i ask them how their plan differentiates from ours on the main issues, they change the subject, like you just did. We are actually organizing while they disrupt our meetings, call us class traitors, and try to make themselves feel important.

Does this image ring any bells? Any discussion about SYRIZA devolved into this. Its devolved into slander as left communists claim my comrades are members of the SPD.

Except they are. The Internationale Sozialistische Arbeiterorganisation works within the SPD. See for example here (http://www.mao-projekt.de/BRD/ORG/TRO/Internationale_Arbeiter-Korrespondenz.shtml).

And SYRIZA has been hyped up as the next, if not Bolshevik party, but the Mezhrayonka at least. Well, it's been how many years since it was founded? Had a revolution in Greece yet? Any new communist organisations? Maybe those Italian people that really like Tsipras are about the proclaim a new Revolutionary Military Soviet in Rome. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

And, of course, the Spartacists are very clear about how their views differ from that of other, ostensibly Trotskyist, parties. Open the Workers' Vanguard or the Spartacist and you will find extensive discussion of Lambert's notion of "globalisation", the inapplicability of the call for a constituent assembly, a labour party on the British model, an explanation of why the ICL called for a vote for the KKE in opposition to the Lambertists who tailed SYRIZA, and so on.

Spartacists are considered "disruptive" because we don't avoid criticism. Well, excuse us, what are we supposed to do, smile and pass over stupid positions of other groups in the name of "left unity"?

870 (what a spectacularly terrible change in username)

You have memory-sickness.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 19:19

You also support NAMBLA.

Discussion of that issue is not allowed on this forum. Knock it off.

Devrim

16th June 2014, 19:24

Youd be surprised to see how often the sparts sling the same buzzwords [as the left communists] such as "reformist" and "right wing social democrat".

I am quite surprised that despite how often I have told you that left communists don't use the term 'reformist' in this way, you keep insisting that they do.

Devrim

Devrim

16th June 2014, 19:26

I am also quite surprised that there are 21 people who describe themselves as left communists on this forum.

Devrim

synthesis

16th June 2014, 20:00

I am also quite surprised that there are 21 people who describe themselves as left communists on this forum.

Devrim

Well, personally, I wouldn't describe myself as a left-communist, because 1. I'm not involved with a left-communist organization and 2. it seems like on this forum "left-communist" generally refers more to the Leninist Italian tendency, whereas if I had to pick a general communist tendency I find myself agreeing most often with councilism, the German-Dutch school of left-communism and above all Rosa Luxemburg.

But hey, it's a poll and I picked the closest one available. I'm just saying this because I assume there are other such people here who picked it because it's the closest option on the poll to describe their politics, even if that means you see folks like Biazed who seem to think that left-communism is primarily defined by opposition to anti-imperialism/anti-Zionism.

16th June 2014, 20:13

The difference is the focus on the economic system and interpretation of analysis. This is not immediately apparant but Ac's and AI's usually tend to look at the same situation differently and intepret it differently. This results in different meaning of the same terms.

They may tend to, but if you're taking the time to have a serious discussion with someone I think it is worth asking them for further clarifications of their position such as "when you say x, do you mean it in the sense of y or z or something else?" or "how do you understand x?". Making assumptions about people's positions and beliefs through presumptions about their tendency has I think an unfortunate potential to make arguments about the person not the idea, and to lose opportunities for new ideas and new ways of looking at things.

And it facilitates posts like this one: http://www.revleft.com/vb/tendencyi-t189187/index.html?p=2761832#post2761832 (and the one it replied to). Come on.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 20:19

They may tend to, but if you're taking the time to have a serious discussion with someone I think it is worth asking them for further clarifications of their position such as "when you say x, do you mean it in the sense of y or z or something else?" or "how do you understand x?". Making assumptions about people's positions and beliefs through presumptions about their tendency has I think an unfortunate potential to make arguments about the person not the idea, and to lose opportunities for new ideas and new ways of looking at things.

And it facilitates posts like this one: http://www.revleft.com/vb/tendencyi-t189187/index.html?p=2761832#post2761832 (and the one it replied to). Come on.

Well, that is certainly true. Tendency can clarify aswell as polarize and I think it is a double edged knife. And on this board I think it usually does the latter rather than the former.

I think it could be useful in order to gain some insight in how people mean certain terms or in what kind of frame work / context their argument fall; but yeah...it is more likely they create assumptions which could direct the course of a debate in a negative way.

Geiseric

16th June 2014, 20:39

Discussion of that issue is not allowed on this forum. Knock it off.

Its the internet, I can talk about whatever I want.

Tim Cornelis

16th June 2014, 20:40

And, of course, the Spartacists are very clear about how their views differ from that of other, ostensibly Trotskyist, parties. Open the Workers' Vanguard or the Spartacist and you will find extensive discussion of Lambert's notion of "globalisation", the inapplicability of the call for a constituent assembly, a labour party on the British model, an explanation of why the ICL called for a vote for the KKE in opposition to the Lambertists who tailed SYRIZA, and so on.

Spartacists are considered "disruptive" because we don't avoid criticism. Well, excuse us, what are we supposed to do, smile and pass over stupid positions of other groups in the name of "left unity"?
.

I had no idea you were a nutter, excuse me, Spart. In hindsight it makes sense, what with your absolute insane opposition to everyone else, up to the point of denouncing Marx' supposed Proudhonism. Accusing me of being bourgeois, one of the most right-wing members of this forum, yet supporting the Sparts -- the audacity. Being more supportive of bourgeois regimes like China than Stalinists and Maoists (it makes sense now why you consider them to be "better communists than" I'll "ever be"*), supporting Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan, and nevermind the rape apologism. Disgusting really. I have the displeasure (although occasionally humorous) of running into one nutjob of a Spart all the time, and I sure as hell hope it stays with that one Spart.

*Although it still makes no sense why you keep accusing me of supporting Stalinist organisations simultaneously.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 20:44

Its the internet, I can talk about whatever I want.

Not on this site though.

Geiseric, I have no idea what the hell got into you or why you seem suddenly more aggresive these last few days? Is something wrong?

Tim Cornelis

16th June 2014, 20:53

Why can we discuss the SWP's rape apologism, but not the Spart's? Ban the sparts if anything, not those bringing up their rape apologism.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 21:22

Why can we discuss the SWP's rape apologism, but not the Spart's? Ban the sparts if anything, not those bringing up their rape apologism.

Their "rape apologism" consists of taking positions which are also advocated by an organization supported by leading members of this forum. If the age of consent issue isn't allowed to be discussed, which I do understand up to a point, it shouldn't be allowed to be used to bait and slander either.

Tim Cornelis

16th June 2014, 21:23

Their "rape apologism" consists of taking positions which are also advocated by an organization supported by leading members of this forum. If the age of consent issue isn't allowed to be discussed, it shouldn't be allowed to be used to bait and slander either.

Yeah I expected that. It's disgusting. "Bringing up rape apologism is bait and slander" = rape apologism. Fuck y'all.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 21:26

Yeah I expected that. It's disgusting. "Bringing up rape apologism is bait and slander" = rape apologism. Fuck y'all.

You are entitled to your view that replacing age of consent laws with laws regulating effective consent is "rape apologism." (So you are aware: it happens to be the position fo the CPGB-PCC as well as the Spartacist League, though you are strangely silent on the CPGB's "rape apologism.") The point brought up repeatedly here is that this forum does not permit that debate. So if you want to broadcast your position on the issue, do so somewhere else.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 21:34

The point brought up repeatedly here is that this forum does not permit that debate. So if you want to broadcast your position on the issue, do so somewhere else.

The forum does allow debate on the topic, it just doesn't allow rape apologism. Sorry you can't tell the difference.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 21:35

The forum does allow debate on the topic, it just doesn't allow rape apologism. Sorry you can't tell the difference.

It is my understanding that the forum does not allow discussions or debate revolving around whether or not to replace or modify existing age of consent laws. If you have some insight that this is the not the case, I'd be curious to hear the source.

Tim Cornelis

16th June 2014, 21:42

You are entitled to your view that replacing age of consent laws with laws regulating effective consent is "rape apologism." (So you are aware: it happens to be the position fo the CPGB-PCC as well as the Spartacist League, though you are strangely silent on the CPGB's "rape apologism.") The point brought up repeatedly here is that this forum does not permitted that debate. So if you want to broadcast your position on the issue, do so somewhere else.

Really, I'm "strangely silent" about the CPGB's rape apologism? That may be be cause we're not talking about the CPGB, or that I'm not aware of its rape apologism?

If you defend the right of someone to have sex with another person who cannot reasonably or meaningfully consent, it's rape, and you supporting it is rape support. And so you're right, it's not rape apologism. This is true whether you are a Spart nutter, the CPGB, or revleft's BA. That some BA-members here on revleft apparently want people to be able to fiddle little children under the pretext of progressive politics is absolutely sickening.

It is my understanding that the forum does not allow discussions or debate revolving around whether or not to replace or modify existing age of consent laws. If you have some insight that this is the not the case, I'd be curious to hear the source.

Well I'm not discussing that am I?

(it's also a stupid rule, since there's no global age of consent)

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 21:45

Actually no we don't allow advocacy against AOC and since AOC-debates have a tendency to do so...we do not allow them as far as I am aware.

As is explained by Sasha in this post http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2693016&postcount=86

We have always been very open why the advocating of lowering the age of consent is not allowed on this board, its for the same reason that you are not allowed to post drug or bomb making instructions, IT'S ILLEGAL and we value the existence of this board and the freedom of the BA team over the occasional discussion on this subject. If we get taken down we prefer it to be about being commies not an construction of us being childsex advocates.

Also a major problem is the make up of the board membership, any time we had an age of consent thread its dominated within seconds by horny teenage boys who have a natural urge to fuck slightly younger teenage girls and through their raging hormones can't reasonably argue for universal Romeo and Juliet laws but end up defending and siding with the nambla one issue "leftists" who do want abuse pre-pubescent children who also tend to be atracted to these threads as flys to honey.

So while you have argued (besides the paranoia) reasonably well the rules stand, no advocating the lowering of the age of consent, knock it off, take it back on topic or I will be forced to trash all the off topic posts.

These also pretty much explains the views of the board on NAMBLA.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 21:46

I had no idea you were a nutter, excuse me, Spart. In hindsight it makes sense, what with your absolute insane opposition to everyone else, up to the point of denouncing Marx' supposed Proudhonism. Accusing me of being bourgeois, one of the most right-wing members of this forum, yet supporting the Sparts -- the audacity. Being more supportive of bourgeois regimes like China than Stalinists and Maoists (it makes sense now why you consider them to be "better communists than" I'll "ever be"*), supporting Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan, and nevermind the rape apologism. Disgusting really. I have the displeasure (although occasionally humorous) of running into one nutjob of a Spart all the time, and I sure as hell hope it stays with that one Spart.

*Although it still makes no sense why you keep accusing me of supporting Stalinist organisations simultaneously.

For the sake of factual accuracy, I am not a member of the ICL, as unfortunately the ICL does not have a section here, although I do some translation work for them. Nonetheless, I stand in complete political solidarity with the basic line of the ICL.

And I have had "sympathiser, ICL-FI" in my profile for... quite some time now. I am also the maintainer of the orthotrot group. You must not have been paying attention, which hardly surprises me.

The rest of your little diatribe is the usual mixture of impressionism, moralising, and outright lies. I never called Marx a Proudhonist. I said that your use of a phrase Marx also used, although not in the same sense as you, was Proudhonist.

I'm sorry I called you out for your wretched social-democracy (incidentally, I would bet that you're one of the people who voted "Left Communist", which explains why the numbers are so inflated). No, wait, I'm not, opposing opportunism and revisionism is the duty of every communist. Go have some fair-trade organic chocolate, you sound like you're too high-strung for your own good.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 21:46

Really, I'm "strangely silent" about the CPGB's rape apologism? That may be be cause we're not talking about the CPGB, or that I'm not aware of its rape apologism?

And nobody else brings up the CPGB's identical position on the exact same issue, which is the point. The topic only comes up when the discussion is about the SL, which also coincidentally happens to be a group that is excellent at refusing to capitulate to opportunism (or as some here have characterized it, "they are disruptive"). Critics of other aspects of the SL's politics bring this issue up to deflect from the other issues at hand, as a way of trying to administratively silence their interlocutors, taking a position on the SL's position and spinning that position in the most slanderous way. If these critics were genuinely concerned with what they deemed "rape apologism," the CPGB would get at least equal time. It is an unprincipled tactic, and the people who employ it should be ashamed of themselves.

If you defend the right of someone to have sex with another person who cannot reasonably or meaningfully consent, it's rape, and you supporting it is rape support. And so you're right, it's not rape apologism. This is true whether you are a Spart nutter, the CPGB, or revleft's BA. That some BA-members here on revleft apparently want people to be able to fiddle little children under the pretext of progressive politics is absolutely sickening.It still isn't registering with you, is it? That topic is not up for discussion on this forum.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 21:49

Actually no we don't allow advocacy against AOC and since AOC-debates have a tendency to do so...we do not allow them as far as I am aware.

As is explained by Sasha in this post http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2693016&postcount=86

These also pretty much explains the views of the board on NAMBLA.

In practice, the forum does allow discussion of issues related to age of consent, just not the sort of absolutist opposition that you see from Sparts and NAMBLA. I specifically remember the Kaitlyn Hunt thread being completely kosher and a pretty good discussion, at least until some Sparts came in and hijacked it.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 21:50

Devrim

16th June 2014, 21:53

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 21:54

In practice, the forum does allow discussion of issues related to age of consent, just not the sort of absolutist opposition that you see from Sparts and NAMBLA. I specifically remember the Kaitlyn Hunt thread being completely kosher and a pretty good discussion, at least until some Sparts came in and hijacked it.

It allows discussions on the nature of pedophelia and opposition to the usual tendency to claim all pedophiles need to be shot. It does not however allow the challenge of the AOC.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 21:57

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

16th June 2014, 21:59

And nobody else brings up the CPGB's identical position on the exact same issue, which is the point. The topic only comes up when the discussion is about the SL, which also coincidentally happens to be a group that is excellent at refusing to capitulate to opportunism (or as some here have characterized it, "they are disruptive"). Critics of other aspects of the SL's politics bring this issue up to deflect from the other issues at hand, as a way of trying to administratively silence their interlocutors, taking a position on the SL's position and spinning that position in the most slanderous way. If these critics were genuinely concerned with what they deemed "rape apologism," the CPGB would get at least equal time. It is an unprincipled tactic, and the people who employ it should be ashamed of themselves.

I do think it is often used as a lazy kind of attack when people run out of things to insult sparts about, but it also needs to be pointed out that AOC discussions do not attract members of the CPGB the way they do for Sparts. Generally speaking that lot seems to have a hard time talking about any other subject when they register for this board.

Ele'ill

16th June 2014, 21:59

i think tendency, outside of a specific organization/party, is just what currents have influenced you. That is how I respond when someone asks me on here 'what is your tendency?'. I don't think there are people who don't have a tendency.

Devrim

16th June 2014, 22:00

AOC debates in some countries where we are both accessable and have members AOC debates and arguments against AOC are illegal and can and will attract unwanted judicial attention and can result in prosecution or information being leveraged against members...both activists and non activists. This is NOT worth the value of these debates.

Is this true? I am not really interested in this discussion at all, and have never got involved in it, but this seems pretty unbelivable. Can you give an example, please.

Devrim

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 22:01

By the way, this thread is an excellent example of how "disruptive" Spartacists are. Members or sympathisers of the ICL (or LFI, IBT, and COFI, ISL, and so on) criticise other groups on political grounds - or their existence is mentioned - and a minority but extremely vocal group loses it and proceeds to subpolitical insults. And then Sparts are criticised as "disruptive".

Oh no, another thread goes. Go go go Spartzilla.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 22:01

If there is actual rape apologism certainly.

But I think the position of the Board is that supporting a party which among others and as one of their principles supports the questioning of AOC laws does not correlate to actual rape apologism.

Plus the application of legal consequences of AOC is not debating AOC itself

synthesis

16th June 2014, 22:02

Really, I'm "strangely silent" about the CPGB's rape apologism? That may be be cause we're not talking about the CPGB, or that I'm not aware of its rape apologism?

I thought you knew, you're not allowed to criticize an organization's political positions if other organizations also hold those positions.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 22:03

I do think it is often used as a lazy kind of attack when people run out of things to insult sparts about, but it also needs to be pointed out that AOC discussions do not attract members of the CPGB the way they do for Sparts. Generally speaking that lot seems to have a hard time talking about any other subject when they register for this board.

This is true, but in my experience, this is actually because the CPGB is never baited on this issue. Ever. Sparts rush into those threads in question, because usually their group has already been brought up, and they feel compelled to try to defend themselves from accusations. You make it sound as if the Sparts on this forum run around from thread to thread bringing the issue up. To my knowledge, I've never seen any supporter of the SL bring up the issue on their own. It is always the critics, and almost always in discussions that are about entirely different subjects (like this one, as just the latest of many examples).

synthesis

16th June 2014, 22:04

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 22:07

I thought you knew, you're not allowed to criticize an organization's political positions if other organizations also hold those positions.

Of course he is allowed to criticize (if it is within the rules of the forum), and I am allowed to point out how he is unprincipled in conveniently criticizing only one group that holds that position while never criticizing other groups which hold an identical position.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 22:11

You're not exactly helping to improve their image here.

I don't care about "improving their image", because revolutionary politics is not a popularity contest and if you take correct positions, people will despise you. But I think it's clear who has focused on political arguments and who has behaved, well, like a crying baby.

Ele'ill

16th June 2014, 22:12

wow, shit is heating up

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 22:13

Is this true? I am not really interested in this discussion at all, and have never got involved in it, but this seems pretty unbelivable. Can you give an example, please.

Devrim

Arguing for sex with minors can be considered illegal in several countries and warrant legal scrutiny. Including the Netherlands, UK, Russia, most of the Middle East, South East Asia and Germany. Since AOC debates usually go that way and can certainly be interpreted as such we don't allow them.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 22:17

wow, shit is heating up

Thread took an unexpected turn...down a dark alley

It gets like Norteños vs Sureños.

(sorry...watching Gangland series)

synthesis

16th June 2014, 22:17

Of course he is allowed to criticize (if it is within the rules of the forum), and I am allowed to point out how he is unprincipled in conveniently criticizing only one group that holds that position while never criticizing other groups which hold an identical position.

Who are the major CPGB members on this forum whom he could criticize for those positions? I guess it's too much to ask to provide examples of those members arguing those positions, or complaining about not being able to argue those positions.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 22:20

Since some people apparently need a crash course on political argumentation:

"Socialists should boycott the World Cup because otherwise they are objectively supporting capitalism." is a political argument. (This also shows that a political argument need not necessarily be correct - in fact, ah, most aren't.)

"O'Example watches the World Cup, therefore he wants to rape child prostitutes." is a subpolitical argument.

"The group MacExample sympathises with supports the abolition of age-of-consent laws, which would lead to greater structural oppression of children." - political.

"MacExample is a kiddie-fiddler." - subpolitical (and in case people don't get it, such accusations could have very real consequences).

"Eksamplovich's group supported Solidarnosc, which was a nationalist-clerical vehicle for the restoration of capitalism in Poland." - political.

"Eksamplovich supported Solidarnosc because he's a secret Catholic who wanks over a picture of the Pope." - subpolitical.

Chiaro?

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 22:21

Who are the major CPGB members on this forum whom he could criticize for those positions? I guess it's too much to ask to provide examples of those members arguing those positions, or complaining about not being able to argue those positions.

Except the supporters of the SL, as I said earlier, to my knowledge don't proactively bring the issue up. They respond to others bringing it up as a blanket condemnation of the SL's program (see Geiseric's lovely contributions to this thread). Never have I seen similar condemnations of the CPGB, although their position is exactly the same. So your attempt to attribute the lack of condemnation of the CPGB to the fact that their members don't defend the position or whatever is quite beside the point, since with the SL, the topic is brought up and condemned routinely without it being the topic of discussion at all, much less a topic being discussed by specific members.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 22:27

Hell just froze over... :crying:

Spartacists =/= kiddy fiddlers =/= political argument

And these bullshit arguments, vile accusations need to stop.

870 is right in post #105 & FYP in post #106

synthesis

16th June 2014, 22:41

So your attempt to attribute the lack of condemnation of the CPGB to the fact that their members don't defend the position or whatever is quite beside the point

No, I'm attempting to attribute it to the lack of CPGB members on this forum or the lack of interaction with CPGB members in real life. So are you saying that it's the Sparts' other political positions that cause them to get singled out on the issue?

Hell just froze over... :crying:

Spartacists =/= kiddy fiddlers =/= political argument

And these bullshit arguments, vile accusations need to stop.

870 is right in post #105 & FYP in post #106

Which posts are you responding to here?

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 22:46

So are you saying that it's the Sparts' other political positions that cause them to get singled out on the issue?

Yes, that is what I have said, and that is my position.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 22:46

Which posts are you responding to here?

Not yours.

But it is more the tendency to attack Spartacists on this single issue and it is the way this thread is sliding down that slope. This has been the case for as long as I can remember.

I am not defending the Spartacists politically. But the standard knee jerk reactions towards Spartacists when it comes to AOC is really beyond anyting which is acceptable IMO.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 22:47

stuff

Can you quote a couple posts with these "subpolitical arguments" in them? All I see are accusations of rape apologism, not direct accusations of child molestation. (This goes for you too, PhoenixAsh.)

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 22:49

Not yours.

But it is more the tendency to attack Spartacists on this single issue and it is the way this thread is sliding down that slope. This has been the case for as long as I can remember.

I am not defending the Spartacists politically. But the standard knee jerk reactions towards Spartacists when it comes to AOC is really beyond anyting which is acceptable IMO.

And the way it tends to be brought up by critics of the SL in discussions that do not in any way relate to the issue, combined with the tone of the critics, really brings the level of political discussion straight into the gutter.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 22:51

Can you quote a couple posts with these "subpolitical arguments" in them? All I see are accusations of rape apologism, not direct accusations of child molestation. (This goes for you too, PhoenixAsh.)

For example:

"That some BA-members here on revleft apparently want people to be able to fiddle little children under the pretext of progressive politics is absolutely sickening."

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 22:51

Can you quote a couple posts with these "subpolitical arguments" in them? All I see are accusations of rape apologism, not direct accusations of child molestation. (This goes for you too, PhoenixAsh.)

Sorry? Accusations of rape apologism aren't subpolitical?

Especially when they are based on broad speaking AOC questioning and questioning bourgeois legal enforcement of sexual morality discussions which can't be had here and which will invariably end in knee jerk sentiments because of the AOC rules and therefore mere baiting?

The same user which always seems to play a vocal baiting role when it comes to Sparts is simply doing a redo in this thread.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 22:54

For example:

"That some BA-members here on revleft apparently want people to be able to fiddle little children under the pretext of progressive politics is absolutely sickening."

But that's not "subpolitical" by your definition. Your definition would mean saying that "such-and-such want to fiddle kids themselves" - i.e., an accusation of someone's personal actions, not criticism of their political positions or the way they try to realize them.

Sorry? Accusations of rape apologism aren't subpolitical?

No, I don't think they are. Lurid, perhaps, but not subpolitical.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

16th June 2014, 22:57

But that's not "subpolitical" by your definition. Your definition would mean saying that "such-and-such want to fiddle kids themselves" - i.e., an accusation of someone's personal actions, not criticism of their political positions or the way they try to realize them.

Read the quote again. First of all, "fiddling kids" is a (quite tasteless) term for sexual molestation. Second, the quote clearly implies not only that certain users who supposedly advocate the abolition of the age-of-consent laws want children to be molested, but that this is their sole motivation, "progressive" politics being simply a "pretext".

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 22:58

But that's not "subpolitical" by your definition. Your definition would mean saying that "such-and-such want to fiddle kids themselves" - i.e., an accusation of someone's personal actions, not criticism of their political positions or the way they try to realize them.

No, I don't think they are. Lurid, perhaps, but not subpolitical.

When the accusation of somebody's political positions is so brazen and provocative that it literally call into question the good faith of the person holding those positions (that the person knowingly wants rape to happen and is apologizing for it), political criticism crosses the line into personal attack.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:02

When the accusation of somebody's political positions is so brazen and provocative that it literally call into question the good faith of the person holding those positions (that the person knowingly wants rape to happen and is apologizing for it), political criticism crosses the line into personal attack.

That's not how rape apologism works, though. I would have thought you'd know that already. I think this somewhat negates the rest of your argument here.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:03

No, I don't think they are. Lurid, perhaps, but not subpolitical.

I had to look up the definition of lurid. I think rape apologism accussations without actual rape apologism are a little beyond lurid.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:05

I had to look up the definition of lurid. I think rape apologism accussations without actual rape apologism are a little beyond lurid.

How are you so sure that there has been no apologism, from Tim's definition of the term, from either of these members? I mean, have you been keeping track of their positions on the issue?

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 23:05

That's not how rape apologism works, though. I would have thought you'd know that already. I think this somewhat negates the rest of your argument here.

I think the problem with the accusation is that it is perfectly possible to advocate reforming, changing, or eliminating age of consent laws not on the basis of wanting to see young people raped, but for political reasons, even if you think that the objective result will be the greater likelihood of young people being raped. Framing the issue as "rape apologism" deliberately points in the direction of the icky molester who wants to change laws to get unfettered access to minors. It's a personal attack, if one that is a bit more carefully hidden beneath the pretext of a political argument.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:11

I think the problem with the accusation is that it is perfectly possible to advocate reforming, changing, or eliminating age of consent laws not on the basis of wanting to see young people raped, but for political reasons. Framing the issue as "rape apologism" deliberately points in the direction of the icky molester who wants to change laws to get unfettered access to minors. It's a personal attack, if one that is a bit more carefully hidden beneath the pretext of a political argument.

It sounds like your problem is with the imagery it evokes rather than the substance of the criticism. Again, "lurid, but not subpolitical."

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:12

That's not how rape apologism works, though. I would have thought you'd know that already. I think this somewhat negates the rest of your argument here.

Sorry but I think you know very well what the slipery slope is and that actual rape apologism doesn't apply here at all.

Establishing a subjective truth x (nothing to do with actual consent btw)...and questioning x automatically becomes rape apologism by the mere fact that it subjectively was decided that x is an absolute truth...regardless of actual consent or not.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 23:14

It sounds like your problem is with the imagery it evokes rather than the substance of the criticism. Again, "lurid, but not subpolitical."

When a "political" message is intended to evoke a decidedly personal and negative connotation, I don't think it's fair to say that the argument is just political. And if there are alternative ways of expressing the political message that doesn't come with the personal baggage, then the undeniable conclusion that any reasonable person can draw is that the accusation is intended to, at least in part, be a personal attack.

Devrim

16th June 2014, 23:14

Arguing for sex with minors can be considered illegal in several countries and warrant legal scrutiny. Including the Netherlands, UK, Russia, most of the Middle East, South East Asia and Germany. Since AOC debates usually go that way and can certainly be interpreted as such we don't allow them.

Arguing for sex with minors may well be illegal, but that isn't what you said. What you said was that debates and arguments about the age of consent laws are illegal.

AOC debates in some countries where we are both accessable and have members AOC debates and arguments against AOC are illegal and can and will attract unwanted judicial attention and can result in prosecution or information being leveraged against members...both activists and non activists. This is NOT worth the value of these debates.

I am sorry, but in the case of the UK this is blatantly untrue. Sex with (some) minors is totally legal under UK law. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a person under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor, yet the age of consent is 16. This was last changed in England and Wales in 2000 to bring homosexual acts into line with heterosexual acts, and in Northern Ireland in 2008 to lower it from 17 to 16 and bring it into line with the rest of the UK. In 1998, the Labour government proposed lowering the age of consent to 14. In all of these cases I presume there were mainstream politicians who argued for the lowering of the age of consent law.

I would imagine that this is true in many countries. I can't imagine a country where it would be illegal to discuss changing the law.

As I said I am not interested in this topic, but the reason for discussion of it being banned seems very 'dodgy'. It is a bit like the reason that the Revleft admins say they ban fascists. Now I think fascists should be banned anyway, but the legal reasons given as a reason for doing so seem pretty weak to me.

Devrim

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:14

It sounds like your problem is with the imagery it evokes rather than the substance of the criticism. Again, "lurid, but not subpolitical."

It is exactly that though.

It goes beyond attacking the political and attacks the character. Not in some wishy washy insulting way of "ooooo....you are a liberal" but in the "you should be locked up and the police should investigate you" kind of way.

It is a slanderous way of debating beyond contempt. And it most definately isn't simply lurid.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:16

Sorry but I think you know very well what the slipery slope is and that actual rape apologism doesn't apply here at all.

Establishing a subjective truth x (nothing to do with actual consent btw)...and questioning x automatically becomes rape apologism by the mere fact that it subjectively was decided that x is an absolute truth...regardless of actual consent or not.

You don't even know the specific posts that Tim was referring to, though. I've seen arguments from Sparts both here and on their website that I would absolutely characterize as rape apologism and I think it should speak to the nature of their positions that they think they'd be banned for explicating on them. I think it's a perfectly fair criticism. Also, your second paragraph makes zero sense to me.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:17

Not in some wishy washy insulting way of "ooooo....you are a liberal" but in the "you should be locked up and the police should investigate you" kind of way.

I'd like to see which posts you're referring to, specifically.

Tim Cornelis

16th June 2014, 23:18

For the sake of factual accuracy, I am not a member of the ICL, as unfortunately the ICL does not have a section here, although I do some translation work for them. Nonetheless, I stand in complete political solidarity with the basic line of the ICL.

Yeah unfortunately you cannot join a group of bourgeois socialists who support imperialism under a red flag, sexual exploitation of minors, and capitalist regimes. Unfortunately.

And I have had "sympathiser, ICL-FI" in my profile for... quite some time now. I am also the maintainer of the orthotrot group. You must not have been paying attention, which hardly surprises me.

I'm sorry I'm not aware of this insignificant sect that does not exist anywhere where I live. I only know the IBT, and only because there's this crazy Spart IBT-member here in the Netherlands.

The rest of your little diatribe is the usual mixture of impressionism, moralising, and outright lies.

Oh the irony.

I never called Marx a Proudhonist. I said that your use of a phrase Marx also used, although not in the same sense as you, was Proudhonist.

You said the free association of producers, which is synonymous to communism according to Marx, is Proudhonist. Unsurprisingly that you do not understand what communism is as a Spart nutjob.

I'm sorry I called you out for your wretched social-democracy (incidentally, I would bet that you're one of the people who voted "Left Communist", which explains why the numbers are so inflated). No, wait, I'm not, opposing opportunism and revisionism is the duty of every communist. Go have some fair-trade organic chocolate, you sound like you're too high-strung for your own good.

Ah, the usual mixture of impressionism, moralising, and outright lies. You're just mad about how I exposed how your hysterical anti-Proudhonism has let you to call Marx a Proudhonist! The desperate attempts to front as more 'authentically Marxist' (despite being a Spart!) than everyone else has made you denounce Marx' "Proudhonism". You are ridiculous and pathological with your strawmanning (and now that I know you're a Spart, it makes sense). So now everyone time you see me commenting you feel the compulsion to make up another lie about my political positions to deflect from the fact that you called Marx a Proudhonist in order to denounce me for my Proudhonism, lelel. Really, it's just that you can't stand that I don't have absurd anti-socialist political positions so you need to constantly fabricate them. And I've seen you do this with many other revleft-users. It's more than a pattern at this point.

1. I'm a social-democrat for advocating abstentionism and the immediate transition to communism, the free association of equal producers and consumers, through a workers' state based on voluntary centralism; you are an authentic r-r-revolutionary Marxist despite upholding an organisation that supporting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979; 'critically' upholds the DPRK; and is generally a bourgeois socialist organisation; and advocating militarist centralism.... MMMMOOKAY. Despite all your r-r-revolutionary posturing you are not a communist.
2. I clicked 'other'.
3. Opposing revisionism and opportunism by joining a revisionist and opportunist organisation pur sang. Like I said, you're not a communist so logically it's not your duty to oppose revisionism and opportunism, which explains your support for, uh, revisionism and opportunism.
4. Fair-trade organic cholocate? I never supporting ethical consumerism. Another lie to cover how embarrassed you are that you called Marx a Proudhonist!

But here's some 'moralising' for you: all Sparts, in the event of a revolutionary situation, shall be lined up and executed preemptively as victims of the revolutionary terror. It is no gain to keep bourgeois-socialists, it's no loss to lose them.

lol:

http://www.indymedia.ie/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/migration/img_up/up_3/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_37123_1.jpg

Yeah, such an uncompromising stand against revisionism and opportunism indeed. Utterly ridiculous these Sparts.

It still isn't registering with you, is it? That topic is not up for discussion on this forum.

Well I'm not discussing it, so....

Am I allowed to say some self-proclaimed 'communists' (actually, bourgeois-socialists) should be executed in a revolutionary situation? Because those bourgeois-socialists certainly maintain that some communists should be, and they roam this board freely.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 23:18

You don't even know the specific posts that Tim was referring to, though. I've seen arguments from Sparts both here and on their website that I would absolutely characterize as rape apologism and I think it should speak to the nature of their positions that they think they'd be banned for explicating on them. I think it's a perfectly fair criticism. Also, your second paragraph makes zero sense to me.

Then it sounds like you should start a separate forum where fixating on age of consent issues is allowed. This isn't that forum. In the meantime, people who bring up the issue out of the blue to attack SL supporters are showing their true colors as political cowards by lodging personal accusations that, if responded to politically, would result in administrative sanction.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:19

Arguing for sex with minors may well be illegal, but that isn't what you said. What you said was that debates and arguments about the age of consent laws are illegal.

Well to be fair I said arguing against AOC is illegal in some countries.

I am sorry, but in the case of the UK this is blatantly untrue. Sex with (some) minors is totally legal under UK law. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a person under the age of 18 is considered to be a minor, yet the age of consent is 16. This was last changed in England and Wales in 2000 to bring homosexual acts into line with heterosexual acts, and in Northern Ireland in 2008 to lower it from 17 to 16 and bring it into line with the rest of the UK. In 1998, the Labour government proposed lowering the age of consent to 14. In all of these cases I presume there were mainstream politicians who argued for the lowering of the age of consent law.

Totally not what I was arguing and missing the issue with challenging AOC within criticism of bourgeois sexual morality. Which sometimes deals with abolising AOC in whole or in part. And I am not claiming that this is my position btw.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:20

I'd like to see which posts you're referring to, specifically.

You are being very obtuse for the hell of it.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:22

Then it sounds like you should start a separate forum where fixating on age of consent issues is allowed. This isn't that forum. In the meantime, people who bring up the issue out of the blue to attack SL supporters are showing their true colors as political cowards by lodging personal accusations that, if responded to politically, would result in administrative sanction.

Except Tim criticized the Sparts for a wide selection of their positions:

I had no idea you were a nutter, excuse me, Spart. In hindsight it makes sense, what with your absolute insane opposition to everyone else, up to the point of denouncing Marx' supposed Proudhonism. Accusing me of being bourgeois, one of the most right-wing members of this forum, yet supporting the Sparts -- the audacity. Being more supportive of bourgeois regimes like China than Stalinists and Maoists (it makes sense now why you consider them to be "better communists than" I'll "ever be"*), supporting Soviet imperialism in Afghanistan, and nevermind the rape apologism. Disgusting really. I have the displeasure (although occasionally humorous) of running into one nutjob of a Spart all the time, and I sure as hell hope it stays with that one Spart.

*Although it still makes no sense why you keep accusing me of supporting Stalinist organisations simultaneously.

And it looks like you brought the focus to the apologism just as much as he did. Is there a reason you didn't respond to the rest of these points?

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:24

You don't even know the specific posts that Tim was referring to, though. I've seen arguments from Sparts both here and on their website that I would absolutely characterize as rape apologism and I think it should speak to the nature of their positions that they think they'd be banned for explicating on them. I think it's a perfectly fair criticism. Also, your second paragraph makes zero sense to me.

I don't think it is fair criticism if they:

a. haven't been made here.
b. are made by a party/group specific targetted Sparts aren't part of
c. are generalized to Sparts in general
d. are usually thrown around as a first attack in threads which have no bearing on the subject at all and are brough up at random.

And the second paragraph states that challenging AOC =/= rape apologism.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:24

You are being very obtuse for the hell of it.

No, I'm not. You're basing your defense of them (not that that bothers me) on a quasi-emotional feeling that they're being bullied or whatever, and I'm trying to demonstrate that this is because they're excellent at presenting themselves as victims.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:25

Except Tim criticized the Sparts for a wide selection of their positions:

And it looks like you brought the focus to the apologism just as much as he did. Is there a reason you didn't respond to the rest of these points?

Except Tim isn't the onkly one arguing in this thread now is he?

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 23:26

And it looks like you brought the focus to the apologism just as much as he did. Is there a reason you didn't respond to the rest of these points?

Yes, because they refer to a couple of specific accusations that another poster made, that I do not have the knowledge to comment on. I have a habit of shutting my yap when I don't think I have a useful contribution to make. Unfortunately, others on this forum haven't acquired this level of discernment.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:30

No, I'm not. You're basing your defense of them (not that that bothers me) on a quasi-emotional feeling that they're being bullied or whatever, and I'm trying to demonstrate that this is because they're excellent at presenting themselves as victims.

No actually it is because they are usually bullied on this specific issue. This isn't quasi emotional this is objective fact. And they are bullied on this specific issue because they challenge AOC laws and question bourgeois legal enforcement of sexual morality. Regardless of my own opinions on the subject I am getting a bit tired of this after 25 years of the same old shit...not seldom by parties and groups who actually hold the same views internally. And when I say 25 years it is because I entered the scene at that time. I am more than sure these accusations were going around for longer than that.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 23:31

No, I'm not. You're basing your defense of them (not that that bothers me) on a quasi-emotional feeling that they're being bullied or whatever, and I'm trying to demonstrate that this is because they're excellent at presenting themselves as victims.

I am not a supporter of the SL. I am a supporter of principled political discussion. Apparently, in spite of my very pointed political disagreements with him in other threads, PhoenixAsh is as well. And PhoenixAsh is certainly not a supporter of the SL, either. In fact, he would classify their politics as objectively counter-revolutionary. That he and I are in agreement that the way that the supporters of the SL are baited on this forum is despicable should telling you something, if you'd stop grasping at straws long enough to hear what that something is.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:32

I don't think it is fair criticism if they:

a. haven't been made here.
b. are made by a party/group specific targetted Sparts aren't part of
c. are generalized to Sparts in general
d. are usually thrown around as a first attack in threads which have no bearing on the subject at all and are brough up at random.

See, this is why I'm trying to get you to quote the posts that you're referring to rather than letting your responses be dictated by how they're framing what just happened. You say that it was "a first attack in a thread which has no bearing at all on the subject" and yet if you go back you'll see that at first Tim listed a dozen different criticisms of their positions, "never mind the rape apologism" as an aside.

And the second paragraph states that challenging AOC =/= rape apologism.

Okay, but you should know by now that it is a fairly common criticism that with this particular group the line between the former and the latter is more than a little blurry.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:34

Except Tim isn't the onkly one arguing in this thread now is he?

I'm not sure I follow. You and FYP are claiming that the age-of-consent issue was the first and only criticism of the Sparts, yet it clearly wasn't.

Five Year Plan

16th June 2014, 23:37

I'm not sure I follow. You and FYP are claiming that the age-of-consent issue was the first and only criticism of the Sparts, yet it clearly wasn't.

Where did anybody say this? We're saying that the other criticisms can't be discussed out from under the cloud of personal attack (on an issue that is invariably brought up, unsolicited, by critics of the SL) that always hangs over every thread where the SL's politics is mentioned. If you are so supportive of bringing the political level of discussions this forum down to this level that you will start making up strawmen as you did above, well, I don't have much else to say to you.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:38

See, this is why I'm trying to get you to quote the posts that you're referring to rather than letting your responses be dictated by how they're framing what just happened. You say that it was "a first attack in a thread which has no bearing at all on the subject" and yet if you go back you'll see that at first Tim listed a dozen different criticisms of their positions, "never mind the rape apologism" as an aside.

Except Tim's wasn't the first post.

And that first post wasn't made in a vacuum either but in a continuation of such posts (by the same user no less for example)

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:39

I'm not sure I follow. You and FYP are claiming that the age-of-consent issue was the first and only criticism of the Sparts, yet it clearly wasn't.

Actually we aren't. I am not.

I am saying that the criticism against the Sparts is always accompanied by accusations of child molestation and rape apologism (and to be fair this rape apologism is actually meant as child rape apologism < hence why I said abuse in a "get the police involved" kind of way) in order to undermine the character rather than the politics. And even if you want to pretend this is a political argument then it still isn't an argument on content but an ad hominem.

synthesis

16th June 2014, 23:40

Except Tim's wasn't the first post.

And that first post wasn't made in a vacuum either but in a continuation of such posts (by the same user no less for example)

Ah, you're right. There was Geiseric as well. I generally tend to phase out inter-Trot shit-slinging.

I am saying that the criticism against the Sparts is always accompanied by accusations of child molestation and rape apologism

You did make wider-ranging claims, though; confirm or deny?

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:43

Ah, you're right. There was Geiseric as well. I generally tend to phase out inter-Trot shit-slinging.

Exactly. And his NAMBLA remark is directly linked to a string of threads where he makes the same accusation against Sparts and those he thinks are Sparts. He is quite vocal about what he thinks about NAMBLA and therefore the Sparts in other threads based on mere association.

So basically this would be the oil on the fire.

PhoenixAsh

16th June 2014, 23:45

You did make wider-ranging claims, though; confirm or deny?

That this has been going on for >25 years?

Rural Comrade

16th June 2014, 23:53

Marxist-Leninist and yes that does mean I support Socialism in One Country.

synthesis

17th June 2014, 00:14

Exactly. And his NAMBLA remark is directly linked to a string of threads where he makes the same accusation against Sparts and those he thinks are Sparts. He is quite vocal about what he thinks about NAMBLA and therefore the Sparts in other threads based on mere association.

So basically this would be the oil on the fire.

Well, some Sparts haven't exactly been working too hard on dispelling this myth he holds. Here's a post that one made exactly a year ago today, in response to something Geiseric said, with a big fat trigger warning to go with it:

Oh, I see, your recently being a minor gives you some special insight here. If at seventeen you were naive enough to be "tricked" into taking something into your ass that you really didn't want there, that would be your problem and a topic for your own therapy, not for political discussion. If coercion was actually involved, and you were being threatened to keep you quiet, then a trip to the local police would be in order.

Tim Cornelis

17th June 2014, 00:26

Actually we aren't. I am not.

I am saying that the criticism against the Sparts is always accompanied by accusations of child molestation and rape apologism (and to be fair this rape apologism is actually meant as child rape apologism < hence why I said abuse in a "get the police involved" kind of way) in order to undermine the character rather than the politics. And even if you want to pretend this is a political argument then it still isn't an argument on content but an ad hominem.

And why would it be a bad thing to expose their character as a party (or sect), when you challenge them as a party? Certainly, it would be legitimate to target 'bureaucratism' and not just the political ideas and theoretical underpinnings of a party? Then why should I not be allowed to criticise the rape apologism of the SWP or that one sect I forgot the name of already -- Vincent West's nutter sect.

Sea

17th June 2014, 00:27

Their "rape apologism" consists of taking positions which are also advocated by an organization supported by leading members of this forum. If the age of consent issue isn't allowed to be discussed, which I do understand up to a point, it shouldn't be allowed to be used to bait and slander either.So might makes right, right? Wrong. By saying we can't reveal rape apologists for who they are, you yourself are marginalizing rape, and are therefore a rape apologist. The only heinous shame-worthy error on any part of the administration that I've noticed is Psycho's (Sasha's) blatant apologia for Israeli supremacism. If there is rape apologism too, please point it out. Do not be afraid to point fingers. Unless, of course, you've really no fingers to point and you just want to talk shit.
I think the problem with the accusation is that it is perfectly possible to advocate reforming, changing, or eliminating age of consent laws not on the basis of wanting to see young people raped, but for political reasons, even if you think that the objective result will be the greater likelihood of young people being raped. Framing the issue as "rape apologism" deliberately points in the direction of the icky molester who wants to change laws to get unfettered access to minors. It's a personal attack, if one that is a bit more carefully hidden beneath the pretext of a political argument.By that logic, the best thing we can do to prevent rape crimes is legalizing it. Give me a fucking break.

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 00:27

Well, some Sparts haven't exactly been working too hard on dispelling this myth he holds. Here's a post that one made exactly a year ago today, in response to something Geiseric said, with a big fat trigger warning to go with it:

From that same post:

I'm not a member of the Sparts,

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 00:32

And why would it be a bad thing to expose their character as a party (or sect), when you challenge them as a party? Certainly, it would be legitimate to target 'bureaucratism' and not just the political ideas and theoretical underpinnings of a party? Then why should I not be allowed to criticise the rape apologism of the SWP or that one sect I forgot the name of already -- Vincent West's nutter sect.

Because you are basing their character as a party on some accusation of rape apologism purely based on arbitrary age being the determining factor....and ignoring the rest of the arguments.

synthesis

17th June 2014, 00:34

From that same post:

He said elsewhere that he had been a previous member. You can also see every single Spart sympathizer the board has ever had defending that quote in that same thread.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

17th June 2014, 00:38

Except Tim criticized the Sparts for a wide selection of their positions:

[...]

And it looks like you brought the focus to the apologism just as much as he did. Is there a reason you didn't respond to the rest of these points?

How could they respond to a post that was not directed at them? As for myself, it seems to me that Cornelis is so entrenched in his position, and that his basic political orientation is so incompatible with revolutionary socialism, that a political debate on issues like Afghanistan etc. would be pointless.

Therefore I chose not to address that part. Of course, I could have engaged in subpolitical slander myself, and claimed that Cornelis supported the Mujahidin in Afghanistan because of his secret desire to subjugate women. Obviously this would have met with approval from certain members. Or is their acceptance of such methods dependent on the affiliation of the poster in question? I wonder.

Honestly, I didn't even have to respond to Cornelis's, quite frankly hysterical, post. I responded (1) to note his misrepresentation of one of our exchanges, (2) to clarify my position vis-a-vis the ICL, and (3) to make clear my assessment of Cornelis's politics.

I did not choose to address the subpolitical slander at this point because it tends to derail threads, as indeed it has done now. However, and I believe I have already made this clear, but it bears repeating, I absolutely despise the implication that I support child molestation in any form. Afghanistan, centralisation, militarisation of labour - these are all political points. To insinuate that I'm a child molester or enabler of child molestation is, on the other hand, not simply subpolitical, but grossly indecent and underhanded.

Quite frankly I would expect an apology, but the character of our good friend Tim Cornelis is quite evident from our many exchanges, and I might as well expect chocolate to be non-fattening.

And to be honest, it seems clear to me, from the way you've brought up a post of a former member, made in a heated discussion, that your intentions here are less than honest. In fact you've made your hostility to Leninists known several times, and I can't but wonder if this accounts for you behaviour on this thread.

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 00:48

He said elsewhere that he had been a previous member. You can also see every single Spart sympathizer the board has ever had defending that quote in that same thread.

:rolleyes: I am not going to comment on the quote and its nature nor on wether or not I think that ban was warranted or not.

However, I am going to suggest you read the rest of the main position of that post which is quite a bit larger than the part you post.

Tim Cornelis

17th June 2014, 00:50

Because you are basing their character as a party on some accusation of rape apologism purely based on arbitrary age being the determining factor....and ignoring the rest of the arguments.

It's not an "arbitrary age", it's cognitive development in children. It is rape in that children cannot meaningfully consent to sexual acts, and hence it is engaging in sexual acts with someone with people that did not (meaningfully) consent. Moreover, sexual acts between adults and children results in psychological damage to the children. This is not arbitrary at all.

As for myself, it seems to me that Cornelis is so entrenched in his position, and that his basic political orientation is so incompatible with revolutionary socialism, that a political debate on issues like Afghanistan etc. would be pointless.

Therefore I chose not to address that part. Of course, I could have engaged in subpolitical slander myself, and claimed that Cornelis supported the Mujahidin in Afghanistan because of his secret desire to subjugate women. Obviously this would have met with approval from certain members. Or is their acceptance of such methods dependent on the affiliation of the poster in question? I wonder.

Honestly, I didn't even have to respond to Cornelis's, quite frankly hysterical, post. I responded (1) to note his misrepresentation of one of our exchanges, (2) to clarify my position vis-a-vis the ICL, and (3) to make clear my assessment of Cornelis's politics.

I did not choose to address the subpolitical slander at this point because it tends to derail threads, as indeed it has done now. However, and I believe I have already made this clear, but it bears repeating, I absolutely despise the implication that I support child molestation in any form. Afghanistan, centralisation, militarisation of labour - these are all political points. To insinuate that I'm a child molester or enabler of child molestation is, on the other hand, not simply subpolitical, but grossly indecent and underhanded.

Quite frankly I would expect an apology, but the character of our good friend Tim Cornelis is quite evident from our many exchanges, and I might as well expect chocolate to be non-fattening.

And to be honest, it seems clear to me, from the way you've brought up a post of a former member, made in a heated discussion, that your intentions here are less than honest. In fact you've made your hostility to Leninists known several times, and I can't but wonder if this accounts for you behaviour on this thread.

Right. My political positions are incompatible with revolutionary socialism (since you have so far not represented my political positions accurately once your post about me does not bare any value anyway) despite your support for this right-wing Trotskyist spart sect that backs all kinds of counter-revolutionary bourgeois regimes. And apparently me pointing out the positions of the insane sect you support is "slander", which is telling really. Unless the definition of revolutionary socialism has been redefined as movement for the centralised state management of capital, you're wrong. But really, you and your silly sect represent 'the left-wing of capital', despite your radical posturing and your hysterical anti-Proudhonism which has lead you to call Marx' conception of communism Proudhonist (and by extension Marx -- not a misrepresentation as you claim at all). Does this fact not warrant you reconsidering your politics?

But I'll follow this advice about your ridiculous sect:

Spartacist League:

Unique Selling Point: The craziest of them all.

Description: Most of these groups are quite weird to some extent. But none compare to the glorious madness of the IBT and Sparts (as with WP and PR, they split some time ago in a heated argument about how many angels can fit on one of Marx's beard hairs.) There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two, except that the IBT call their paper 1917, which always makes it sound like a good place to read about the latest news from the First World War. Read those slogans again. They actually, genuinely believe they're going to win people to socialism by telling them to "DEFEND THE NORTH KOREAN DEFORMED WORKERS STATE'S RIGHT TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" (They've also been known to stand outside the SWP's annual Marxism event denouncing them for not supporting the glorious people's Red Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s. I'm not making this up.) Truly, this is the face of madness: look on it and despair.

Do say: "Defend North Korea's right to nuclear weapons!"

Don't say: Anything at all. Just back away slowly.
http://libcom.org/blog/trotspotting-everything-you-always-wanted-know-about-sects-were-afraid-ask-18092009

consuming negativity

17th June 2014, 00:58

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 01:06

It's not an "arbitrary age", it's cognitive development in children. It is rape in that children cannot meaningfully consent to sexual acts, and hence it is engaging in sexual acts with someone with people that did not (meaningfully) consent. Moreover, sexual acts between adults and children results in psychological damage to the children. This is not arbitrary at all.

So what you are arguing is that consent does NOT depend on a arbitrarily fixed number but about subjective development of a child (remember AOC age is a fixed arbitrary number varying from country to country and has NOTHING to do with what you just said here) Which is actually the Sparts position.

Then of course we have the fact that Sparts aren't arguing for sex with children but against bourgeois laws enforcing sexual morality. This includes, but isn't limited to, AOC.

Where I am getting tired is that the discussion tends to focus on the subject like Sparts are arguing people should have sex with children or that causing bodily harm is permissible. This is both a narrow focus and a complete misrepresentation of Spart positions.

This misrepresentation however is not without its purpose and intent. And usually that purpose and intent is to create an atmosphere of kneejerk hostility based on bourgeois criminalization and with the specific intent of criminalizing Sparts.

There are plenty of political arguments against the Sparts but this one is particularly vile.

Tim Cornelis

17th June 2014, 01:07

This isn't about Vincent West's opportunist revisionist social-democratic politics neither. So shut it Vincent.

But yeah. Imma outta here ("Just back away slowly [from Spart madness]").

So what you are arguing is that consent does NOT depend on a arbitrarily fixed number but about subjective development of a child (remember AOC age is a fixed arbitrary number varying from country to country and has NOTHING to do with what you just said here) Which is actually the Sparts position.

Then of course we have the fact that Sparts aren't arguing for sex with children but against bourgeois laws enforcing sexual morality. This includes, but isn't limited to, AOC.

Where I am getting tired is that the discussion tends to focus on the subject like Sparts are arguing people should have sex with children or that causing bodily harm is permissible. This is both a narrow focus and a complete misrepresentation of Spart positions.

This misrepresentation however is not without its purpose and intent. And usually that purpose and intent is to create an atmosphere of kneejerk hostility based on bourgeois criminalization and with the specific intent of criminalizing Sparts.

There are plenty of political arguments against the Sparts but this one is particularly vile.

Bodily harm? Better shut it before you make it worse.

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 01:14

Bodily harm? Better shut it before you make it worse.

I misread your psychological for physical. But the same statement could easilly be amended to psychological harm being non permissable. Both are equally true.

Now...did you or did you not just claim that a childs cognigtive abilities should be the determining factor.

Since that is a Spart position.....

But yeah. Imma outta here ("Just back away slowly [from Spart madness]").

I am slightly wondering why you try to back out of the thread seconds after taking the Spartacist position on the issue after having spend several posts of attacking them on it.

Geiseric

17th June 2014, 01:37

Five Year Plan

17th June 2014, 01:45

LOL au contrare. The sparts accuse my comrades of being "labor bureaucrats" on a regular basis. This isnt even slander, you guys published your stance several times in WV.

Huh? What do I publish?

Geiseric

17th June 2014, 02:05

Huh? What do I publish?

The sparts have made their support for NAMBLA, an illegal organization, clear in writing and verbally to me personally.

Five Year Plan

17th June 2014, 02:21

The sparts have made their support for NAMBLA, an illegal organization, clear in writing and verbally to me personally.

Setting aside your obsession with NAMBLA (and the SL), my last post was a response to the portion of your post where you said "you guys published." I did not publish any such thing.

Psycho P and the Freight Train

17th June 2014, 02:44

Setting aside your obsession with NAMBLA (and the SL), my last post was a response to the portion of your post where you said "you guys published." I did not publish any such thing.

Perhaps Geiseric is "obsessed" because they are a disgusting and degenerate organization filled with perverted pieces of shit? I don't know… I think that anyone who upholds them is certainly a reactionary.

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 02:59

Sparts are not limited to the SL

Sinister Intents

17th June 2014, 03:02

What's a Spart? Can you eat it? Aren't they basically Trots?

Bardo

17th June 2014, 05:02

I'm an anti-capitalist.

;)

17th June 2014, 09:41

To reitterate:

AOC debates in some countries where we are both accessable and have members AOC debates and arguments against AOC are illegal and can and will attract unwanted judicial attention and can result in prosecution or information being leveraged against members...both activists and non activists. This is NOT worth the value of these debates.

If the board's administration wants to censor a kind of debate that attracts trollishness and immaturity, I really don't mind - its a reasonable call.

But lets be clear that the belief that "AOC debates and arguments against the AOC" are illegal and can result in the board being shut down is nonsensical as a reason for prohibiting it. Such debates are not illegal in Germany where the website is hosted, nor are they illegal (contrary to a claim I've seen) in the UK.

Perhaps somewhere in the world there is a country that bans such arguments, but no one seems to be able to name such a law or jurisdiction - and a very great amount of speech that goes on in this form is actually criminalized.

While Germany doesn't as far as I can tell (any German qualified lawyers on the forum?) ban "AOC debates" it does have the broadest range of censorship laws in Europe. The criminal code includes punishments for:

- insults (Section 185),
- defamation (punishable with imprisonment and where the defendant has the burden to prove the claim true, section 186)
- criminal defamation against politicians (Section 188),
- disparagement of deceased people (Section 189)
- insulting religions and philosophies of life (Section 166),
- expressions of contempt of the Federal Republic of Germany, one of its states or its constitutional order (Section 90a),

People violate or potentially violate those provisions on this forum all the time. There has been insulting and probably defamatory speech in this thread alone.

So, I'm thinking that the notion that these debates are banned due to legal concerns is entirely fictional - they're banned for political, personal, and cultural reasons, that might be entirely legitimate, but claiming that the redline being drawn is one of legal necessity just doesn't make sense.

17th June 2014, 09:54

The sparts have made their support for NAMBLA, an illegal organization, clear in writing and verbally to me personally.

Err, I have no idea if the 'the sparts' (which sparts?) communicated their support (support in what way?) to you, but NAMBLA is not an illegal organization - it is an above ground, United States organization lawful to join under the laws of the United States. Individual NAMBLA members have been found guilty of crimes of course (as with individual members of nearly every large organization).

And even if you think NAMBLA is abhorrent - is your mistaken belief in its illegal nature good grounds for thinking that the Sparts alleged 'support' of an 'illegal organization' is a reason to condemn them? Many communist organizations are illegal in the jurisdiction where they exist, and revolution is illegal everywhere (but expressing support for revolution is of course lawful in many jurisdictions).

I don't have any particular interest in the Sparts or NAMBLA - I just think that we should be careful about throwing around questionable claims concerning legality in order to privilege a position in debate. Especially one that you should be able to win without appeals to it.

Sinred

17th June 2014, 10:03

Pragmatic Marxist-leninist with some pan-communism combined with third line antirevisonism and a softspot for syndicalist economy.

Tim Cornelis

17th June 2014, 10:21

I misread your psychological for physical. But the same statement could easilly be amended to psychological harm being non permissable. Both are equally true.

Now...did you or did you not just claim that a childs cognigtive abilities should be the determining factor.

Since that is a Spart position.....

I am slightly wondering why you try to back out of the thread seconds after taking the Spartacist position on the issue after having spend several posts of attacking them on it.

No, the Spart position is that it should be allowed for adults to have sex with children not emotionally mature, and exploit this, and thereby inadvertently inflict psychological damage.

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 12:15

If the board's administration wants to censor a kind of debate that attracts trollishness and immaturity, I really don't mind - its a reasonable call.

But lets be clear that the belief that "AOC debates and arguments against the AOC" are illegal and can result in the board being shut down is nonsensical as a reason for prohibiting it. Such debates are not illegal in Germany where the website is hosted, nor are they illegal (contrary to a claim I've seen) in the UK.

Perhaps somewhere in the world there is a country that bans such arguments, but no one seems to be able to name such a law or jurisdiction - and a very great amount of speech that goes on in this form is actually criminalized.

While Germany doesn't as far as I can tell (any German qualified lawyers on the forum?) ban "AOC debates" it does have the broadest range of censorship laws in Europe. The criminal code includes punishments for:

- insults (Section 185),
- defamation (punishable with imprisonment and where the defendant has the burden to prove the claim true, section 186)
- criminal defamation against politicians (Section 188),
- disparagement of deceased people (Section 189)
- insulting religions and philosophies of life (Section 166),
- expressions of contempt of the Federal Republic of Germany, one of its states or its constitutional order (Section 90a),

People violate or potentially violate those provisions on this forum all the time. There has been insulting and probably defamatory speech in this thread alone.

So, I'm thinking that the notion that these debates are banned due to legal concerns is entirely fictional - they're banned for political, personal, and cultural reasons, that might be entirely legitimate, but claiming that the redline being drawn is one of legal necessity just doesn't make sense.

I clarified the position as AOC debates developing along the lines of advocating or allowing for sex with minors. This can be a crime in countries and/or can, often will, result in closer judicial scrutiny and such allegations being used as leverage. So while debating AOC itself isn't necesarilly illegal...the arguments made can (and most often invariably will) fall under the header illegal.

There are for example several cases for the HIgh Court in the Netherlands which have verdicts to this effect. In Germany there is similar jurisprudence.

Geiseric

17th June 2014, 16:19

To be clear, NAMBLA is a front for the child pornography jndustry. Many of its members have been indicted several times for filming and distribution. It isnt allowed to operate even as an AOC advocacy group in most of the country, although it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out their angle given their prior history.
And the spartacist league, a US based socialist group, unconditionally supports them.

synthesis

17th June 2014, 16:35

This thread added like four pages of discussion since I last viewed it and I don't regret skimming over any of it. This thread is not about child molestation, the age of consent, or North Korea. Shut up.

I think it is a result of four people discussing a subject, three on one side and one on the other, who all have a psychological compulsion to get the last word in during any thread about anything. (Vincent, FYP, PA and myself.)

DOOM

17th June 2014, 20:45

Well, personally, I wouldn't describe myself as a left-communist, because 1. I'm not involved with a left-communist organization and 2. it seems like on this forum "left-communist" generally refers more to the Leninist Italian tendency, whereas if I had to pick a general communist tendency I find myself agreeing most often with councilism, the German-Dutch school of left-communism and above all Rosa Luxemburg.

But hey, it's a poll and I picked the closest one available. I'm just saying this because I assume there are other such people here who picked it because it's the closest option on the poll to describe their politics, even if that means you see folks like Biazed who seem to think that left-communism is primarily defined by opposition to anti-imperialism/anti-Zionism.

I don't; I just tried to put myself in one of these boxes. A preciser term to describe my tendency would be "Critical-Theory and Wertkritik influenced Marxist". But it doesn't sound as badass as leftcom

PhoenixAsh

17th June 2014, 22:23

I think it is a result of four people discussing a subject, three on one side and one on the other, who all have a psychological compulsion to get the last word in during any thread about anything. (Vincent, FYP, PA and myself.)

us:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VcrNn8AiWMc/Tq2CavD4Y1I/AAAAAAAABCs/iv07lVmamsE/s1600/Someone+is+wrong+on+internet.png

LuÃs Henrique

18th June 2014, 12:34

I don't; I just tried to put myself in one of these boxes. A preciser term to describe my tendency would be "Critical-Theory and Wertkritik influenced Marxist". But it doesn't sound as badass as leftcom

Maybe I am weird, but to me it seems a whole hundredfold more badass than "leftcom".

Luís Henrique

Thirsty Crow

18th June 2014, 12:41

It's not only you; leftcom has that "older men from France" ring to it (if one's somewhat familiar with contemporary left communism).

Rafiq

18th June 2014, 15:44

Just out of curiosity, for what reason do the Sparts support NAMBLA? Are they intentionally trying to assure they receive no support from the populace, or are the only people who join pedophiles?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th June 2014, 16:56

I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but you know the entire "the Spartacist League supports NAMBLA" thing? You know how it began? In the eighties, the FBI carried out a harassment campaign against the NAMBLA organisation. Now, I have seen ostensible socialists praise NSA on this site, but the Spartacist League has no love for cops, and they protested both the state suppression of NAMBLA and the hypocrisy of certain "human rights" groups who would defend Nazis but not NAMBLA.

And thus the myth was started - first it was "Spartacists support NAMBLA" in the sense that they support everything NAMBLA members have written and done. Now it seems that people think the Spartacist League is NAMBLA.

But wait, the Spartacist League also defended the Branch Dravidians against the all-American stormtroopers, so I suppose the SL are also religious now? That is very difficult to reconcile with a literal interpretation of the ICL Declaration of Principles, which bars the actively religious from League membership. But if anyone is skilled with non-literal interpretations, it is the religious.

Oh, and do you want to know who also opposed the FBI assault on NAMBLA? Workers (I still want to know where the apostrophe went) World, the CO of one Workers World Party. It's odd that no one ever baits them on the issue.

TheSocialistMetalhead

18th June 2014, 17:37

I'm a non-condescending socialist. The forum seems to need some of those.

If everyone could just stop calling each other names and saying how bad the other guy/girl's organisation is, I feel we'd have far more constructive discussions:).

Sectarianism is on the rise it seems.

Remus Bleys

18th June 2014, 18:15

Five Year Plan

18th June 2014, 18:23

Sectarianism is putting the sect above the class. Criticizing other sects because of the fact that they are not actually pursuing the interest of the class is NOT sectarian. Refusing to work with workers acting in their interests because they belong to a different sect is sectarian. Refusing to critique an organization/tendency/current/ideology because you want a big left unity group would mean accepting things that aren't in the interest of the class simply to allow your sect to be bigger - left unity is sectarianism.

Fixed it for you :)

DOOM

18th June 2014, 19:12

Maybe I am weird, but to me it seems a whole hundredfold more badass than "leftcom".

Luís Henrique

huh well, you're actually right.
So where can I get this tendency-form, need to fill in one for my new tendency :laugh:

LuÃs Henrique

18th June 2014, 20:36

huh well, you're actually right.
So where can I get this tendency-form, need to fill in one for my new tendency :laugh:

Start a group for it...

maybe I will even join, I like Kurtz, Jappe and Scholz.

Luís Henrique

ETA: perhaps instead of "right communist", I should define myself as an arbeiterbewegungmarxist who has read Kurz and think he says important things.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

18th June 2014, 20:44

I really shouldn't rise to the bait, but you know the entire "the Spartacist League supports NAMBLA" thing? You know how it began? In the eighties, the FBI carried out a harassment campaign against the NAMBLA organisation. Now, I have seen ostensible socialists praise NSA on this site, but the Spartacist League has no love for cops, and they protested both the state suppression of NAMBLA and the hypocrisy of certain "human rights" groups who would defend Nazis but not NAMBLA.

And thus the myth was started - first it was "Spartacists support NAMBLA" in the sense that they support everything NAMBLA members have written and done. Now it seems that people thing the Spartacist League is NAMBLA.

But wait, the Spartacist League also defended the Branch Dravidians against the all-American stormtroopers, so I suppose the SL are also religious now? That is very difficult to reconcile with a literal interpretation of the ICL Declaration of Principles, which bars the actively religious from League membership. But if anyone is skilled with non-literal interpretations, it is the religious.

Oh, and do you want to know who also opposed the FBI assault on NAMBLA? Workers (I still want to know where the apostrophe went) World, the CO of one Workers World Party. It's odd that no one ever baits them on the issue.

You have my word that no member of the WWP or the PSL will be free from posts suggesting their support for child abuse from here on out.

Trap Queen Voxxy

18th June 2014, 21:16

I support Voxxology and am a dyed-in-the-wool Voxxist.

Rosa Partizan

18th June 2014, 22:18

Luis, I suppose you mean Roswitha Scholz and Robert Kurz? I like them a lot, too.

DOOM

18th June 2014, 22:22

Start a group for it...

maybe I will even join, I like Kurtz, Jappe and Scholz.

Luís Henrique

ETA: perhaps instead of "right communist", I should define myself as an arbeiterbewegungmarxist who has read Kurz and think he says important things.

Good idea. I just need a neat name for it.
Wertkritikers?

DOOM

18th June 2014, 22:23

I support Voxxology and am a dyed-in-the-wool Voxxist.

revisionist:rolleyes:

Trap Queen Voxxy

18th June 2014, 22:25

revisionist:rolleyes:

If there is no vision, how can there be a revision?

Brandon's Impotent Rage

18th June 2014, 22:48

I've gone through so many labels: Libertarian Marxist, Anarcho-Bolshevik, Anarcho-Marxist, Marxism-Deleonism....

Eventually I just created my own shallow and idiosyncratic version of Marxism I call Marxism-Brandonism...which is half serious and half complete-and-total-joke.

TheSocialistMetalhead

19th June 2014, 13:49

Sectarianism is putting the sect above the class. Criticizing other sects because of the fact that they are not actually pursuing the interest of the class is not sectarian. Refusing to work with workers acting in their interests because they belong to a different sect is sectarian. Refusing to critique an organization/tendency/current/ideology because you want a big left unity group would mean accepting things that aren't in the interest of the class simply to allow your sect to be bigger - left unity is sectarianism.

Except after a while that degenerates into name calling and accusations based on assumptions and misconceptions. People don't criticize parties because they don't pursue the interests of the class they're supposed to represent, as that depends on perception and context and those are rarely taken into account. Saying the other doesn't defend the interests of the class properly is based on opinion, not fact. Just because an organisation doesn't employ the methods you prefer, doesn't mean they're not a revolutionary organisation. Some people feel the need to criticize other organisations, simply because of the historical rivalry associated with the conflict. This is sectarianism pur sang.

A discussion may start out with genuine criticisms and complaints but I see these turn into slanderous accusations far too often.

Rafiq

19th June 2014, 17:16

But wait, the Spartacist League also defended the Branch Dravidians against the all-American stormtroopers, so I suppose the SL are also religious now? That is very difficult to reconcile with a literal interpretation of the ICL Declaration of Principles, which bars the actively religious from League membership. But if anyone is skilled with non-literal interpretations, it is the religious.

As if this makes anything excusable, if anything, this only adds insult to injury. Defending reactionaries against the wrath of the bourgeois state... I wonder, would they have defended the Confederacy? Or Neo-Nazis facing persecution from the German state?

And let's not bullshit here, I've read the Spartacists and their explanation of their support for NAMBLA. The entire premise of their defense rests upon the fact that such 'relationships' were consensual. Really what a meaningless thing, as if children are capable of consenting to such a thing, as if the power of an adult, or authority is irrelevant. It's quite sickening actually, and to speak of "bourgeois morality"... Don't they know pedophilia is a logical result of the hypocritical bourgeois sexual morality? For fuck's sake, most pedophiles are to be found in the very guardians of bourgeois sexual morality, the religious clergy. The bourgeois degenerates politically are not to be our allies, and the same applies culturally. And before you all go touting about how this mentality is applicable towards homosexuality, the difference is that homosexuality is so adamantly opposed because it challenges sexual relations, or more specifically gender. The so-called bourgeois cultural repulsion towards pedophilia exists for completely different reasons than it does homosexuality. The Spartacists are reactionaries, vile degenerates.

synthesis

19th June 2014, 18:02

For fuck's sake, most pedophiles are to be found in the very guardians of bourgeois sexual morality, the religious clergy.

To be fair, I don't think that the issue is that more than a small minority of pedophiles are in the clergy, but that the pedophiles that are in the clergy receive a great deal of protection from the church hierarchy and are thus able to keep reoffending to a much greater extent than pedos without that protection.

Rafiq

19th June 2014, 18:17

To be fair, I don't think that the issue is that more than a small minority of pedophiles are in the clergy

Of course this isn't the issue, my point is that sexual morality of the existing order provides a hyper sexual erotic dimension to practices it claims to condemn. I would say that the U.S. is largely more hypersexual with all of it's cheap, sleazy sex in culture, than Europe. But where's the Irony? Americans, as far as I'm concerned, have stricter views as far as sexual morality goes. The same goes for the American north and the bible belt: the latter lacks basic sexual education for children, is vehement in it's "sexual morality" and yet is more sleazy, cheap and so on with it's approach to commodified sex. This is the kind of paradox I'm talking about.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

19th June 2014, 18:23

Isn't your characterization of American sex culture as "cheap and sleazy" evidence of your own bourgeois sexual morality?

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 18:43

for your consideration:

Ask yourself. When is the exact age somebody can effectively make decisions about their lives without having their decisions pro-actively needing to be legally annulled? And how does this compare with the statement that AOC protects childs developments.

This is what countries think:

21 Bahrein
18 Iraq, US
17 Australia, other parts of the US
16 Cyprus, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. Spain, other parts of Australia, yet other parts of the US
15 France, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Greece
14 Austria, Germany, Portugal and Italy, China, Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Ecuador and Colombia, Chile (with restrictions until 18)
13 Spain (two years ago), Egypt (for marriage, women), Japan
12 Angola
no consent possible outside of marriage but NO legal minimum age for marriage: Saudi Arabia

And naturally the legal age varies in those countries and others based on Sex/Gender (AOC for boys if often higher than for girls). It can differ for homosexual sexuality. It depends on WHAT kind of sex you want to have. Age differential and social status. Etc.

How are they not completely arbitrary and in no way even related to protecting the development of children. The question then becomes...if AOC doesn't protect children and is arbitrary, how then can "statutory rape" be considered an actual thing? Consent purely based on age and not actual consent or development or even context.

A second consideration:

Child protection laws are most often the fore runner of all kinds of privacy invading laws. Laws which increase the power of the state over the individuals. Laws that were previously rejected for being extremely invasive, if brought up again under the guise of child protection will in overwhelming majority of the situations be accepted and cheered. Laws which invariably will be expanded to other fields once they are adopted.

Rosa Partizan

19th June 2014, 18:52

this is like, totally the wrong thread for such a discussion and it is true that this AOC-stuff varies from country to country, depending on cultural peculiarities. Physical and mental maturity can't be (exclusively) measured by simple numbers, and yet there are lacking better solutions than AOC, at least that's what I think. I don't want it to be fine that a 20 year old can have sex with a 12 year old, but the question is, where do you draw the line?

synthesis

19th June 2014, 18:57

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 19:08

15% of the children in the US had sex before age 15. The average age was 12.77.

In The Netherlands this is 25% which is the average for Europe. Bulgaria is high with 48% and Slovakia is low with 15%. With the exception of England....the percentages rise each year. England being the only exception which is down to 29% from 49%.

So yeah.....there is that.

I have not seen any studies to the effect but I have read articles that the sex occurs within an age variation of 0-5 years.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 19:14

So Angola is the model we're using for non-invasion of privacy, non-arbitrariness and, I don't know, "liberty" or some shit like that?

I think that list shows the bankrupcy of the argument that AOC are actually there to protect child development. unless of course you want to argue that children in some parts of the US can be considered more advanced and more exempt from not being able to make decisions...and somehow they objectively estavblished that age to be completely different from children living a couple of miles to the left or to the right.

and of course somehow anal sex is particularly damaging for kids in Texas and not so much for kids in the Netherlands...aparently that logically must be a genetic thing or something
/sarcasm

Plus of course the complete insane notion that 22 years ago I suddenly and inexplicably became totally capable of making decisions for myself....decisions which merely a second ago would be considered damaging and completely against my well being and therefore out of my hands....IF the concept of bourgeois law actually protecting my welfare is to be believed.

Something which is also completely incompatible with another bourgeois legal concept: child emancipation. Basically that means children are their own legal guardians....making all kinds of life changing decisions for themselves legally...but of course...not when they are ok to have sex....because that is totally dependend on their calender age.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 19:33

Whenever we mention kids having control over their own lives...suddenly people get all defensive and stop thinking rationally. Especially when it comes to sex. And somehow sex and children are intrinsically linked to child porn and child abuse. We forget the inconvenient fact that children start having sex from the age of 9. Kneejerk reactions.

The idea of bourgeois laws being there for the well being of the individual is laughable. And subjectively defending bourgeois laws is inane. Bourgeois law is the enforcement of bourgeois morality and citing bourgeois psychological studies fe. (out of context I want to explicitly add) in order to defend completely arbitrary laws and rules is even more inane. And there are far better ways to protect individuals from others without infantilizing them.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

19th June 2014, 19:40

stuff

I can see the arbitrary nature you're suggesting but I think it's just a shortcoming of Law as a whole. Ultimately all law impedes privacy and liberty, but I think I disagree that those are the only intentions behind AOC laws. I feel that the real intention is to protect very young children (0-14) but as a result of the unwieldy nature of law in general, ends up infringing on the bodily autonomy of older children, which of course is bound up with many layers of ideological justifications. Yet another problem that capitalism is unfit to resolve.

Edit: to clarify, I guess I'm saying that AOC laws are probably as close to a solution as we can get under the current system, as arbitrary as they may or may not be.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 19:53

I can see the arbitrary nature you're suggesting but I think it's just a shortcoming of Law as a whole. Ultimately all law impedes privacy and liberty, but I think I disagree that those are the only intentions behind AOC laws. I feel that the real intention is to protect very young children (0-12) but as a result of the unwieldy nature of law in general, ends up infringing on the bodily autonomy of older children, which of course is bound up with many layers of ideological justifications. Yet another problem that capitalism is unfit to resolve.

Actually the origins of the law of consent were (in Europe at least) to restrain women from having sex outside of mariage.

While it was perfectly legal for a man to have sex with his wife of 12....it was illegal for an unmarried woman of 15 to engage in sex. Of course this depends on country because in some countries it was petit-bourgeois mentality which was enforced on the working class and the poor where prostitution was a means to make a living.

Not to mention of course that (the same bourgeois laws) age of concent laws could be legally steered around if you can prove you are legally married.

So...let me repeat this: if you were married with somebody legally....meaning they were of legal age to be married....you can avoid AOC laws...meaning they weren't of legal age to have sex when they were legally able to marry.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

19th June 2014, 20:07

synthesis

19th June 2014, 20:10

And subjectively defending bourgeois laws is inane.

Yeah, let's also dismantle the bourgeois minimum wage and child labor laws. Children can have sex at age nine, why not allow them to be exploited for their labor as well as for sex?

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 20:26

Well murder is illegal, unless I'm doing it at the request of the people who write the laws. Isn't all law ultimately arbitrary? I don't know enough about the history of AOC laws to comment intelligently on your point about it being used to control single women, but do you feel that is still the intention behind it? And do you feel that is the reason that most people support AOC laws today?

Murder is illegal even when it is the explicit wish of the one wanting to end their lives. That in itself should suggest bourgeois law isn't the actual answer to many social issues. Law is expanding the states dominion over people taking control over their lives rather than protecting people and establishes a chain of privileges one group has over others.

So it is perfectly fine for people to be exploited to poverty but when trying to survive these people are basically on their own and still succeptable to laws which prevent them from surviving. child prositution, while horrible, is in many countries often the result of abject poverty through perfectly legal exploitation and a very unfortunate loathsome necessity for survival...this is however illegal. Stealing is illegal. Poaching is illegal. Growing your own food is illegal. Drifting is illegal. Getting paid less than living wages: perfectly legal. No health care: perfectly legal.

Joining the army at age 16 is legal. Having sex before 18 is illegal.

Ending your life is illegal (in some countries punishable by death and in others by jail time) yet you can't get medical aid to help you; you are getting in serious debt. Suicidal? No psychological help...unless you become to much of a problem...then of course the state can take away any and all rights you have and lock you up in a mental institution where you are completely unable to regulate your own life and can and will be succeptable to all kinds of exprimental treatments.

Ending your life when you are in uncurable and intollerable pain is illegal....yet you can and will be made to suffer unbearable pain...legally.

The list goes on and on.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 20:30

Yeah, let's also dismantle the bourgeois minimum wage and child labor laws. Children can have sex at age nine, why not allow them to be exploited for their labor as well as for sex?

Yeah....so lets prop the bourgeois system and totally defend it because of course there isn't a BETTER way to deal with things than the bourgeois state. :rolleyes: Hip hip hoorah for the bourgeois state which gave us marvelous things like minimum wage while making it perfectly legal and acceptable for others to make millions over the backs of the minimum wage earners. Because you know...minimum wage really, really protects against exploitation :rolleyes:

And while we are at it....just simply say people have no control over their own lives until an arbitrary age we picked...and lets prop that up to protecting children from abuse....much, much younger that the age we picked. That will always get a few cheers. :rolleyes:

Andlets all pretend that we aren't arbitrary at all...and that in one second somebody is a completely different person by virtue of birthday. So the kid across the street in that one Dutch town taht is part dutch and the other part of the street is German....that German kid across the street....that one is by virtue of nationality totally competent a year earlier then the kid a couple of meters away. And that totally isn't bullshit.

Five Year Plan

19th June 2014, 20:32

Yeah, let's also dismantle the bourgeois minimum wage and child labor laws. Children can have sex at age nine, why not allow them to be exploited for their labor as well as for sex?

I don't think anybody is arguing that there shouldn't be legal regulation (or under communism, social regulation) of what is considered acceptable or unacceptable behavior regarding sexuality, whether it be the sexuality of adults or of young people. What PA is arguing, I think, is that you are endorsing the bourgeoisie's preferred mode of regulation, rooted as it is in all their dehumanizing assumptions and prejudices...and hypocrisies, when there are potentially alternatives open to it.

Still, I'm fascinated to see that you see a parallel between working on an assembly line and having sex. I certainly hope you are not making this comparison based on your own sexual experiences.

Rafiq

19th June 2014, 20:35

Isn't your characterization of American sex culture as "cheap and sleazy" evidence of your own bourgeois sexual morality?

I said with all it's cheap sleazy sex in culture, not it's cheap, sleazy sex culture. There is a difference.

Anyway, I couldn't imagine anyone who doesn't see this. The sliminess of this kind of repulsive 80's hypersexualization is not liberating in nature, actually it is the appropriation of 60's sexual liberation by patriarchal values. And you all know very well what I'm talking about. This is not something evident in 'the media' today, but it's definitely something we see in the American south.

Firstly, it should be noted that the ways people, be they youth or otherwise actually conduct themselves sexually in the United States is not "sleazy" or whatever, it's not "decadent". But the way sex is understood, or the way sex is approached in places where sexual morality is more reactionary is infinitely more perverse than in the East Coast, etc. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you probably aren't familiar with the U.S. in general. I mean what, you think I'm trying to play into the whole "AMERICUNS ARE SO DECADENT TOO SEXUAL" bullshit? No, you're not paying attention to what I'm fucking saying, is the problem.

The dichotomy between sexual puritanism, social conservatism and bourgeois hypersexualizaiton is false. They are born of the same mother. To answer your question, no, it isn't fucking evidence. Maybe you should try to put more thought into your baseless attacks, next time.

RedWorker

19th June 2014, 20:37

Move these posts to another thread.

Still, I'm fascinated to see that you see a parallel between working on an assembly line and having sex. I certainly hope you are not making this comparison based on your own sexual experiences.

Look, I don't approve of the standard mentality regarding the age of consent, "pedophilia", etc., but when you say stuff like this it shows that you know absolutely nothing about what consequences children being made into having sex can have.

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

19th June 2014, 20:42

Murder is illegal even when it is the explicit wish of the one wanting to end their lives. That in itself should suggest bourgeois law isn't the actual answer to many social issues. Law is expanding the states dominion over people taking control over their lives rather than protecting people and establishes a chain of privileges one group has over others.

So it is perfectly fine for people to be exploited to poverty but when trying to survive these people are basically on their own and still succeptable to laws which prevent them from surviving. child prositution, while horrible, is in many countries often the result of abject poverty through perfectly legal exploitation and a very unfortunate loathsome necessity for survival...this is however illegal. Stealing is illegal. Poaching is illegal. Growing your own food is illegal. Drifting is illegal. Getting paid less than living wages: perfectly legal. No health care: perfectly legal.

Joining the army at age 16 is legal. Having sex before 18 is illegal.

Ending your life is illegal (in some countries punishable by death and in others by jail time) yet you can't get medical aid to help you; you are getting in serious debt. Suicidal? No psychological help...unless you become to much of a problem...then of course the state can take away any and all rights you have and lock you up in a mental institution where you are completely unable to regulate your own life and can and will be succeptable to all kinds of exprimental treatments.

Ending your life when you are in uncurable and intollerable pain is illegal....yet you can and will be made to suffer unbearable pain...legally.

The list goes on and on.

Hm, I feel that you and I are in basic agreement about the fundamental nature of law. All of your examples fill me with indignation as I'm assuming they do for you, but what in this specific instance is an alternative? I can think of a couple different ways to address the issue that AOC laws in their modern form attempt to deal with, but none of them are going to work under the current regime. AOC laws seem like the best bandaid available, its just the nature of law that it creates additional problems in the course of applying a solution to the original issue.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 20:50

Look, I don't approve of the standard mentality about the age of consent, "pedophilia", etc., but when you say stuff like this it shows that you know absolutely nothing about what the consequences of children being made into having sex can have.

And there is the crux.

AOC has nothing to do with it. Protecting children against abuse has nothing to do with it.

Fun fact. AOC laws are rarely used to actually convict child abusers or those who trick, force, or coerce children into sex. Not only that....but conventional rape or molestation laws would be applicable and more than enough...IF ONLY...these rape laws would actualy be applied.

So yes. There is ample research which shows a huge age differential is usually the cause of psychological problems in development...but they more often than not involve for the large part the infringement on actual autonomy and power over self. And if these cases aren't downright rape they certainly closely touch it. BUT we have sexual norms and conduct. Rafiq touches a good point in his last post when he says sexual morality and how sex is conducted are a part of the problem. And this is why there are also equally copious amounts of studies which show the detrimental effect of consentual sex between older children, young adults and adults among each other (negatively affecting self image and psychological developmen....most often in girls and women0.

But rape and molestation laws aren't applied. Or at least they are applied from a patriarchal bourgeois perspective (hence why workers disappear behind bars and upper class people pay a fine or do community service for raping a kid) So they aren't applied...and all of the sudden we are "very confused" what to do when kids are involved. So in order to create the appearance we are doing something we create new laws. Laws which allow for further infringement on people's autonomy and enforce bourgeois and petit-bourgeois mentality and values by limiting the rights of individuals and treating them as puppets and property.

Five Year Plan

19th June 2014, 20:56

Move these posts to another thread.

Look, I don't approve of the standard mentality regarding the age of consent, "pedophilia", etc., but when you say stuff like this it shows that you know absolutely nothing about what consequences children being made into having sex can have.

I am not sure how you make the leap from my argument that engaging in sexual activity and engaging in wage labor are analytically distinct activities to the bizarre accusation that I don't understand the depth of pain felt by victims of child sexual abuse.

RedWorker

19th June 2014, 20:57

PhoenixAsh, perhaps you have missed this part of my post:

I don't approve of the standard mentality regarding the age of consent

Here in Spain we had an age of consent of 13 forever and probably had as many problems as anywhere else.

There is ample research which shows a huge age differential is usually the cause of psychological problems in development...but they more often than not involve for the large part the infringement on actual autonomy and power over self.

And do you not see the connection between age differential and coercion?

laws which allow for further infringement on people's autonomy and enforce bourgeois and petit-bourgeois mentality and values by limiting the rights of individuals and treating them as puppets and property.

ya because it totally limits the right of individuals to disallow minors having sex if the age differential is too big

Though people who are attracted to children are facing discrimination.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 21:00

Hm, I feel that you and I are in basic agreement about the fundamental nature of law. All of your examples fill me with indignation as I'm assuming they do for you, but what in this specific instance is an alternative? I can think of a couple different ways to address the issue that AOC laws in their modern form attempt to deal with, but none of them are going to work under the current regime. AOC laws seem like the best bandaid available, its just the nature of law that it creates additional problems in the course of applying a solution to the original issue.

well we are I think.

But the main difference is that I view this inherent dichotomy in law to be not a bandage but intentional and a logical outcome of enforcing bourgeois contradictory menatlity and morals to set up a system of privileges and hierarchies.

Since bourgeois law enforces bourgeois and PB mentality and bourgeois and PB mentality being the dominant morals the law in a bourgeois society can never be anything else than the reflection of that morality.

That morality in all its forms needs to be rejected and opposed. Their class laws should not be our class laws....they aren't. In fact they are the means by which are class is being dominated.

So in order to do away with these laws we need to realize their inherent contrdictions and the fact that they are coming about not from protecting the individual but from protecting the interests of one class over the other. So we need a revolution to do away with them.

The solution for these problems is actually a case based legal system with as few laws as possible applied to a specific situation and to the individuals involved. Laws should be writen from the perspective of protecting people from their autonomy being violated by others. It should not be based on the system which enforces morality on them and invades their own autonomy in order to protect values and class interests.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 21:06

PhoenixAsh, perhaps you have missed this part of my post:

Here in Spain we had an age of consent of 13 forever and probably had as many problems as anywhere else.

Hence why the AOC laws are bs when it comes to protecting children from psychological damage. We arbitrarily established an age...per country.

Spain however in 2012 I believe went from 13 to 16.

And do you not see the connection between age differential and coercion?

I see the connection and the possibility. Where do you see that that is always the case?

ya because it totally limits the right of individuals to disallow minors having sex if the age differential is too big

yes. It does. It limits the rights of the individual. Arguing otherwise is like saying water isn't h2o. What you are confusing is the question whether this is excusable or not.

Because too big is a hugely subjective. So explain to me what too big is...you know....subjectively.

Though people who are attracted to children are facing discrimination.

Yes. They do. And most of that is because of the legal system.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

19th June 2014, 22:59

As if this makes anything excusable, if anything, this only adds insult to injury. Defending reactionaries against the wrath of the bourgeois state... I wonder, would they have defended the Confederacy? Or Neo-Nazis facing persecution from the German state?

The CSA was itself a bourgeois state. Concerning other reactionary groups, however, anyone familiar with the history of the socialist movement will tell you the same thing: it depends. You've already lost the thread by framing the issue as that of "reactionaries" versus the apparently progressive bourgeois state, and now you're foaming at the mouth because we might defend "reactionary" groups targeted by the state? Maybe your position on detainees in Guantanamo Bay is "let them rot", and as for the Branch Dravidians - well - "they were reactionaries".

In any case, this isn't something the Spartacists invented. The father of American Trotskyism, Cannon, opposed laws against the Klan while calling for a workers' mobilisation against the same. I think everyone familiar with the subsequent history of the "anti-Klan" Dies committee can see that Cannon was perfectly right.

And let's not bullshit here, I've read the Spartacists and their explanation of their support for NAMBLA. The entire premise of their defense rests upon the fact that such 'relationships' were consensual. Really what a meaningless thing, as if children are capable of consenting to such a thing, as if the power of an adult, or authority is irrelevant. It's quite sickening actually, and to speak of "bourgeois morality"... Don't they know pedophilia is a logical result of the hypocritical bourgeois sexual morality? For fuck's sake, most pedophiles are to be found in the very guardians of bourgeois sexual morality, the religious clergy. The bourgeois degenerates politically are not to be our allies, and the same applies culturally. And before you all go touting about how this mentality is applicable towards homosexuality, the difference is that homosexuality is so adamantly opposed because it challenges sexual relations, or more specifically gender. The so-called bourgeois cultural repulsion towards pedophilia exists for completely different reasons than it does homosexuality. The Spartacists are reactionaries, vile degenerates.

Lay off the communion wafers, man, that stuff's poison for the brain. Once again you're conflating two things - the Spartacist position on laws relating to the age of consent, which can't be discussed on this site, so I don't see why some users constantly want to discuss them, and why their posts are allowed to remain while entire threads disappear without trace or paperwork.

The second is the concrete incident that led to the SL slogan "Defend NAMBLA", and I think it's obvious you haven't read the article where it was formulated. There was no question of "such a thing" being consensual because the "things" the FBI accused NAMBLA of - including complicity in the disappearance of a small boy - were proven false, and the FBI had to issue an apology to NAMBLA.

As for the rest, I think your Naziesque rhetoric about evil bourgeois degenerates speaks volumes.

synthesis

19th June 2014, 23:07

Yeah....so lets prop the bourgeois system and totally defend it because of course there isn't a BETTER way to deal with things than the bourgeois state. :rolleyes: Hip hip hoorah for the bourgeois state which gave us marvelous things like minimum wage while making it perfectly legal and acceptable for others to make millions over the backs of the minimum wage earners. Because you know...minimum wage really, really protects against exploitation :rolleyes:

Okay, so you're in favor of abrogating minimum wage laws and child labor laws? They aren't better than nothing? Because that's what you're saying here.

The issue is not whether there is a better way to deal with things (of course there is, we're all in favor of revolution) but whether the way that we deal with things now is better than not dealing with them at all. Age of consent laws may not protect all children, just as rape laws don't protect all women and labor laws don't protect all workers, but the complete abrogation of those laws based on their inefficacy and on their enforcement by the state, in order to promote an agenda of "sexual freedom" so that old men can have sex with 9 year olds without even remotely fearing interference from the bourgeois state, is not a solution.

PhoenixAsh

19th June 2014, 23:11

Okay, so you're in favor of abrogating minimum wage laws and child labor laws? They aren't better than nothing? Because that's what you're saying here.

The issue is not whether there is a better way to deal with things (of course there is, we're all in favor of revolution) but whether the way that we deal with things now is better than not dealing with them at all. Age of consent laws may not protect all children, just as rape laws don't protect all women and labor laws don't protect all workers, but the complete abrogation of those laws based on their inefficacy and on their enforcement by the state, in order to promote an agenda of "sexual freedom" so that old men can have sex with 9 year olds without even remotely fearing interference from the bourgeois state, is not a solution.

Yes, because arguing that oppressive, infringing, infantilizing, contradictory and class enabling bourgeois laws are wrong must obviously mean that you argue for doing nothing instead.

RedWorker

19th June 2014, 23:13

Yes, because arguing that oppressive, infringing, infantilizing, contradictory and class enabling bourgeois laws are wrong must obviously mean that you argue for doing nothing instead.

Yeah, because age of consent laws are class collaborative and oppressive laws... not.

Though I kinda sympathize with your line of thinking that more should be put on judging on a case-by-case basis. However I think an age of consent (can be low enough like Spain's former 13 - under which there have been no problems, ever) should be established too.

synthesis

19th June 2014, 23:15

Yes, because arguing that oppressive, infringing, infantilizing, contradictory and class enabling bourgeois laws are wrong must obviously mean that you argue for doing nothing instead.

Then what's your alternative? So far I haven't seen you or any of the other NAMBLA sympathizers suggest anything but wholesale elimination of those laws with nothing to replace them, but you let me know if I've missed something.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

19th June 2014, 23:18

Then what's your alternative? So far I haven't seen you or any of the other NAMBLA sympathizers suggest anything but wholesale elimination of those laws with nothing to replace them, but you let me know if I've missed something.

I don't know what "NAMBLA sympathisers" you're referring to. Perhaps you're referring to some discussion that shouldn't be happening under the rules of this site. But as you probably know, groups like the CPGB, RSL and the SL call for laws based on consent and an absence of (unwanted) harm.

Rosa Partizan

19th June 2014, 23:26

Ele'ill

19th June 2014, 23:30

This thread is turning more and more into an AOC thread under a thread title asking users what their tendency is. Maybe if it is still considered a legit thread it should be split.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

19th June 2014, 23:31

Perhaps fittingly, given my avatar, I can only state that any discussion of the issue is prohibited and has the potential to result in heads rolling, so there is no point in having a prohibited discussion.

DigitalBluster

19th June 2014, 23:34

Any "comrades" who advocate a liberal attitude toward sex with children will be the first I turn against after the revolution.

Five Year Plan

19th June 2014, 23:50

Then what's your alternative? So far I haven't seen you or any of the other NAMBLA sympathizers suggest anything but wholesale elimination of those laws with nothing to replace them, but you let me know if I've missed something.

You seem to be confusing replacing age of consent laws with other laws to protect young people from sexual abuse and sexual coercion (supported by the groups 870 mentioned above), with setting the age of consent to "just came out of the womb." It's a good thing discussion of these issues is prohibited, because it means we're spared your terrible analogies and utter ignorance of other people's arguments.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2014, 00:15

Yeah, because age of consent laws are class collaborative and oppressive laws... not.

Though I kinda sympathize with your line of thinking that more should be put on judging on a case-by-case basis. However I think an age of consent (can be low enough like Spain's former 13 - under which there have been no problems, ever) should be established too.

Yes they are in fact oppressive. They deny any form of self to the individual and substituting it with control over the individual. Just because you think that is justified because of some perceived benefit is irrelevant.

So what is your magical evidence that makes a 13 year old MORE capable of consenting than a 12 year old? Consent is something an individual GIVES. It is NOT something that can magically appear because you reached a specific age but doesn't exist before that. Making consent a legal factor of a completely unrelated attribute does in fact NOT protect the child. It is exactly like saying somebody can't consent because the sky is blue.

And is sex between a 21 year old and a 13 year old much less worse than sex between a 21 year old and a 14 year old? And subsequently a 12 year old being somehow much worse again? Come on...I hope you don't believe that BS. So what does the bourgeois state do? It protects people by taking away their autonomy and self determination legally...because that protects people. And AOC is simply one of the examples of this. The whole system of bourgeois law is poised to limit the rights of individuals and regulating them.

So it is completely thinkable that a far better solution will be to simply establish that for sex to occur there needs to be consent. Consent being somebody who can make a decision fully aware of the consequences without force or cooercion etc. And THEN you can argue that children can not be fully aware of the consequences to punish (because you aren't protecting) abuse or that bribing a kid for sex in exchange for candy does not constitute consent. That is a law made with the wellbeing of an individual and still respecting the individuals autonomy. But LEGALLY making consent a factor of arbitrary values is complete bullshit and destroys individual autonomy.

Again. NOT arguing for sex between adults and minors. I am however arguing against the fundamentally flawed idea that bourgeois laws actually protect the individual (and even if this accidentally is the case,...then usually because the bourgeois law created a situation of exploitation or privilege in the first place) and AOC is one of the expressions of completely arbitrary factors being made a legal prerequisite for an individual to live their lives.

Now....of course this is all under the assuption that we are talking about a minor and an adult. However AOC laws usually also criminalize sexual acts between those of the same age or within a limited age range. This is something which is conveniently left out of the equation of the debate because it usually doesn't serve the narrative of bourgeois law being somehow "good" or "there for our protection" .

Factoring in again that bourgeois law enables the system of privilege of culture and morality being enforced on others...like with abortion; with eutanasia; with homosexuality (you know...you can fuck a 16 year old girl but yeah...you have to find a 21 year old boy if you want to have somebody of your own sex :rolleyes:) and heterosexuality....and rape. It adopts a set of double and arbitrary standards to enforce a certain morality. All based not on individual autonomy and protecting the individual but by regulating and limiting the individual and their behavior as a reflection social and religious norms and culture.

Debates against bourgeois law often focus on children and the protection of children. The reason why it does so is because when it comes to children we are perfectly fine to see them not as individuals but as property. Especially female children. They need to be protected, to be told what to do, to be legally controlled. So images of sexual predators are often invoked to pass laws which are unacceptable otherwise. These laws are easilly accepted because OMG THE CHILDREN. We don't mind that when you are and 18 year old American you can be legally prosecuted in the US for having had sex in the Netherlands with a 16 year old girl. We don't mind that the government can use extenssive invasionary tactics when there is a suspicion of child pornography (and we know for a fact that this suspicion is more often than not a complete fabrication in order to gain access to investigative measures which normally wouldn't be even considered). We don't mind all these things. Why? Because OMG KIDS!!! Naturally we don't actually give a fuck that it is completely legal to shoot a couple of dozen of them in order to make the FIFA WC more palpatable because yeah...those same bourgeois laws find it perfectly legal to disenfranchise kids and push them to the fringes of society where they actually starve to death.

So we also accept bourgeois laws, legal systems and statutory rape insanity. A 9 year old giving another 9 year old a kiss can result in legal charge however against that 9 year old. Because yeah...AOC..."omg that little bastard just violated my precious little angel".

And eventually all debates about bourgeouis law will end up in the gutter of covert and overt accusations of child rape, pedophilia and will never ever result in thinking up better ways to protect people from other people. Why? Because of the children...and OMG the bourgeois law is suddenly the best law in town. But it isn't just merely AOC laws. It is the entire system of bourgeois law that needs to disappear and needs to be replaced. And arguments: well...we just don't have anything better right now is like arguing that capitalism is the best system because we do not have anything better right now.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2014, 00:26

Then what's your alternative? So far I haven't seen you or any of the other NAMBLA sympathizers suggest anything but wholesale elimination of those laws with nothing to replace them, but you let me know if I've missed something.

Well you did miss something.

But mostly that is because of some inane intelectual troglodytes being too bussy to steer the debate into inane accusations of child molestation because they are frothing at the mouth at the idea of actually abolishing bourgeois society and ALL of its expressions like its main protectorat: the legal system... and are terrified of the idea that it is entirely possible to protect people without completely taking away their autonomy and self determination.

You can take that personally btw.

Because so far you have tried to act like and create the impression of debating when all you do is make subtile and not so subtile accusations in your endeavour to protect bourgeois legal systems.

I am actually beginning to wonder if you even want a revolution...and want to emancipate people by abolishing the bourgeois state and class. Or if this is just a hobby for you to engage in between browsing for porn.

So get back when you stop frothing at the mouth and understand that a revolution entails abolishing the bourgeois state and all its expressions. Not merely class distinctions but also the legal frame which it uses to enforce its morality and domination.

All the while of course NOT having answered any of the evidence, any of the questions or any of the arguments. Nope...you just stcik to your proven groove of: OMG pedophiles and child molesters.

You are a fucking joke.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2014, 00:33

does anyone believe in real consent between a child and a grown up? We had this discussion in Germany, the Green Party (one of their members) in their early days was like "children can be sexual beings, too, and sometimes they want to explore the human body. I experienced how children tried to open my pants to see what's in there." Let's assume that the age difference isn't necessarily always that big, it's even questionable between someone who is 14 and the other one is 30. You guys know about susception, dependency, power structures and stuff. The question is at which point aware and informed consent is possible. When I was in my early teenage years, I was definitely curious about sex, but when I look back at these days, I was pretty mature and still think that if someone older would've tried to have sex with me and somehow allured me, this type of "consent" would've been at least questionable or even worse.

Yes.

But.

The illusion is this isn't a reality for a whole lot of adults and those of legal age. I have repeatedly asked the question: what is the age is somebody NOT subjected to any of these things? Nobody can answer this because the simple reality is that there is no age limit on power structures and power dynamics.

On top of that. Nobody can answer what the difference is between sex of a 25 year old and a 12,13,14,15 or 16 year old. And since that question can not be answered it is quite obvious that the legal system is unsound and arbitrary in the worst way. Not to mention completely contradicting and ever expanding to "solve" its own issues. It isn't protecting anybody.

The bourgeois system namely isn't the system which protects. It is not its main function. Its main function is to protect the bourgeois interest and to push their agenda. To create a system of contradicting privileges which can be legally taken away in order to enforce compliancy and complacancy with the system.

And all the while some users maintain that the bourgeois system is simply the best system currently available.

Yet we have perfectly fine laws which cover what sex without consent means. We just don't apply them because...it is a bourgeois system. And that system pushes bourgeois morality. And bourgeois morality thinks consent is negotiable or depending on several factors (just not the actual consent). Hence why it was still within my life time rape in marriage was legal in the Netherlands. And children are sexual beings. The question is when does sexuality become exploitation...and when is consent no longer to be considered concent.

RedWorker

20th June 2014, 00:53

And is sex between a 21 year old and a 13 year old much less worse than sex between a 21 year old and a 14 year old? And subsequently a 12 year old being somehow much worse again? Come on...I hope you don't believe that BS.

In the current system, why is having a maximum work week of 40 hours or less important? Why 40 and not 41? Why is having a minimum wage of 500 dollars or more important? Why 500 and not 499?

Look, the age of consent provides an objective barrier. If you fucked a 12 year old girl, then you violated the law. If you fucked a 13 year old girl, you didn't. Sure it's arbitrarily determined, just like the specific numbers used in any other laws.

If there wasn't an age of consent, how is it going to be determined whether someone was really being coerced or not, whether it was "rape" or not? This obviously opens up many unnecessary problems. Because children are involved, the whole issue is much harder to deal with than an issue involving adults.

And there's no damn reason a 9 year old would want to have sex with a 20 year old. And if a 11 year old wants to have sex with a 12 year old, age of consent laws can be made to allow that.

Of course in an utopia the justice system may or may not be like this. The thing is that we do not live in an utopia, and for the current system age of consent laws are good enough.

Now....of course this is all under the assuption that we are talking about a minor and an adult. However AOC laws usually also criminalize sexual acts between those of the same age or within a limited age range.

Not all of them.

you know...you can fuck a 16 year old girl but yeah...you have to find a 21 year old boy if you want to have somebody of your own sex

Yeah, that sucks.

And eventually all debates about bourgeouis law will end up in the gutter of covert and overt accusations of child rape, pedophilia and will never ever result in thinking up better ways to protect people from other people.

Perhaps with some others here. But you will never find such nonsense from me.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2014, 01:26

In the current system, why is having a maximum work week of 40 hours or less important? Why 40 and not 41? Why is having a minimum wage of 500 dollars or more important? Why 500 and not 499?

now you are getting it.

except of course these numbers are a result from objective negotiations and are established on a profit-loss rationality.

As for:

Look, the age of consent provides an objective barrier.

No...actually it doesn't. It simply relates two unrelated things based on some socio normative enforcement. It porvides a measurable barrier. But it is far from objective.

If you fucked a 12 year old girl, then you violated the law. If you fucked a 13 year old girl, you didn't. Sure it's arbitrarily determined, just like the specific numbers used in any other laws.

And now explain to me how child welfare is even factored in to the equation? It isn't. So the law is bullshit.

And in perpetuating the myth that it actually does it also perpetuates the myth that there is a difference in a 12 and 13 year old child to be able to suddenly be able to be less damaged.

If there wasn't an age of consent, how is it going to be determined whether someone was really being coerced or not, whether it was "rape" or not? This obviously opens up many unnecessary problems. Because children are involved, the whole issue is much harder to deal with than an issue involving adults.

No actually it isn't. It is the same god damned issue and that is exactly the problem. Consent in rape cases is ALWAYS challenged...always. It is ALWAYS subjected to insane arguments and more often than not these arguments are accepted. This should, if anything else, be the perfect eye opener that the bourgeois legal system isn't suited and designed for the task to protect people but is designed to enforce bourgeois class morality. It evolved from property law and it is applied as such on humans...dehumanizing them and creating them like non-autonomous beings in order to perpetuate a system of privileges. Hence why the upper classes get away with a slap on the wrist and working classes go to jail for decades.

It isn't however harder to prove in the case of children.

Now...there is a reason why the majority of sex offenders involving under age children aren't actually convicted based on AOC. They are actually convicted for corrupting a minor, child abuse, child pornography and other related issues.

And there's no damn reason a 9 year old would want to have sex with a 20 year old.
And if a 11 year old wants to have sex with a 12 year old, age of consent laws can be made to allow that.

So tell me about the AOC laws that allow for age differentials of 15 years...2 years under the AOC.

The system works fine...it just needs fine tuning. That is a seriously flawed argument.

Of course in an utopia the justice system may or may not be like this. The thing is that we do not live in an utopia, and for the current system age of consent laws are good enough.

By that default reasoning you are also arguing that the current economic and social system is good enough. So why actually fight it and try to change it? your argument are horribly complacent and approving of bourgeois morality. Mainly I think this is because of the "OMG the kids"-syndrome.

So let me ask you....what do you think of abortion laws? What do you think of euthanasia laws? What do you think of it being perfectly legal to exploit people into abject poverty and then making it illegal for them to actually survive?

These are namely also expressions of bourgeois law. And since you just argued that bourgeois law is good enough....

DigitalBluster

20th June 2014, 01:43

...revolution entails abolishing the bourgeois state and all its expressions. Not merely class distinctions but also the legal frame which it uses to enforce its morality and domination.

Does revolution entail abolishing common sense? Calling something "bourgeois" doesn't convince me.

Nobody can answer what the difference is between sex of a 25 year old and a 12,13,14,15 or 16 year old.

Some have argued that there's no upper limit to human longevity because if a person can live to 122 then why not 123, or 124, or 125, ad infinitum. I don't find this form of argument convincing. We might not be able to put a definite number on it but we can assume it isn't forever and we can reasonably cap it far lower than infinity, like, say, 200, for starters. Likewise, on the far more important matter of sex with young people, we can (and should, in my view) make an educated guess at how young a person has to be before having sex with them is considered a problem.

RedWorker

20th June 2014, 01:45

It isn't however harder to prove in the case of children.

Now...there is a reason why the majority of sex offenders involving under age children aren't actually convicted based on AOC. They are actually convicted for corrupting a minor, child abuse, child pornography and other related issues.

Ok. So if that is true, and if removing the age of consent doesn't result in an increase of sex abuse cases, then the age of consent can be removed. But I would like you to bring in statistics and analysis.

By that default reasoning you are also arguing that the current economic and social system is good enough. So why actually fight it and try to change it? your argument are horribly complacent and approving of bourgeois morality.

No, it's not. I said that a specific point in the current system is "good enough" for the current situation.

So let me ask you....what do you think of abortion laws? What do you think of euthanasia laws?

Abortion: Always allowed.
Euthanasia: Always allowed if the victim agrees to it.

What do you think of it being perfectly legal to exploit people into abject poverty and then making it illegal for them to actually survive?

I think that socialism should be established and that in the mean time we live in capitalism, laws should which reduce poverty and guarantee rights for everyone should be established.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2014, 01:56

Does revolution entail abolishing common sense? Calling something "bourgeois" doesn't convince me.

Well, if it would it would completely pass you by.

So let me get this.... you are actually arguing that the legal system isn't bourgeois?

Some have argued that there's no upper limit to human longevity because if a person can live to 122 then why not 123, or 124, or 125, ad infinitum. I don't find this form of argument convincing.

Yesssss....because that is totally the same thing and isn't a completely stupid comparison at all.

We might not be able to put a definite number on it but we can assume it isn't forever and we can reasonably cap it far lower than infinity, like, say, 200, for starters. Likewise, on the far more important matter of sex with young people, we can (and should, in my view) make an educated guess at how young a person has to be before having sex with them is considered a problem.

Really? Can we? So what age would YOU say that is? Because so far I have listed the AOC's a few posts back and they seem to range from 12 to 21....not to mention that that post doesn't even mention the difference between AOC between boys and girls....and it doesn't go into the details about the difference between a much lower age at which a person can legally marry and have sex....than have sex outside marriage.

So please tell me more about how you equate an AOC of 16 with the presumably much, much, much lower age where you consider having sex is a problem.

Either you haven't been paying attention to the arguments and they have gone completely over your head or you know...you have completely no clue as to what the actual issue is and you are just chipping in with "o yeah...at some age there is bound to be problems" Sjeeez....you think Einstein? You think?

So for the people who are catching up late: we are not arguing when it is or isn't a problem to have sex with young people you doorknob. We are talking about whether an AOC law as one of the expressions of a bourgeois legal system is actually designed to protect people and why a law of protection actually changes people into property and takes away their autonomy based on subjective, unrelated factors. The argument of the slippery slope of AOC and consent shows that the law itself is bullshit. lowering the bar doesn't solve these main issues. What needs to be done is abolish the legal system; destroy laws that infringe on individual autonomy and actually protect that autonomy from infringement by others. We have perfectly fine concepts for that protection which do not require people to be turned into property of the state....but which the bourgeois system refuses to apply.

PhoenixAsh

20th June 2014, 02:04

Ok. So if that is true, and if removing the age of consent doesn't result in an increase of sex abuse cases, then the age of consent can be removed. But I would like you to bring in statistics and analysis.

I haven't said that. I have said that more child abusers are convicted through other legal laws than AOC. There is not correlation between laws and a crime occuring.

No, it's not. I said that a specific point in the current system is "good enough" for the current situation.

But...and this is very important...the current situation isn't good enough.

Abortion: Always allowed.
Euthanasia: Always allowed if the victim agrees to it.

Yet the bourgeois legal system doesn't.

And the problem with euthanasia is to establish will...which isn't always entirely possible.

I think that socialism should be established and that in the mean time we live in capitalism, laws should which reduce poverty and guarantee rights for everyone should be established.

so we shouldn't have laws that restrict these rights for everybody?

LuÃs Henrique

20th June 2014, 15:21

Luis, I suppose you mean Roswitha Scholz and Robert Kurz?

For sure.

I like them a lot, too.

Great!

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

20th June 2014, 15:39

How are they not completely arbitrary and in no way even related to protecting the development of children.

They are arbitrary. Completely arbitrary, if you insist (though I haven't seen 5 or 37 among those AOCs, so I suppose not so completely).

They are also necessary. People need to be protected until they are able to fend for themselves. Unhappily, people become able to fend for themselves at very different ages, individual-wise. So you have two options: either you put up an arbitrary age, or you conduct a psychological case-by-case investigation.

I think it is easy to see why a case-by-case investigation will be necessarily abusive and intrusive.

And an arbitrary age will necessarily put some people who are mature enough to have sex in difficult situations, or fail to protect some people who are not mature enough.

Actually, I think unless such arbitrary age is ridiculously small (anything under 10) or ridiculously high (anything beyond 25), it is going to do both things.

The question then becomes...if AOC doesn't protect children and is arbitrary, how then can "statutory rape" be considered an actual thing? Consent purely based on age and not actual consent or development or even context.

Consent has to be minimally informed. The issue is, how informed is an 8 year-old? How informed is a 16 year old?

Child protection laws are most often the fore runner of all kinds of privacy invading laws.

Not so.

Legislation forbidding children labour has by no means invaded the privacy of anyone.

Laws which increase the power of the state over the individuals.

Individuals are not abstractions. Consequently, you cannot increase the power of the State over "individuals" as an indifferentiated mass. Point being, what power do such "individuals" ever have, for starters? What miserable power does a 13 year-old have, that the State can actually decrease by laws that prevent them being exploited? Or do you mean the power of a 30 year-old over toddlers? This latter I have absolutely no problem if the State reduces it.

Laws that were previously rejected for being extremely invasive, if brought up again under the guise of child protection will in overwhelming majority of the situations be accepted and cheered. Laws which invariably will be expanded to other fields once they are adopted.

Do you have any examples of such happening?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

20th June 2014, 15:51

unless of course you want to argue that children in some parts of the US can be considered more advanced and more exempt from not being able to make decisions...and somehow they objectively estavblished that age to be completely different from children living a couple of miles to the left or to the right.

I indeed have no problem with that. A child in a place where schools offer sexual education, and where parents talking about sex with their children is considered commonplace will mature much earlier than a child in a place where sex is taboo.

That usually it is the latter that have the lower AOC is a different issue, though I can see the paradox.

Plus of course the complete insane notion that 22 years ago I suddenly and inexplicably became totally capable of making decisions for myself....decisions which merely a second ago would be considered damaging and completely against my well being and therefore out of my hands....IF the concept of bourgeois law actually protecting my welfare is to be believed.

IF you are mature enough before reaching AOC, you just have to show it, by engaging in sex, and then not reporting the other part to the police.

You know, learning to properly infringe the law is also very important.

Something which is also completely incompatible with another bourgeois legal concept: child emancipation. Basically that means children are their own legal guardians....making all kinds of life changing decisions for themselves legally...but of course...not when they are ok to have sex....because that is totally dependend on their calender age.

Apart from completely empty abstractions, "emancipation" is tantamount to autonomy, which in turn requires the ability to earn one's own life. So "children emanciapation" isn't possible without allowing children to work. And allowing children to work, I am sorry, isn't going to "emancipate" anyone except those employers who want to pay lower wages to their workers.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

20th June 2014, 15:57

Still, I'm fascinated to see that you see a parallel between working on an assembly line and having sex. I certainly hope you are not making this comparison based on your own sexual experiences.

Better people than me, you, or synthesis, have done it:

Prostitution is only a particular expression of the universal prostitution of the worker

Luís Henrique

synthesis

20th June 2014, 16:16

radical aspersions on my character

You didn't answer my question. Are you all not in favor of abrogating age-of-consent laws under the current bourgeois state? Your reasoning being that the laws are bourgeois - as are, I presume, minimum wage and child labor laws?

Maybe that's not your best-case scenario, but if your worst-case scenario here is the age-of-consent laws remaining as they are or becoming even more stringent, then I think you open yourselves up to the same line of criticism: what would take their place? You say "I missed it" but usually that's accompanied by the quote that somebody missed.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th June 2014, 16:19

You didn't answer my question. Are you all not in favor of abrogating age-of-consent laws under the current bourgeois state?

I'm curious, why do you insist on a discussion that is clearly prohibited, instead of taking the issue to PM?

Rafiq

20th June 2014, 17:14

What a sickening thing to see. Now child protection laws are "a violation of privacy"? Yeah! Let's protect the autonomy of the family against the state! It's the right of parents, fathers, to discipline their children however they want. It's none of the state's business. What a sick fuck you are. Have you ever even met anyone working in social services? Have you met anyone in child protection before? Have you ever encountered situations in which they were involved? If anything, my only criticism is that they DO NOT DO ENOUGH as a result of protecting the autonomy of 'the family'. The embryo of communism is within capitalism, it is a CLASS STRUGGLE, not some fucking eternal protest against the world. The bourgeoisie does not always consciously rule in its interests, it's not some fucking conspiracy. You really have no idea how any of this functions, how capitalist relations are reproduced.

The state is not progressive, but it is not REACTIONARY as your religious cults, your Klan is. Quite honestly I don't give a fuck about Guantanamo bay, aside from that many there are wrongfully accused. I'm not so shocked and surprised by the reluctance of the state to abide by its own civic values. And if it did, that would not make it in the least better. Marx called the petite bourgeoisie a reactionary class for a reason - they are a greater enemy than the state and the bourgeoisie, in many ways.

There can be no argument to what I have said before: organizations like the Sparta, and this new kind of politics is inherently petty bourgeois. Not every act by the state is to be opposed. The state is not the ultimate evil, we oppose it BASED ON THE PREMISES now in existence, Communists are not "underground", Communists do not sit outside the parameters of society and the conditions of life. There is very little that separates these new 'Communists' from any reactionary militia, they are cosmetically different, but the way in which they abide is the same. We do not support the autonomy of the 'individual', we support the revolutionary prerogatives of the proletarian class. The petty bourgeoisie, bourgeois degenerates are not our allies. Fascists are not our allies, the reactionaries of France were not our allies, but they opposed the state all the same. And it is the duty of every communist to never defend them from the bourgeois state, those who are "opposing it all" oppose the revolution as well, oppose the communism that formed as a result of capitalist relations.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th June 2014, 17:43

So the Spartacist League, a revolutionary socialist group that has existed since the seventies, are "new Communists", whereas the Cold-War social-democrats in the SPUSA are I suppose "old Communists". "Old" in the sense of "decrepit" - no offense to any old people, I'm a bit of a geezer compared to the age average of this site myself - perhaps.

Now, father Rafiq has graced this thread once again to thunder against us degenerates, us "new Communists" who defend reactionary religious cults in the face of persecution by a state that is - if not progressive - then at least "not as reactionary". Yet father Rafiq, who apparently considers himself the earthly reincarnation of Felix Dzerzhinsky, has apparently not noticed that the Bolsheviks defended the "reactionary" Old Believers against the "not as reactionary" Tsarist state.

I have met people "working" in social services - if you can't see how these people are part of the problem, I have more bad news for you, I'm afraid. But that's neither here nor there. Once again you show you haven't read anything by the SL, including articles where they explicitly state that only consensual sex should be free.