Same-Sex Marriage Is a Right in the US, Supreme Court Rules, 5-4

[Le Libérer]

Even though years behind the rest of the civilized world, finally there is equality under the law in the US.


In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the 5 to 4 decision. He was joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

The decision, the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.

More (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur)

[OnFire]

Good news!

[RedAnarchist]

Good news!:) Shame we're being held back by Northern Ireland ourselves, but hopefully that will change soon enough.

[Hermes]

It will be interesting to see what happens now, whether or not the community continues to push, or whether those most benefited will shut down that discussion. The Gutiérrez incident doesn't make me feel very confident.

[Alet]

Will this have a noticeable influence in the Southern States? I'm not very well informed about the situations, but they are often associated with political instability and homophobia.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Hah, probably not. Within a week conservatives have had obamacare upheld, gay marriage legalized, and they can't buy their confederate flag shit at walmart anymore. Cultural Marxism has run amok in their eyes so I would expect some nastiness in the future, especially down south.

[Comrade Jacob]

Good good.

[PhoenixAsh]

Wellllll. ...if they don't like it they can get the fuck out of the country and take that damn flag with them. ..


o...wait...:glare:

[G4b3n]

Bout damn time!

[PhoenixAsh]

On a serious note though this article explains what will probably happen:

http://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/

[Mr. Piccolo]

And watch nothing change for the American worker (except for change for the worst). This is just a means of taming the gay rights movement by turning it into another bourgeois civil rights crusade.

The U.S. is turning into a high-tech, socially liberal version of a Latin American banana republic but people on the Left are elated.

[Sinister Intents]

Do the capitalists realize it'd be more profitable to legalize everyone's marriage with one or more partners regardless of gender and sexuality? Or, you know, we could ruin the capitalist class system and the bourgeois state rendering all free to do as the choose.

[Zanters]

Cultural marcism is running amok! Quick, boots on the ground and let's end this degeneracy!

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

And watch nothing change for the American worker (except for change for the worst). This is just a means of taming the gay rights movement by turning it into another bourgeois civil rights crusade.

The U.S. is turning into a high-tech, socially liberal version of a Latin American banana republic but people on the Left are elated.

Um, a bunch of workers will benefit from this actually. Marriage comes with tangible social and financial benefits in our current system, which they were prevented from accessing prior to this. Why would this change the situation for the American worker 'for the worse'? Are homosexuals not workers?

[Mr. Piccolo]

Um, a bunch of workers will benefit from this actually. Marriage comes with tangible social and financial benefits in our current system, which they were prevented from accessing prior to this. Why would this change the situation for the American worker 'for the worse'? Are homosexuals not workers?

The issue is really more about co-opting potentially dangerous social movements and steering them onto safe, bourgeois paths. The same thing happened with the black civil rights movements. True, there were tangible, positive results gained especially for the relatively small number of affluent blacks who now had more access to upper-tier positions in academia, the media, government and corporations, but for most poor blacks nothing changed.

Why is the Left seemingly only successful when it comes to social issues like gay marriage? The answer is that gay marriage does nothing to hurt the capitalist class. Many corporations openly support the bourgeois gay rights movement.

See: http://www.takepart.com/photos/10-pro-gay-companies/levi-strauss-co

If people still have any skepticism about how the capitalist class has used the bourgeois gay marriage movement to tame the radical gay rights movement and keep radical gay voices out of the media, just look at shows like Modern Family that only show gay families if they are upper middle-class professionals who act just like their straight upper middle-class counterparts.

[human strike]

Finally, divorce equality! Next stop: marriage abolition.

[Hermes]

Um, a bunch of workers will benefit from this actually. Marriage comes with tangible social and financial benefits in our current system, which they were prevented from accessing prior to this. Why would this change the situation for the American worker 'for the worse'? Are homosexuals not workers?

I guess the question is whether or not marriage equality is worth all the resources that most of the leadership has devoted to it, what will happen now that it's finally been achieved, and whether or not we should have been fighting for those social/financial benefits to have been universal regardless of marriage.

I agree that saying this is 'negative' doesn't make much sense unless you're specifically talking about whether or not the community will be able to refocus after this victory, though.

[Slippers]

Worth celebrating; but I can't bring myself to.

Cisgender, white gay people are saying "mission accomplished". Meanwhile trans people - especially trans woman of color are still murdered in the streets. And as has been said, the gay rights movement has been co-opted and appropriated by bourgeois liberalism.

Starting with trans woman of color from the very beginning in the stonewall riots (trans woc were since pushed out of the movement to make it more white, male, cis and palatable), now we have banks and financial institutions marching in pride parades, and lgbt activists fighting for the "right" to serve in the US military and kill and die for empire.

Sorry I am negative sometimes.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I guess the question is whether or not marriage equality is worth all the resources that most of the leadership has devoted to it, what will happen now that it's finally been achieved, and whether or not we should have been fighting for those social/financial benefits to have been universal regardless of marriage.

I agree that saying this is 'negative' doesn't make much sense unless you're specifically talking about whether or not the community will be able to refocus after this victory, though.

Well obviously there is more to hope for than what we get, but the same could be said of any small victory. A successful strike that results in a wage increase could very well have demanded control of the workplace itself instead. We can probably assume that there was a reason they only asked for the wage increase though. The majoirty of homosexuals are not revolutionaries, because the majority of people are not revolutionary. With that in mind there is only so much one can expect.

I'm aware of how the bourgeois family reproduces itself in same sex marriages, in fact a user spent several pages in a thread recently trying to paint me as the arch-homophobe of the board for mentioning it. It's still not enough of a reason to oppose this, as the institution still holds significant social and financial benefits regardless of the ideology behind it.

Welfare serves to reinforce the state and capitalism as a result, but revolutionaries would (hopefully) oppose a move to abolish it right? The same logic would apply here.

[zamen]

Worth celebrating; but I can't bring myself to.

Cisgender, white gay people are saying "mission accomplished". Meanwhile trans people - especially trans woman of color are still murdered in the streets. And as has been said, the gay rights movement has been co-opted and appropriated by bourgeois liberalism.

Starting with trans woman of color from the very beginning in the stonewall riots (trans woc were since pushed out of the movement to make it more white, male, cis and palatable), now we have banks and financial institutions marching in pride parades, and lgbt activists fighting for the "right" to serve in the US military and kill and die for empire.

Sorry I am negative sometimes.

I feel the same way. I'm quite shocked by the overall reaction. Thousands of people saying "we're finally equal." Seriously?
Gay marriage has been legal in Brazil for quite some time now and lgbtq people are still assaulted and murdered here every single day. Absolutely nothing has changed.
I can only assume the people celebrating so much are bourgeois cis gay men who are obviously completely unaware of the struggles of working-class lgbtq people.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The lgbt movement hasn't been radical in decades, are you all really just figuring that out today? :lol:

[Hermes]

Well obviously there is more to hope for than what we get, but the same could be said of any small victory. A successful strike that results in a wage increase could very well have demanded control of the workplace itself instead. We can probably assume that there was a reason they only asked for the wage increase though. The majoirty of homosexuals are not revolutionaries, because the majority of people are not revolutionary. With that in mind there is only so much one can expect.

No, definitely, I'm not saying that I expected anything different. I'm just saying that simply because this is the best we could expect to get, it doesn't mean that we should be ecstatic over it.

A lot of the resentment probably comes from the fact that most people won't view this as a 'small victory,' they'll hail it as the beginning of a new era where 'LGBT politics' can quietly go somewhere else.


It's still not enough of a reason to oppose this, as the institution still holds significant social and financial benefits regardless of the ideology behind it.

Welfare serves to reinforce the state and capitalism as a result, but revolutionaries would (hopefully) oppose a move to abolish it right? The same logic would apply here.

I don't really think that Piccolo/Slippers/etc are really opposing this (though if they are, I'm sorry for misreading). I think it's more just depression/apathy because, like you say, we all know where this ends up. I don't know.


The lgbt movement hasn't been radical in decades, are you all really just figuring that out today? :lol:

I guess there's always one more opportunity for me to gain in cynicism.

[Slippers]

I don't oppose same sex marriage at all

it's just an extremely hollow victory for me that i am kind of bummed about

i have no problem with others celebrating and cheering and i encourage them to do so

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Aw don't fret gang, hollow victories are all there are. The blood pressure in the white conservative community is probably through the roof tonight, things could be worse. Gay marriage can't stop the economy from imploding or the environment from collapsing.

[Le Libérer]

Will this have a noticeable influence in the Southern States? I'm not very well informed about the situations, but they are often associated with political instability and homophobia.

Louisiana (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_administration_sa_1.html?utm_source=d lvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)says the federal law does not apply until a lower court ruling is addressed on a previous equality case in the state.

Texas (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/governors-vow-disobey-scotus-ruling-gay-marriage-article-1.2272503) is refusing to comply due to the law violates their religious liberty.

[Le Libérer]

Aw don't fret gang, hollow victories are all there are. The blood pressure in the white conservative community is probably through the roof tonight, things could be worse. Gay marriage can't stop the economy from imploding or the environment from collapsing.

This. While there is struggle with identity politics on equality, it is a distraction is that all identity politics falls under economic equality.

[Sentinel]

Good to hear, this. I suppose the US and Finland are on the same line now with legislation, and a narrow majority of the population, backing equality.

Even if marriage itself wasn't important which it is due to legal realities, it is an important landmark in public approval for homosexuality, ie for social progress. Certainly worth celebrating.


Louisiana (http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_administration_sa_1.html?utm_source=d lvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)says the federal law does not apply until a lower court ruling is addressed on a previous equality case in the state.

Texas (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/governors-vow-disobey-scotus-ruling-gay-marriage-article-1.2272503) is refusing to comply due to the law violates their religious liberty.

Send in the tanks :mad:

[Le Libérer]

Good to hear, this. I suppose the US and Finland are on the same line now with legislation, and a narrow majority of the population, backing equality.

Even if marriage itself wasn't important which it is due to legal realities, it is an important landmark in public approval for homosexuality, ie for social progress. Certainly worth celebrating.



Send in the tanks :mad:

Both governors and attorney generals pandering to conservatives to be reelected. And then this (http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/12760676-123/washington-post-report-louisiana-mississippi). Louisiana, Mississippi only 2 states not issuing same-sex marriage licenses today.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I just drove by the county courthouse on my way back home from work. There were a bunch of same-sex couples lining up for marriage licenses.

In all honesty, anyone who was paying attention to the news knew that this was coming. The Justices had been dropping hints everywhere that this was going to be the case weeks ahead of time.

....But that STILL doesn't lessen the astonishment I felt when I saw of those gay couples walking out, married, in the very same state that the Ku Klux Klan was refounded.

And the impotent tears of the right-wing tea party assholes are delicious.

[Cliff Paul]

"innovate, don't assimilate"

[Sasha]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=9617&stc=1&d=1435359357

[BIXX]

This. While there is struggle with identity politics on equality, it is a distraction is that all identity politics falls under economic equality.

Are you saying that when capitalism is abolished, that homophobia and racism and sexism will be too?

[RedAnarchist]

And the impotent tears of the right-wing tea party assholes are delicious.

:grin:

[Klaatu]

Now-legal gay marriage, per se, is really only the half of it. The big picture here is that freedom and civil rights is what the USA is supposed to be all about. That being said, I cannot see how the court could have possibly ruled otherwise. But then, there will always be the ignorant bigots among us, even the minority of the nation's highest court.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If people still have any skepticism about how the capitalist class has used the bourgeois gay marriage movement to tame the radical gay rights movement
The LGBT community tamed itself decades ago, when the radicals and our Liberation were pushed out by non-radicals and Pride. The reformist push for equality was an outgrowth of that, not the cause.

That said, I support marriage equality, which has tangible benefits even for working class queers within the current system in the US.

[Klaatu]

In Michigan, the Republican legislature is trying to pass a law saying that the State of Michigan itself will no longer issue marriage licenses, nor can judges or other public officials.
Only clergy can issue a marriage license!

In Louisiana, conservative Governor Jindal is so upset with the court ruling, he said "We should get rid of the Supreme Court!" (this is the same guy that said "Let's (the Republicans) not be the party of stupid.")

Well stupid is, stupid does, Governor!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In Michigan, the Republican legislature is trying to pass a law saying that the State of Michigan itself will no longer issue marriage licenses, nor can judges or other public officials.
Only clergy can issue a marriage license!
And then atheists can sue Michigan, and SCOTUS can eventually declare atheists have a right to marry.

[Le Libérer]

Are you saying that when capitalism is abolished, that homophobia and racism and sexism will be too?

When I say all identity politics falls under economic equality, I don't mean fall as in 'go away' but that identity politics is a result of Capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Same-sex marriage is a sensational reform when we consider the history of LGBT rights and I can see the temptation to see this as a huge victor, but there seems to be no analysis in this thread about what this so-called victory means for communists. That lack of analysis exposes the fundamental problem with contemporary communists in that their role is completely subsumed by bourgeois reality and ends up simply being about managing and mitigating the issues created within a capitalist society by capitalism. Communists therefore become a radical social service making life better for people under capitalism.

I think there needs to be a serious debate about why communists see their role as one about making people's lives better. That debate is even more important when we consider the institution of marriage, which is a deeply conservative and reactionary institution. When a Supreme Court judge says things like, "marriage is a keystone of social order" then we need to be really fucking suspicious. We need to really take stock of ourselves and what we are doing: Our task is to smash their social order, not strengthen it.

[Sasha]

For one we are communists because we are decent, caring people (i hope), so while we should critique the institution of marriage and the probable intentions of the capitalist state to extend this right to gay people that doesnt and shouldnt detract from our hapines to see fellow humans happy.
One can still oppose marriage and articulate that and at the same time celebrate when you see that 80+ couple that where the first to marry in Kansas, one is your communsit mind, the other is your humanist hearth. I oppose straight marriage too yet im still happy for my loved ones if they marry because i share their happiness, i oppose wage slavery yet im still happy when i get a raise.

[Sharia Lawn]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122184/condemned-loneliness-supreme-court

[The Feral Underclass]

For one we are communists because we are decent, caring people (i hope), so while we should critique the institution of marriage and the probable intentions of the capitalist state to extend this right to gay people that doesnt and shouldnt detract from our hapines to see fellow humans happy.
One can still oppose marriage and articulate that and at the same time celebrate when you see that 80+ couple that where the first to marry in Kansas, one is your communsit mind, the other is your humanist hearth. I oppose straight marriage too yet im still happy for my loved ones if they marry because i share their happiness, i oppose wage slavery yet im still happy when i get a raise.

I think there is a difference between having some kind of Buzzfeed notion of happiness at the cuteness of old men marrying each other in Kansas and then celebrating this as a political victory or a "step in the right direction," as if equality somehow conformed to a long term strategy.

Also, I know a fair few communists who are not decent or caring. I'm not sure whether these personality traits are what make a communist a communist. I am not a decent and caring person because I'm a communist, I'm a decent and caring person in spite of it. I would be worried if someone needed a set of beliefs in order to be caring and decent.

Communism is not love. It is a hammer which we use to crush our enemies. ;)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Same-sex marriage is a sensational reform when we consider the history of LGBT rights and I can see the temptation to see this as a huge victor, but there seems to be no analysis in this thread about what this so-called victory means for communists. That lack of analysis exposes the fundamental problem with contemporary communists in that their role is completely subsumed by bourgeois reality and ends up simply being about managing and mitigating the issues created within a capitalist society by capitalism. Communists therefore become a radical social service making life better for people under capitalism.

I think there needs to be a serious debate about why communists see their role as one about making people's lives better. That debate is even more important when we consider the institution of marriage, which is a deeply conservative and reactionary institution. When a Supreme Court judge says things like, "marriage is a keystone of social order" then we need to be really fucking suspicious. We need to really take stock of ourselves and what we are doing: Our task is to smash their social order, not strengthen it.


Short term quality of life improvements is whats on the menu right now. People wanting to work should make us really fucking suspicious as well. Are we prepared, as a movement, to prevent Average Joe worker from getting to his job in the morning? Because that's one way to go about it, but kind of an unnecessary and counter-productive move to make at this point though right?

[The Feral Underclass]

Short term quality of life improvements is whats on the menu right now.

Why? I'm not being facetious and I'm not necessarily against it, I just don't understand why. I don't think many people have questioned why either.


People wanting to work should make us really fucking suspicious as well. Are we prepared, as a movement, to prevent Average Joe worker from getting to his job in the morning? Because that's one way to go about it, but kind of an unnecessary and counter-productive move to make at this point though right?

People needing to work in order to exist is not remotely comparable to a high official of the bourgeois legal system making ideological pronouncements.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Same-sex marriage is a sensational reform when we consider the history of LGBT rights and I can see the temptation to see this as a huge victor, but there seems to be no analysis in this thread about what this so-called victory means for communists. That lack of analysis exposes the fundamental problem with contemporary communists in that their role is completely subsumed by bourgeois reality and ends up simply being about managing and mitigating the issues created within a capitalist society by capitalism. Communists therefore become a radical social service making life better for people under capitalism.

I think there needs to be a serious debate about why communists see their role as one about making people's lives better. That debate is even more important when we consider the institution of marriage, which is a deeply conservative and reactionary institution. When a Supreme Court judge says things like, "marriage is a keystone of social order" then we need to be really fucking suspicious. We need to really take stock of ourselves and what we are doing: Our task is to smash their social order, not strengthen it.

Pretty much this. The Left cannot see the forest for the trees. It cannot see how capitalism is going through a significant ideological transformation. Capital in the West is slowly abandoning the use of traditionalist ideological justifications for its rule. The events of the past month show how the capitalist ruling class has largely rejected older ideological justifications such as racial supremacy and religious bigotry.

This is not to say that racism, homophobia,and other forms of bigotry don't exist, but they are declining as justifications for capitalist rule. The capitalist class itself is becoming more secular and less traditional in its outlook. For example, it is easy for a company like Google to support socially progressive causes while at the same time operating an internal caste system for its workers complete with colored badges to denote your status in the hierarchy.

See: http://gizmodo.com/5797022/googles-secret-class-system

The emerging justifying theory for capitalism in the 21st century is meritocracy. In order for this theory to make even the slightest bit of sense, capitalism must seek to integrate "out groups" into the dominant system by co-opting liberation movements and opening up high-level positions for educated and upwardly-mobile members of these "out groups." By officially opposing discrimination and integrating affluent members of "out groups," capitalism creates a mirage of meritocracy that becomes the new defining justification for exploitation now that older ideas such as white or Christian supremacy have lost their power.

As capital becomes increasingly global, its defining ideology becomes more cosmopolitan and inclusive. The Left, stuck in an early 20th century mindset, cannot see this change because it runs counter to outmoded ideas of what political capitalism looks like.

The future capitalist class, at least in the West, is likely to be secular, socially liberal, and cosmopolitan. It is less likely to be religious, racist, and nationalist. This will become more apparent as the older generation of conservatives die off and are replaced with more younger, more libertarian Rightists.

[GaggedNoMore]

The issue is really more about co-opting potentially dangerous social movements and steering them onto safe, bourgeois paths. The same thing happened with the black civil rights movements. True, there were tangible, positive results gained especially for the relatively small number of affluent blacks who now had more access to upper-tier positions in academia, the media, government and corporations, but for most poor blacks nothing changed.

Very true. But also keep in mind that sexual orientation is unique among the other marginalized identities - POC, women, trans, disabled, poor etc - in that there isn't a strong correlation with sexual orientation and poverty. Many homosexuals are still in the closet and can pass for "straight" especially if they are married, have families and what not. Even for those who are openly gay, many people just might not be aware of their orientation. And of course if they have the other privilege 'cards', like being white, male, cis etc, that only makes it easier for them to become part of the bourgeois or middle class, and they do so.

I think the vast majority of LGB people will benefit from this, unlike what the civil rights movement meant for most African Americans.


Why is the Left seemingly only successful when it comes to social issues like gay marriage? The answer is that gay marriage does nothing to hurt the capitalist class. Many corporations openly support the bourgeois gay rights movement.

Also very true.

[Le Libérer]

In Michigan, the Republican legislature is trying to pass a law saying that the State of Michigan itself will no longer issue marriage licenses, nor can judges or other public officials.
Only clergy can issue a marriage license!

In Louisiana, conservative Governor Jindal is so upset with the court ruling, he said "We should get rid of the Supreme Court!" (this is the same guy that said "Let's (the Republicans) not be the party of stupid.")

Well stupid is, stupid does, Governor!
Yeah, this guy. And as to date, Louisiana is the only state to not issue a marriage license.

There is a perceived loop hole here in Louisiana though. There is an appeal on the marriage ban in the lower state court that hasnt been resolved so what is going to happen is, plaintiffs will go back before the 5th circuit court of appeals, cite the new federal law, they will throw it back and forth a few times, and then rule with the federal law overshadowing the state law. That is real time (reality based).

Then you have Jindal and state attorney general, Buddy Caldwell saying, hey there is nothing in the new federal mandate that says we have to change our laws and they will spend millions of tax payers money that they dont have to fight it.

Louisiana.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Why? I'm not being facetious and I'm not necessarily against it, I just don't understand why. I don't think many people have questioned why either.



People needing to work in order to exist is not remotely comparable to a high official of the bourgeois legal system making ideological pronouncements.

Where are radical demands being met? Or even being put forward? The proof is in the pudding. It wasn't the radical left that put this forward anyhow, so how can we see it as a case of misplaced priorities? The people getting married were already living as married couples, the ideology is already in place this just formalizes it legally.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Very true. But also keep in mind that sexual orientation is unique among the other marginalized identities - POC, women, trans, disabled, poor etc - in that there isn't a strong correlation with sexual orientation and poverty. Many homosexuals are still in the closet and can pass for "straight" especially if they are married, have families and what not. Even for those who are openly gay, many people just might not be aware of their orientation. And of course if they have the other privilege 'cards', like being white, male, cis etc, that only makes it easier for them to become part of the bourgeois or middle class, and they do so.

Interesting points. I am far from an expert on the gay rights movement, but my understanding is that the class issue has long been problematic for this movement. If I am not mistaken, Harvey Milk was at one point a Goldwater Republican.

I know Reason is a reactionary outfit but they discussed this issue a bit in a piece on Milk. An interesting part of the piece reads:


Milk took every opportunity to differentiate himself from most in the city's gay establishment, at one point telling the New York Times: "I'm a left-winger, a street person....Most gays are politically conservative, you know, banks, insurance, bureaucrats. So their checkbooks are out of the closet, but they're not...all the gay money is still supporting Republicans except on this gayness thing."

See: http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/02/harvey-milks-mixed-legacy

[The Feral Underclass]

Where are radical demands being met? Or even being put forward? The proof is in the pudding. It wasn't the radical left that put this forward anyhow, so how can we see it as a case of misplaced priorities? The people getting married were already living as married couples, the ideology is already in place this just formalizes it legally.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about and you didn't seem to answer my question.

The radical left has and continues to support the reform of same-sex marriage and are celebrating it as a victory. This is the issue. The fact people live in monogamous relationships that can be defined as a relationship of marriage under bourgeois social convention is irrelevant.

[Rudolf]

Im interested in how this would affect workers with regards to welfare etc.

When the UK state started to recognise same sex couples they were subsumed under the welfare rules for non-married couples and treated as 'living together as a married couple' which inevitably resulted in a reduction in welfare payments to anyone who was living with a same sex partner at the time and in receipt of housing/unemployment benefits through transitioning from being considered single claimants to joint claimants.

[Sewer Socialist]

Im interested in how this would affect workers with regards to welfare etc.

When the UK state started to recognise same sex couples they were subsumed under the welfare rules for non-married couples and treated as 'living together as a married couple' which inevitably resulted in a reduction in welfare payments to anyone who was living with a same sex partner at the time and in receipt of housing/unemployment benefits through transitioning from being considered single claimants to joint claimants.

There's definitely a point where income is low enough (probably not far above full-time at minimum wage) that it makes more financial sense to file taxes as single instead of as a married couple. You get more food stamps per person if you say you live alone or don't share food with your "roommates". Cash assistance is already difficult to get; I think you need to have kids to get cash assistance; I'm sure that filing as a single parent gets you more than filing with two.

[The Disillusionist]

In this thread: "Hey, we've gotten great news! Let's tear it apart in every way that we can to preserve our Marxist misery!"


Seriously, some great points have been made in this thread, but the Supreme Court ruling is good news. Let it be good news.

[Rafiq]

"Hey, let's have our head up our ass and refrain from engaging in any critical thought! Woohoo! Days like these define our ideological constitution! They are more real than all the theory combined!"

[Rafiq]

Pretty much this. The Left cannot see the forest for the trees. It cannot see how capitalism is going through a significant ideological transformation. Capital in the West is slowly abandoning the use of traditionalist ideological justifications for its rule. The events of the past month show how the capitalist ruling class has largely rejected older ideological justifications such as racial supremacy and religious bigotry.

This is not to say that racism, homophobia,and other forms of bigotry don't exist, but they are declining as justifications for capitalist rule. The capitalist class itself is becoming more secular and less traditional in its outlook. For example, it is easy for a company like Google to support socially progressive causes while at the same time operating an internal caste system for its workers complete with colored badges to denote your status in the hierarchy.


You are correct to say that capitalism is undergoing a significant ideological transformation: But this transformation has been going on since the appropriation of the counter-culture. The reality is that gay marriage in the US was something long overdue. But never mind that.

The fact that overt ideological justifications for its rule are being abandoned does not negate their existence as justifications. There is a difference between appearance and function. A dissonance emerges between what we officially say about race, and its practical reality.

[The Feral Underclass]

Seriously, some great points have been made in this thread, but the Supreme Court ruling is good news. Let it be good news.

But why is it good news?

[The Disillusionist]

But why is it good news?

History has shown that it is often much easier to give people rights than to take them away. The LGBT movement might still have a lot of climbing to do to achieve real equality, but the platform has definitely been raised. Even if this whole thing is just capitalist garbage, LGBT people are now one small step closer to cultural equality. It must take a lot of mental gymnastics for anyone but a religious conservative to see this as a bad thing.

[The Disillusionist]

"Hey, let's have our head up our ass and refrain from engaging in any critical thought! Woohoo! Days like these define our ideological constitution! They are more real than all the theory combined!"

This is not at all what I said.

[The Feral Underclass]

History has shown that it is often much easier to give people rights than to take them away. The LGBT movement might still have a lot of climbing to do to achieve real equality, but the platform has definitely been raised. Even if this whole thing is just capitalist garbage, LGBT people are now one small step closer to cultural equality. It must take a lot of mental gymnastics for anyone but a religious conservative to see this as a bad thing.

Right, but the whole conceptualisation of your point-of-view is precisely the problem. What you're talking about is creating frameworks that conform to bourgeois, heteronormative society. This is the core issue I have with this debate. When you talk about the LGBT movement "climbing to achieve real equality" and for LGBT people moving a step closer to "cultural equality", what you're talking about is making LGBT people assimilated into the political, economic social and cultural sphere of bourgeois society.

What you are talking about climbing is bourgeois, heteronormative hegemony as if it is something that simply requires a route to navigate in order that our lives and sexualities be acceptable. What you're seeking is "cultural equality" with bourgeois, heteronormative society, which currently just means assimilating into their culture and practices. Same-sex marriage isn't cultural equality, it's cultural assimilation...Our goal should be to smash bourgeois, heteronormative hegemony, not climb it. We should be seeking to destroy bourgeois, heteronormative culture, not assimilate with it...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

there isn't a strong correlation with sexual orientation and poverty
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-gay-affluence/284570/

"Despite a commonly held belief that LGBT Americans tend to live it up in classy urban neighborhoods, they struggle with disproportionately high levels of poverty compared to straight people."

[Bee]

Marriage equality may have won but the LGBT rights movement is not yet complete.
liberals and progressives in the movement will end their efforts here now that their power, wealth and social status is protected.
However the reality is that poverty, violence, scarcity and inequality is ingrained into the lives of the queer community specifically multisexual individuals, queer people of color, queers who reject assimilation into heteronormative society, the gender variant community and queers of lower classes.
This is no doubt a time for celebration since we are losing our miserable status as second class citizens but I will not stop the war against homophobic and transphobic oppression until all of us in the LGBT community have shelter, food, full employment and a life where we are fully human.

[Rafiq]

Either way, opposing these developments on grounds of the encapsulation of the appropriation of homosexuality systemically (Something I do not think Feral is trying to say, for the record) is absolutely reactionary.

The point is that gay marriage was something long overdue in the United States, by bourgeois standards. Before, marriage was solely confined to the systemic regulation of reproduction, but now, the sexual excess of gender relations is also transgressively regulated, and coordinated. Does this not itself encapsulate the entirety of the logic of postmodern capitalism? To rephrase Zizek: electronic cigarettes, beer without alcohol, coffee without caffeine - all of our 'excess' hedonistic pleasures are now no longer simply unconditionally scrutinized, for capital cannot even spare its own former excesses from re-integration. Now, from drug-use to 'free sexuality' in general, the excesses and intricacies of our pleasures are themselves transgressively sublimated.

The point is not that this signifies that, for example, sexual conservatism or homophobia are coming to a close - on the contrary, these things will always remain as systemically integral to ruling ideology. The point is that the excess of their antagonisms is now sublimated, conceived in such a way as to reproduce ruling ideas. This is why all hedonism is self-perpetuating, it cannot sustain itself freely, it must always constantly justify itself in the midst of our capitalist superego. But the key to freedom today is not a return to the real event, the counter-culture, which was appropriated - but pre-suppose its appropriation as necessarily, retrospectively inevitable. The task today is to bring the social conservative out of every bourgeois-liberal hedonist...

[Sharia Lawn]

Gay people getting the same treatment as straight people is a great thing. It's a shame that treatment in this case refers to access to a fucked up institution. Welcome to a reality of contradictions.

The political nature of this development is easy to see, though. The bourgeoisie is capitulating one of the fronts it held out on for a long time, in exchange for additional policing of other aspects of sexuality apart from gender of the sexual pairing. Homo-normativity has been enlisted as an ally.

[Klaatu]

In the usual dissenting opinions form the court's most conservative justices, we hear such incredibly illogical statements as this gem:

"The majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a 'liberty' that the framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."
~Justice Thomas

That comment is so thick-headed, it makes my head spin.

You cannot deny someone the right to marry based on the opinions of others, and then proclaim "liberty for all."
We either have freedom or we do not have freedom. You cannot have it both ways. And those who tout this "liberty"
the loudest seem to be the ones that are actually hell-bent on taking away those freedoms!

When so-called "democracy" tries to trump our freedoms, as in gay-marriage bans, (or Jim Crow laws in the American South,
for that matter) it is our freedom (liberty) which must take first place. Speaking of Jim Crow, if the Federal government had not
put a stop to it with the 60's era civil rights laws, voting laws, and mandated desegregation, there would still be segregation
and discrimination to this day. Southern voters would have demanded it. So much for majority rule.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not really sure what you're talking about and you didn't seem to answer my question.

The radical left has and continues to support the reform of same-sex marriage and are celebrating it as a victory. This is the issue. The fact people live in monogamous relationships that can be defined as a relationship of marriage under bourgeois social convention is irrelevant.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're upset about I guess. This had nothing to do with the radical left, and it's kind of narcissistic for the left to even assume that it plays a role in events that happen in the world at this point. This doesn't even represent the advance of an ideology, it's fancy legal window dressing for something that has already been a reality for decades.

I'm confused by your tendency to vacillate from extreme optimism to the deepest pessimism regarding the capacity of the left to do anything. A couple months ago you were kind of raging about the need to strategically retreat into the green party, but now you apparently think we had the capacity to outlaw marriage altogether rather than simply stand by and have it extended to homosexuals. Very confusing my friend.

[Comrade Jacob]

Although it is a good thing it's still another concession.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's worth it just to see all the tears being shed by reactionaries.

[BIXX]

I'm with TFU- while I'm not gonna spend time campaigning against gay marriage I don't support it really as I just see it as another way to assimilate queers into straight society.

[The Disillusionist]

Right, but the whole conceptualisation of your point-of-view is precisely the problem. What you're talking about is creating frameworks that conform to bourgeois, heteronormative society. This is the core issue I have with this debate. When you talk about the LGBT movement "climbing to achieve real equality" and for LGBT people moving a step closer to "cultural equality", what you're talking about is making LGBT people assimilated into the political, economic social and cultural sphere of bourgeois society.

What you are talking about climbing is bourgeois, heteronormative hegemony as if it is something that simply requires a route to navigate in order that our lives and sexualities be acceptable. What you're seeking is "cultural equality" with bourgeois, heteronormative society, which currently just means assimilating into their culture and practices. Same-sex marriage isn't cultural equality, it's cultural assimilation...Our goal should be to smash bourgeois, heteronormative hegemony, not climb it. We should be seeking to destroy bourgeois, heteronormative culture, not assimilate with it...

Culture goes beyond just capitalism. As a result of this equality under a capitalist society, human beings, members of this society as individuals, are going to be more likely to see LGBT people are humans due equal respect. That is a win, under any kind of society.

[The Disillusionist]

I'm with TFU- while I'm not gonna spend time campaigning against gay marriage I don't support it really as I just see it as another way to assimilate queers into straight society.

Queers are already assimilated into straight society... we're not talking about two entirely different cultures here... LGBT and hetero people live in the same society and are raised up with the same norms and ideas. Gay marriage isn't a vicious plot by hetero people to brainwash LGBT people into capitalism... LGBT people have been raised with the same cultural values as everyone else, and thus they see marriage as important, just like everyone else, thus they fought for it, and won the right to it.

It seems somewhat condescending to take this thing that LGBT people have been fighting for for decades, and then claim that the actual achievement of that thing is the result of some outside force, and not the actions of LGBT people themselves.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If heteronormative is defined as "denoting or relating to a world view that promotes heterosexuality as the normal or preferred sexual orientation", then marriage is no longer heteronormative when it's opened to same-sex couples. Heteronormativity was when marriage was a special right for opposite-sex couples.

Marriage still reflects existing social relations, i.e. bourgeois, but it's not necessarily heteronormative now.

Is this some devious trap to get LGBT people to assimilate? No. It's the result of assimilation having already happened. It started happening when non-radical queers started dominating the movement, when Liberation celebrations were renamed Pride celebrations, and when corporations started sponsoring Pride.

[PhoenixAsh]

What is there to analyse though? Identity politics have been pretty well and thoroughly analysed already. They intersect with revolutionary politics and are linked to them but they themselves are not necessarily revolutionary as they deal with cross class subsections of society and their liberation or acceptance within any given context...and are not concerned with ending class society per se or as a primary focus....nor is the primary goal the overthrow of capitalism.

[Zoop]

I'm getting so much pleasure thinking about how much pain reactionaries and bigots must be in right now.

It is worth celebrating, but let it not give the illusion that all is well in the LGBT world. When Jennicet Gutiérrez called out Obama on the treatment of trans people at a Pride event, she was still booed and hissed at, despite being amongst so-called supporters of LGBT rights. When a same-sex couple is getting married, a trans individual is still getting harassed, beaten up, and murdered.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're upset about I guess. This had nothing to do with the radical left, and it's kind of narcissistic for the left to even assume that it plays a role in events that happen in the world at this point. This doesn't even represent the advance of an ideology, it's fancy legal window dressing for something that has already been a reality for decades.

I'm confused by your tendency to vacillate from extreme optimism to the deepest pessimism regarding the capacity of the left to do anything. A couple months ago you were kind of raging about the need to strategically retreat into the green party, but now you apparently think we had the capacity to outlaw marriage altogether rather than simply stand by and have it extended to homosexuals. Very confusing my friend.

I'm not upset about anything, I am concerned with the way the left are responding to the issue of gay marriage, which has nothing to do with their capacity to alter things. I am not claiming the left made gay marriage happen nor am I claiming they have the ability to. What I am claiming is that those on the left who supported gay marriage reform and are now celebrating it as a victory are indicative of a left subsumed by bourgeois society. It is a left incapable of being anything other than an extension of capitalist ideological hegemony; a trade marked official opposition. For most in this thread it is simply a reform that makes people's lives better and therefore should be supported, but that lacks any kind of thorough analysis of what we are and who we should be as communists. The idea that we should be making people's lives better isn't even questioned, it just 'is.' My criticism has nothing to do with a capacity to outlaw, but to recognise we operate on a different plain of understanding that is radically divergent to the one we live in. Our actions and our views should reflect that.

Your confusion comes, I think, from misunderstanding me. I have no optimism for the left, which is precisely why I made a thread to discuss a personal decision to work as part of Green Left; a decision specifically based on my individual circumstsnces. I never said that the left should retreat into the Green Party.

[Sharia Lawn]

I'm not upset about anything, I am concerned with the way the left are responding to the issue of gay marriage, which has nothing to do with their capacity to alter things. I am not claiming the left made gay marriage happen nor am I claiming they have the ability to. What I am claiming is that those on the left who supported gay marriage reform and are now celebrating it as a victory are indicative of a left subsumed by bourgeois society. It is a left incapable of being anything other than an extension of capitalist ideological hegemony; a trade marked official opposition. For most in this thread it is simply a reform that makes people's lives better and therefore should be supported, but that lacks any kind of thorough analysis of what we are and who we should be as communists. The idea that we should be making people's lives better isn't even questioned, it just 'is.' My criticism has nothing to do with a capacity to outlaw, but to recognise we operate on a different plain of understanding that is radically divergent to the one we live in. Our actions and our views should reflect that.

Your confusion comes, I think, from misunderstanding me. I have no optimism for the left, which is precisely why I made a thread to discuss a personal decision to work as part of Green Left; a decision specifically based on my individual circumstsnces. I never said that the left should retreat into the Green Party.

I would add that it also ignores how people's lives can be made better in one aspect, but far worse in another, less obvious aspect.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not upset about anything, I am concerned with the way the left are responding to the issue of gay marriage, which has nothing to do with their capacity to alter things. I am not claiming the left made gay marriage happen nor am I claiming they have the ability to. What I am claiming is that those on the left who supported gay marriage reform and are now celebrating it as a victory are indicative of a left subsumed by bourgeois society. It is a left incapable of being anything other than an extension of capitalist ideological hegemony; a trade marked official opposition. For most in this thread it is simply a reform that makes people's lives better and therefore should be supported, but that lacks any kind of thorough analysis of what we are and who we should be as communists. The idea that we should be making people's lives better isn't even questioned, it just 'is.' My criticism has nothing to do with a capacity to outlaw, but to recognise we operate on a different plain of understanding that is radically divergent to the one we live in. Our actions and our views should reflect that.

Your confusion comes, I think, from misunderstanding me. I have no optimism for the left, which is precisely why I made a thread to discuss a personal decision to work as part of Green Left; a decision specifically based on my individual circumstsnces. I never said that the left should retreat into the Green Party.

Then this brings me back to my original question, if we don't care about making life better are we ready to make life worse? We can wax philosophic abut operating on a different plane all we want, but you and I both know whats really possible when we step outside today. it's one of those two options.

Some of the others in this thread seem to be under the impression that there was something revolutionary or even anti-capitalist about having sex with people of the same gender prior to Friday. I can't tell if you are in that camp but really that's very silly. Anyone person who thinks they or their actions are above being subsumed by capitalism is living a fantasy.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Semi related: The mock ISIS flag made out of buttplugs and dildos at the london pride parade yesterday is fucking incredible

[Rafiq]

Culture goes beyond just capitalism. As a result of this equality under a capitalist society, human beings, members of this society as individuals, are going to be more likely to see LGBT people are humans due equal respect. That is a win, under any kind of society.

Culture most certainly does not go beyond capitalist society, and this "equality" cannot be abstracted or divorced (and you accuse ME of postmodernism?) from the totality from which it was wrought. One cannot be "outside" or "beyond" capitalism, and likewise, there is no dissonance, no gap between "culture" and our capitalist totality. No differences between capitalist epochs are owed to "cultural" differences: The cultural difference implicit in Russia, and it's allies that despises modernization is not owed to their "culture" itself, but to the damaging effects of globalization upon their native bourgeoisie, and Russian capital.

Americans are not "culturally" religious by default, for a quick look at their religiosity and its history reveals that the over-religious nature of Americans is a relatively new, degenerate phenomena that coincided with neoliberalism. But never mind this. The idea that a supreme court ruling is going to shape "culture" is so beyond idiotic it is barely worth addressing. There must have been a profound shift in "culture" in order for the ruling to happen in the first place, which means that this is not new "equality", for it is a formal equality under law. That is not to say that it ought to be opposed, but the idea that LGBT people are now 'humans due equal respect" is almost hilarious. The civil rights battle decades ago was a victory, but we can imagine some idiot like Disillusionist harking over how "The blacks will now be humans due equal respect".

There will never be sexual equality for homosexuals in capitalism, there are no traditions that are "decaying", homophobia is absolutely intrinsic in our hypocritical society's acceptance of homosexuality, because our acceptance of homosexuality is one of sublimation of a deep seated and inherent homophobia. The institution of "traditional" marriage, in the sphere of collective ideology, remains as strong, as potent as it has been a hundred years ago. Our acceptance of homosexuality is, whether you want to admit it or not, something that will always be conditional, fragile, and never self-sustaining. For example, in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8YR9IV9Alc), you'll see pedophilia at a gay pride parade, which consisted of hundreds of thousands of people. The comments are absolutely despicable, but what I found interesting was that many of the commenters made attacks on the whole gay community who were previously not homophobic at all. Scroll down enough and you'll even see comments like "I never had a problem with gays but something is wrong with them..." and so on. Even though pedophilia is something hardly reserved for homosexuals (in fact, being 100% pathologically distinct from homosexuality), they are the sole target of the collective outrage - even from those who previously demonstrated no problems with them. This is just one of probably an innumerable amount of examples.

[The Feral Underclass]

Culture goes beyond just capitalism. As a result of this equality under a capitalist society, human beings, members of this society as individuals, are going to be more likely to see LGBT people are humans due equal respect. That is a win, under any kind of society.

What you are essentially implying is that LGBT people should conform to assimilation, which is another word for equality, just so that straight people will see us as humans. This is a good example of heteronormative oppression. This entire view is predicated on the supremacy of heteronormative power. The notion that LGBT people don't/shouldn't give a flying fuck what straight people think of them, and that we should reject equality for the assimilationist engineering it is, isn't even part of this analysis.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Americans are not "culturally" religious by default, for a quick look at their religiosity and its history reveals that the over-religious nature of Americans is a relatively new, degenerate phenomena that coincided with neoliberalism. But never mind this. The idea that a supreme court ruling is going to shape "culture" is so beyond idiotic it is barely worth addressing. There must have been a profound shift in "culture" in order for the ruling to happen in the first place, which means that this is not new "equality", for it is a formal equality under law. That is not to say that it ought to be opposed, but the idea that LGBT people are now 'humans due equal respect" is almost hilarious. The civil rights battle decades ago was a victory, but we can imagine some idiot like Disillusionist harking over how "The blacks will now be humans due equal respect".


I'm not disagreeing with your overall point here but religious reaction in the US is as old as the country itself and not specific to neo-liberalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening)

[The Disillusionist]

What you are essentially implying is that LGBT people should conform to assimilation, which is another word for equality.

What? Just...... what? :blink: As I already said... LGBT people are already assimilated, they're a part of the same culture everyone else is. But that doesn't have anything to do with assimilation being the same thing as equality. Equality has to do with an attitude of respect, it has nothing to do with actually being literally the same as everyone else. You should know that, I would expect everyone on this site to know that.

Oh, and there goes Rafiq, putting words in my mouth again. I never said that some law has just magically made LGBT people more worthy of respect. Have some cultural perspective. Your narrowmindedness absolutely astounds me every time I read your posts. You have no practical understanding of the world whatsoever, you're just an ignorant word factory.

The fact of the matter is that we are talking about a change within a culture. Now that this form of oppression of LGBT people is no longer legally supported, the balance of power in that culture has changed somewhat. As a result of this power shift, the attitude of oppression has lost some of its footing, which is one more step toward people in that culture considering LGBT people as deserving of respect. Should they have had respect in the first place? Yes, but that's not how cultural oppression works as a whole. Now that the authority behind the oppression has been diminished, the oppression itself will be diminished as well.

Oppression always requires authority. The Civil Rights Movement was a great step for black people, because it diminished the authority of oppression against them. Did it solve the problem? Hell no, and that is because there is still a differential of authority and attitude, but it was a step.

[The Feral Underclass]

Then this brings me back to my original question, if we don't care about making life better are we ready to make life worse? We can wax philosophic abut operating on a different plane all we want, but you and I both know whats really possible when we step outside today. it's one of those two options.

Some of the others in this thread seem to be under the impression that there was something revolutionary or even anti-capitalist about having sex with people of the same gender prior to Friday. I can't tell if you are in that camp but really that's very silly. Anyone person who thinks they or their actions are above being subsumed by capitalism is living a fantasy.

The issue for me isn't about making conscious choices whether something makes someone's life better or worse, it's about doing what is necessary to smash capitalism, the state and heteronormativity. This is our objective, correct? And I don't accept that when one walks outside you are faced with only two options. The situation is never binary.

Subsumption of communist praxis and ideology into the processes of capitalism is a fundamentally different problem that we as communists face compared to whether fucking is subsumed.

[Rafiq]

Religious reaction has been present in virtually every country, but specifically the - globally identifiable wave of religious reaction, which coincided with the rise of Islamism in the middle east and fundamentalist Christianity in the Untied States. We know that this is not just a cyclic phenomena either, because the religious revival also saw to the huge rise in an interest in Eastern spirituality and degenerate new age drivel.

It is also misleading to simply conceive these all as forms of "religious reaction". From the article you linked, it shows that there was a clear link between the so-called "great awakening' and abolitionism (as well as women's rights). In fact all of the so-called Great awakenings all seem to be hardly "religious revivals" as such but an increase in religious activity (but none the less, of the same religion) for whatever reason, I do not think there was anything close to the scale of religious revival that occurred in the past few decades that existed before in the United States.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What? Just...... what? :blink: As I already said... LGBT people are already assimilated, they're a part of the same culture everyone else is. But that doesn't have anything to do with assimilation being the same thing as equality. Equality has to do with an attitude of respect, it has nothing to do with actually being literally the same as everyone else. You should know that, I would expect everyone on this site to know that.

LGBT people certainly haven't been assimilated as a whole, you're overgeneralizing here. Lesbian and Gay couples who agree to live in the same fashion as monogamous heterosexuals have been assimilated, and have been for decades sure. Anyone living in a configuration other than that and the B and particularly the T in LGBT are still as out in the cold today as they were 30 years ago.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Religious reaction has been present in virtually every country, but specifically the - globally identifiable wave of religious reaction, which coincided with the rise of Islamism in the middle east and fundamentalist Christianity in the Untied States. We know that this is not just a cyclic phenomena either, because the religious revival also saw to the huge rise in an interest in Eastern spirituality and degenerate new age drivel.

It is also misleading to simply conceive these all as forms of "religious reaction". From the article you linked, it shows that there was a clear link between the so-called "great awakening' and abolitionism (as well as women's rights). In fact all of the so-called Great awakenings all seem to be hardly "religious revivals" as such but an increase in religious activity (but none the less, of the same religion) for whatever reason, I do not think there was anything close to the scale of religious revival that occurred in the past few decades that existed before in the United States.

The article is just mentioning that the abolitionist and women's movement launched at the same time, not that they were specifically related. They were in some cases, but just as often and almost all of the time in the case of the women's movement they were diametrically opposed. I'm not saying it's identical, but I think it's incorrect to pin the rise of the christian right in this country since the 60s as a tendency specific only to neo-liberalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

What? Just...... what? :blink: As I already said... LGBT people are already assimilated, they're a part of the same culture everyone else is. But that doesn't have anything to do with assimilation being the same thing as equality. Equality has to do with an attitude of respect, it has nothing to do with actually being literally the same as everyone else. You should know that, I would expect everyone on this site to know that.

But this is the issue. Gay marriage makes straight people respect gay people as equals because we are now like them. That's the whole point! This isn't about smashing heteronormativity that makes bullshit concepts like "respect" irrelevant, but about gay people having equality with straight people by being like them; having equality on their terms. You are simply reinforcing heterosupremacy. You don't see queerness as a goal in-and-of itself that negates heteronormativity, but as a culture existing within heteronormative society with equal legal status...This is not liberation

[BIXX]

Queers are already assimilated into straight society... we're not talking about two entirely different cultures here... LGBT and hetero people live in the same society and are raised up with the same norms and ideas. Gay marriage isn't a vicious plot by hetero people to brainwash LGBT people into capitalism... LGBT people have been raised with the same cultural values as everyone else...
So that makes any advancement of their desire, no matter how liberal, something that should be celebrated? Do you think that because most workers want capital, we should celebrate every worker who becomes rich through the exploitation of other workers?


and thus they see marriage as important, just like everyone else, thus they fought for it, and won the right to it.
Empire is using them to reproduce labour- even if they aren't a couple that can physically reproduce they can still raise children to be Good Citizens. It has decided it will allow gays to participate in the machine that destroys queers.


It seems somewhat condescending to take this thing that LGBT people have been fighting for for decades, and then claim that the actual achievement of that thing is the result of some outside force, and not the actions of LGBT people themselves.

So? When what they want is not only a product of but a tool of exploitation and control. If they want to impose that on themselves I can safely say that I think it's stupid.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The issue for me isn't about making conscious choices whether something makes someone's life better or worse, it's about doing what is necessary to smash capitalism, the state and heteronormativity. This is our objective, correct? And I don't accept that when one walks outside you are faced with only two options. The situation is never binary.

Subsumption of communist praxis and ideology into the processes of capitalism is a fundamentally different problem that we as communists face compared to whether fucking is subsumed.

I don't know, when I read this I'm reminded about the people here (some of them are in this thread....) who complain that revolution is always our only answer to any problem and short of that we have nothing to do in the interim or to add to a discussion. I think those two options really are all that is available short of a revolutionary movement, which obviously doesn't exist otherwise we would be talking about that. It's hard to see how the heteronormative structure of society could be challenged without attacking the sexual divide directly. And how could one do that short of overthrowing every aspect of existing society? Obviously I want that, but few others seem interested.

I said at the beginning that it was a hollow victory. At best it irritated the right wing, and allows a segment of the working class access to benefits that were previously kept from them. There's nothing else to add, but also in my opinion nothing to be upset about. If people thought fucking by itself was going to bring down capitalism, or that it was at least a meaningful protest against bourgeois culture....well sorry gang.

Doesn't Zizek say something along the lines of "The moment you think you are outside of ideology is the exact moment you are completely consumed by it."? That's all I can think about reading some of the other posts in this thread.

[Rafiq]

The fact of the matter is that we are talking about a change within a culture. Now that this form of oppression of LGBT people is no longer legally supported, the balance of power in that culture has changed somewhat. As a result of this power shift, the attitude of oppression has lost some of its footing, which is one more step toward people in that culture considering LGBT people as deserving of respect. Should they have had respect in the first place? Yes, but that's not how cultural oppression works as a whole. Now that the authority behind the oppression has been diminished, the oppression itself will be diminished as well.


This fetishism of "culture" mimics the take on 'race' by bourgeois ideologue as having its basis in residual 'discrimination' rather than the perpetuation of racism and our sexual relations on a systemic level. The fact of the matter is that there has been no shift in culture, there might have been a shift in our political standards of discourse, but not that of "culture" - if anything, the supreme court ruling is symptomatic of what is also a shift in "culture", it did not mandate one. You accuse me of being an "ignorant word factory" and yet you actually type like a fucking child - it's almost embarrassing, you talk cack as though you're a fucking facebook liberal.

What shift in power has occurred? Any idiot can see that the general tendency of neoliberlaism in advanced capitalist countries of the bourgeois-liberal variety has been the strive toward the legalization of gay marriage, from Australia to Israel, from Europe to the United States, from South Africa to Brazil. So I ask you again - what is this "shift in power" you're talking about? My fucking god your posts are worth less than my shit - "deserving of respect" - awww, that's so cute of you. The fact of the matter is that the structural basis of homophobia has remained unchanged, just as it has of racism. In case you didn't know, the civil rights movement didn't end racism, not even formally, in most places in the United States. In fact, one could argue of the unstable nature of the segregationalism in the American south and the rampant structural racism. Meanwhile in the North, the basis of the oppression of blacks - on a legal level - did not change much. It was the subjugation of blacks, confined in povert and miserable ghettos, to police terrorism - which then extended to the south. The basis of racism remained untouched - yes the civil rights act was a victory, but NOT because it did away with the basis of racism (it did not), but because it did away with the LEGAL basis of racism, thereby - racism being an overt phenomena was no longer tolerated.

You specifically stated that as a result of the supreme court ruling, gays would now have an equal footing in society (maybe you might concede "exceptions" of discrimination). This is a bunch of fucking bullshit - homosexuality will never achieve the same levels of legitimacy as the default bourgeois sexual relations, so long as capitalism exists, regardless of what you perceive as a "cultural shift" in overt attitudes regarding this.

[The Disillusionist]

LGBT people certainly haven't been assimilated as a whole, you're overgeneralizing here. Lesbian and Gay couples who agree to live in the same fashion as monogamous heterosexuals have been assimilated, and have been for decades sure. Anyone living in a configuration other than that and the B and particularly the T in LGBT are still as out in the cold today as they were 30 years ago.

But that's not how culture works. They have still been raised up into the same culture. LGBT people have definitely been assimilated as a whole, just like every other person who was raised up into this culture. Your definition of culture is way, way too narrow, which is a really common problem in this thread and on this website. You can't escape culture, you can only change it.

[The Disillusionist]

But this is the issue. Gay marriage makes straight people respect gay people as equals because we are now like them. That's the whole point! This isn't about smashing heteronormativity that makes bullshit concepts like "respect" irrelevant, but about gay people having equality with straight people by being like them; having equality on their terms. You are simply reinforcing heterosupremacy. You don't see queerness as a goal in-and-of itself that negates heteronormativity, but as a culture existing within heteronormative society with equal legal status...This is not liberation

No one made gay marriage mandatory, it's not required. Gay people don't have to get married now, they simply have access to one more cultural option than they previously had. I know that this knee-jerk reaction to marriage is yet another extension of Marx's ridiculous statements about the abolition of the family, but if people want to get married, let them.

If capitalism is eventually overthrown and marriage as a legal concept is abolished and everyone is liberated, would people then not be allowed to engage in cultural ceremonies of commitment (the original form of marriage, present in some way in every known culture)? That would be just another form of oppression.

It seems to me that a lot of people in this thread are letting their own agendas block their consideration for other people. Let people do what they want, even if you don't agree with the choice. I can't believe I just had to make that argument for gay marriage on a leftist website...

[The Disillusionist]

So that makes any advancement of their desire, no matter how liberal, something that should be celebrated? Do you think that because most workers want capital, we should celebrate every worker who becomes rich through the exploitation of other workers?

Empire is using them to reproduce labour- even if they aren't a couple that can physically reproduce they can still raise children to be Good Citizens. It has decided it will allow gays to participate in the machine that destroys queers.

So? When what they want is not only a product of but a tool of exploitation and control. If they want to impose that on themselves I can safely say that I think it's stupid.

So you're now comparing gay marriage to the exploitation of others? That seems like a stretch. Also, "Empire" is not a consciousness, it's an extension of our culture, which can be changed. The legalization of gay marriage has been the product of gay efforts, not some conspiracy by "empire". And I still think that it is condescending to say minimize that effort or to say that all the people who fought for gay marriage are just "stupid" because they endorse cultural values that you don't.

Also, Rafiq, read a book on culture. And then read my posts again. Maybe read them 3, 4, 5, 6, even 7 times, until you can finally comprehend what I actually wrote.

[Thirsty Crow]

No one made gay marriage mandatory, it's not required. Gay people don't have to get married now, they simply have access to one more cultural option than they previously had. I know that this knee-jerk reaction to marriage is yet another extension of Marx's ridiculous statements about the abolition of the family, but if people want to get married, let them.

This isn't true if some...I don't know what words to use, "rights", are granted only insofar as people are legally married. In that case it is clear that a set of obligations and rights which are a product of the once exclusively heterosexual institution excludes people who for one reason or another do not want to take part in it.

[Hermes]

But that's not how culture works. They have still been raised up into the same culture. LGBT people have definitely been assimilated as a whole, just like every other person who was raised up into this culture. Your definition of culture is way, way too narrow, which is a really common problem in this thread and on this website. You can't escape culture, you can only change it.

I think this entire discussion is ridiculous, but I'd also argue that your conception of culture is way too broad. For instance, the dominant culture regularly excludes certain groups of people, regardless of whether or not they were 'raised' in that culture. One need only look at some of the Jewish population in Germany, during Hitler's rise to power, who wanted nothing more than to be seen as Germans.

Arguing from a definition of 'culture,' then, that includes the entirety of a population, will only ever lead to gibberish. There are myriad levels of 'culture,' none of which apply to an entire population simply because they were raised in it. We might as well stop talking about 'culture,' as you put it, in the United States, and start talking about 'culture' in the world. After all, what's the point in differentiating?

--


It seems to me that a lot of people in this thread are letting their own agendas block their consideration for other people. Let people do what they want, even if you don't agree with the choice. I can't believe I just had to make that argument for gay marriage on a leftist website...

I think this is another misrepresentation of most people's arguments in this thread. Are we no longer allowed to criticize, simply because people have 'chosen' to do things? More importantly, though:


Let people do what they want, even if you don't agree with the choice.

How far are you willing to extend this logic? Is something that is harmful permissible, or impervious to criticism, simply because one wishes to do it?

[Rafiq]

Also, Rafiq, read a book on culture. And then read my posts again. Maybe read them 3, 4, 5, 6, even 7 times, until you can finally comprehend what I actually wrote.

Let's look at the profound understanding of culture Disillusionist possesses:


But that's not how culture works. They have still been raised up into the same culture. LGBT people have definitely been assimilated as a whole, just like every other person who was raised up into this culture.

Yet again this idiotic fetishistic notion of "culture" which has, incidentally, been responsible for drawing conclusions like how blacks are genetically dumber because, as it happens, when they're raised by whites in the same "white culture" they still end up lagging behind as far as their test and IQ scores go. The fact of the matter is that you don't know shit about what you're talking about - it doesn't mean shit to have been raised up in the same society to constitute cultural homogeneity. Likewise, homosexuals might grow up in the same culture, and may even be a part of the same culture, but this does not constitute cultural assimilation, because their cultural belonging is precisely a relationship of difference, it is precisely the reality of being gay in a "culture" (which again is FUCKING idiotic because placing primacy upon culture is no better than placing primacy on the stock market) wherein it constitutes a deviation from sexual relations that is important.

Regarding "culture", biological determinists, pseudo-darwinists, and evolutionary psychologists love throwing the word around because according to their vulgar, philistine discourse - the only thing that separates us from our pure biological impulses, insofar as we would be identical to animals, is "culture". Cultural difference, according to them, is all that distinguishes the variations in "human behavior" (It's so cute how they refer to "humans" like some kind of external, observable animal).


I know that this knee-jerk reaction to marriage is yet another extension of Marx's ridiculous statements about the abolition of the family, but if people want to get married, let them.

If capitalism is eventually overthrown and marriage as a legal concept is abolished and everyone is liberated, would people then not be allowed to engage in cultural ceremonies of commitment (the original form of marriage, present in some way in every known culture)? That would be just another form of oppression.


Ultimately you miss the point, the point is not to put restrictions on people's sexual practices codified in law, but to destroy the institutional and social basis of marriage. If people wish to commit to each other, and live with each other - they are free to do so, but this would not be officially recognized institutionally - there would be no distinction between them and those who are non-married. With the basis of marriage done away with, and its practical necessity, it can be assumed that such a practice would no longer be prevalent at all. What you hilariously ignore is that in hunter-gatherer societies that do have marriage, it's a ritualistic phenomena, it is not out of spontaneous inclination - it is regulated socially out of social necessity, not biological necessity. When divorce was legalized in the Soviet Union, immediatly the rates of divorce became so high among the peasantry that marriage lost all meaning together - people would re-marry on an extra- regular basis. Come industrialization, Soviet authorities had to make divorce harder and re-affirm the institutional basis of marriage in order to regulate reproductive behavior. You keep repeating arguments that I have destroyed over, and over again. For the last fucking time: Even if it was true, that marriage existed in "every known culture" (and this is ambiguous - marriage most certainly did not exist in "every known culture", the fact that reproductive practices were regulated on a ceremonial level does not come close to the "marriage" as a phenomena unique to civilization. It is a stupid game of projecting) - all that demonstrates is that the necessity of regulating reproductive practices in approximation to social relations to production was necessary. We have no reason to believe this would be necessary in Communism. Again, we can point to examples like the case in the Soviet Union, where marriage was only given a re-affirmative place through the process of industrialization, and modernization - in the cities, it was not nearly as much as a problem (the loose nature of marriage) as it was in the countryside, and that was solely due to the state's constructive power being crippled through the civil war, wherein state-run orphanages, or their application in the countryside, was too costly. In addition, communal rearing in the Kibbutzim in Israel vanished in coincidence with privatization and the necessity to conform to Israeli capitalism.

Yet you have yet to address ANY of these points, in the whole history of this drivel about how the "family will never be abolished because it has always existed". The "family" is purely an abstraction here. The airplane has never existed before its invention, and neither did the computer - but you can make out the abstraction of "travel", "communication" and finally "technology" to have a timeless existence. These abstractions, how we emphasize them, are purely wrought out from PRESENT conditions, they are not timeless totems of civilization that have been orally carried over by the centuries - they are categories we have formed in the modern era in order to conceive history in a way that conforms to our standard of reason. There is no way to draw equivalency between a computer and papyrus scripts, there is no way to draw equivalency between the airplane and the longboat, because these were used for entirely different reasons in entirely different contexts. And likewise, the same goes for the "family" - its existence is not owed to some metaphysical law written in the cosmos, whether that is going to be written off as some kind of innate biological predisposition (Which there is no evidence for) or as divine law. Its existence is owed to each according social epoch. Marriage might have been necessary in societies without effective contraceptive methods, and societies whose populations were precariously supported by production, but none of these would be problems in a post-capitalist society.

Let me ask you something: In every civilization, there has existed war. In every civilization, there has existed classes. Finally, in every civilization (or even society), there has existed gender. Answer me: If a society without war, without classes and without gender all at the same time has never existed, aren't these inevitable, and innate phenomena? Ignore the rest of this. I want a straight answer.

[Rafiq]

It's even more ridiculous when Engels himself explicitly stated that the abolition of marriage as an institution would coincide with the arrival of "true monogamy", which he deemed as inherently Communist, free from economic considerations, and based purely on mutual attraction. Whether this holds up today, who can know.

We do know that the idea is infinitely implausible to someone who actually thinks that we are hard-wired to be attracted to people based on economic considerations.

[The Feral Underclass]

No one made gay marriage mandatory, it's not required. Gay people don't have to get married now, they simply have access to one more cultural option than they previously had. I know that this knee-jerk reaction to marriage is yet another extension of Marx's ridiculous statements about the abolition of the family, but if people want to get married, let them.

We're no talking about the practicalities of gay marriage legislation though, are we? We're talking about the way assimilation and equality are essentially the same thing. It's irrelevant whether gay people can opt out of gay marriage, you stated that gay marriage was about getting respect from straight people. This basically means that to get respect (as if respect was something we would want in the first place) we have to be like straight people.


It seems to me that a lot of people in this thread are letting their own agendas block their consideration for other people. Let people do what they want, even if you don't agree with the choice. I can't believe I just had to make that argument for gay marriage on a leftist website...

Once again you just assume that because we're on the left we somehow have to support gay marriage, yet you have failed to adequately address any of my criticisms other than to use "equality" as some kind of trump card in which I should just suddenly be convinced.

Let me try this in another way, since clearly I am failing to coherently explain myself: What does anything you have said in this thread have to do with the destruction of capitalism, the state and heteronormativity?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What does anything you have said in this thread have to do with the destruction of capitalism, the state and heteronormativity?
If the Supreme Court had ruled against same-sex marriage, would we be any closer to the destruction of capitalism, the state and heteronormativity?

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know, when I read this I'm reminded about the people here (some of them are in this thread....) who complain that revolution is always our only answer to any problem and short of that we have nothing to do in the interim or to add to a discussion. I think those two options really are all that is available short of a revolutionary movement, which obviously doesn't exist otherwise we would be talking about that. It's hard to see how the heteronormative structure of society could be challenged without attacking the sexual divide directly. And how could one do that short of overthrowing every aspect of existing society? Obviously I want that, but few others seem interested.

Revolution is our only answer, I don't understand why it is such a problem to start from that premise. If we firmly understand our objective as the overthrowing of every aspect of existing society then the question is, what role do we play in that? Is it to conform to the processes of capitalist subsumption? Obviously not.

It is interesting that you use words like "interim" because what is the interim if it is not simply the continuation of bourgeois society? And what is bourgeois society if not the antithesis of everything we stand for. Our role as communists therefore is to attack all the time. In every form that takes. The downfall of capitalism won't happen because we are communists, it will happen in spite of it, so what difference does it make if others are interested. If capitalism falls it will happen irrespective of what we do and if it never falls then what should the task of communists have been? To support reform? That is precisely what capitalism wants from its opposition -- to support it's processes. It is the perfect rouse! Our task is, and always should be, ruthless criticism of all that exists, "ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be."

Opposition, escalation, conflict. These are the things we should concern ourselves with.

[The Feral Underclass]

If the Supreme Court had ruled against same-sex marriage, would we be any closer to the destruction of capitalism, the state and heteronormativity?

So the answer is nothing...?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So the answer is nothing...?
Yes. Marriage equality is a reformist issue that doesn't challenge the bourgeois order. I don't think anyone here disputes that.

What I know is there are now LGBT people who, because of a piece of paper issued by the state, will be able to visit their spouse in the hospital, won't have to go through an expensive adoption process to have parental rights, can cross state lines within the US without losing those rights, etc. I for one see no need to shit on that.

[BIXX]

So you're now comparing gay marriage to the exploitation of others? That seems like a stretch.
It's not a comparison to the capitalist system so much as commenting on the ridiculous notion that just because an oppressed group wants something they should be able to have it, even if it overall acts against their interests.

For example, most workers want cops. Do you agree with them?
Most workers want to be able to get rich? Do you think that we should live in a society where that's possible?
I could go on forever with that list. The point is that most people want dumb bullshit, or they want something that will directly contribute to their own entrapment and exploitation. Marriage is no different.


Also, "Empire" is not a consciousness
I never said it is a consciousness. But it has the quality of consciousness, and self-consciousness. To borrow from tiqqun, empire is the hotile terrain that opposes autonomy.


And I still think that it is condescending to say minimize that effort or to say that all the people who fought for gay marriage are just "stupid" because they endorse cultural values that you don't.
OK, fine not stupid. Misguided. Unless your interest is in living in capitalist society forever.



Let me ask you something: In every civilization, there has existed war. In every civilization, there has existed classes. Finally, in every civilization (or even society), there has existed gender. Answer me: If a society without war, without classes and without gender all at the same time has never existed, aren't these inevitable, and innate phenomena? Ignore the rest of this. I want a straight answer.

I'm just curious, is this the line of reasoning you follow? That becuase something has always been some way that it can only ever be that way? Or am I misunderstanding the question?

I mean, I don't think gender, class, war, etc... are at all inherent (then again, I will say that with any conception of society/civ/community i am aware of, they would be, but not inherent to our existence) and I don't think you do either but the way your question is worded implies that you think there are inherent.

[Spectre of Spartacism]

Why are people writing in 32 point font in their posts? Is there a way to disable these font changes?

[Rafiq]

No, but I would like him to admit that he believes these things will never disappear, because it follows from his logic that the family's abolition is impossible because "marriage has always existed in every society in some form". I would like him to be consistent and, therefore, admit to everyone he isn't a radical.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes

Then what is the purpose of supporting it?


What I know is there are now LGBT people who, because of a piece of paper issued by the state, will be able to visit their spouse in the hospital, won't have to go through an expensive adoption process to have parental rights, can cross state lines within the US without losing those rights, etc. I for one see no need to shit on that.

It's not about shitting on anything, but about challenging your priorities. It's great that people have these things, but these rights strengthen bourgeois society. What is more important to you? These rights, or destroying capitalism, the state and heternormativity?

[QueerVanguard]

Then what is the purpose of supporting it?



It's not about shitting on anything, but about challenging your priorities. It's great that people have these things, but these rights strengthen bourgeois society. What is more important to you? These rights, or destroying capitalism, the state and heternormativity?

my thoughts exactly

[QueerVanguard]

No, but I would like him to admit that he believes these things will never disappear, because it follows from his logic that the family's abolition is impossible because "marriage has always existed in every society in some form". I would like him to be consistent and, therefore, admit to everyone he isn't a radical.

the dude is your run of the mill cis white empiricist and you're asking him to view things through the dialectic. of course he's not radical and his brand of "Communism" is nothing more than a new form of Utopian Social Democracy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's not about shitting on anything, but about challenging your priorities. It's great that people have these things, but these rights strengthen bourgeois society. What is more important to you? These rights, or destroying capitalism, the state and heternormativity?
Does it really strengthen bourgeois society, though? It's true it does no harm to bourgeois society, but that's not the same thing.

[The Feral Underclass]

Does it really strengthen bourgeois society, though? It's true it does no harm to bourgeois society, but that's not the same thing.

Well yeah, that's how reforms work. It's how capitalist ideology subsumed radical dissent -- by offering reforms and de-escalating conflict...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well yeah, that's how reforms work. It's how capitalist ideology subsumed radical dissent -- by offering reforms and de-escalating conflict...
Except, 20 years ago, the LGBT community as a whole wasn't going "we can't marry, so let's overthrow capitalism". If SCOTUS had ruled against same-sex marriage the other day, the LGBT community as a whole wasn't going to rise up in rebellion against capitalism. The capitalist system is no more or less strong today than before the ruling.

[The Feral Underclass]

Except, 20 years ago, the LGBT community as a whole wasn't going "we can't marry, so let's overthrow capitalism". If SCOTUS had ruled against same-sex marriage the other day, the LGBT community as a whole wasn't going to rise up in rebellion against capitalism. The capitalist system is no more or less strong today than before the ruling.

This is an ahistorical statement, not to mention completely naive. It's as if the last 100 years of capitalist ideological hegemony never happened.

It's irrelevant whether the LGBT community were going to rebel against capitalism, the point is that the challenges that queer communists should have been making to the idea of marriage and working to generalise that challenge has now been subsumed by this reform you are celebrating. This has now made our job more difficult and it's been made difficult by the very people who need it to be easier. Marriage equality is now a fact. It is a bourgeois institution that people now rally to as a sign of liberation. Giving marriage equality not only strengthens bourgeois institutions like marriage, it makes it look like liberation so that the very people who suffer heteronormative oppression are convinced they've achieved something something profound and no longer see escalating challenges as necessary. Why challenge bourgeois society when it gives us reforms as sensational as gay marriage? If this had been a premeditated plan, it would have made Frank Underwood look like Jonah Ryan. What we are left with is an avenue of conflict closed off and the institutions and logic of bourgeois society strengthened by the very people who should be working to weaken it. What a coup de grâce!

Marriage is also a huge industry that has now just essentially doubled its market. Not only has this bourgeois institution been strengthened and legitimised by queer people it has generated markets in which people will be exploited and profits will be made.

[The Disillusionist]

the dude is your run of the mill cis white empiricist and you're asking him to view things through the dialectic. of course he's not radical and his brand of "Communism" is nothing more than a new form of Utopian Social Democracy.

First of all, me being white cis has nothing to do with the legitimacy or lack thereof of my arguments. Second, I'm actually not even that extreme of an empiricist... I study culture and its influence on people as a career. Its just hard to be around you lot and not end up being pushed into an empiricist position. Third, the dialectic in the Marxist context is garbage to a large extent, and completely lacking in perspective, but that's another discussion... And fourth.... I'm not even a Communist... I think Communism is also garbage for the most part, though I do have some anarcho-Communist sympathies. I'm a social anarchist above all else.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This is an ahistorical statement. It's as if the last 100 years of capitalist ideological hegemony never happened.
You mean back when we had a relevant Left and "actually existing socialism" was seen as a threat by the ruling class?


Marriage is also a huge industry that has now just essentially doubled its market. Not only has this bourgeois institution been strengthened and legitimised by queer people it has generated markets in which people will be exploited and profits will be made.
You know what's going to fix that? A mass struggle against capitalism. I'm not convinced that marriage equality has made the possibility for that struggle any worse than it already is in the US.

[The Disillusionist]

No, but I would like him to admit that he believes these things will never disappear, because it follows from his logic that the family's abolition is impossible because "marriage has always existed in every society in some form". I would like him to be consistent and, therefore, admit to everyone he isn't a radical.

What is "radical" and "revolutionary" has nothing to do with how much I agree with the theories of a guy that has been dead for a hundred years.

I can't make any certain statements about the future, but scientific evidence strongly suggests that family has a strong psychological and biological basis in the human brain. On the other hand, we have no real evidence to support the idea that family will be abolished in the future. So I find it much for sensical to think critically, and create my theories based on the data that is actually present, rather than believing something just because Marx said so. My theory is that family will probably always exist i n some form or another, among all human societies. I would have to see real, compelling evidence to be convinced otherwise.

Societies without war and without classes, on the other hand, do exist and are observable. Therefore I think it is more likely that war and classes could diminish or go away in the future, though it is not scientifically likely that they will go away on a global scale.

[PhoenixAsh]

Hmmm.

There is only one struggle that aims to abolish capitalism and class society and that is class struggle.

The idea that there are group specific struggles is identity politics and their aims are not geared towards ending either capitalism nor ending class society (although they can, and often will, intersect with it)...by their entire definition these struggles are fought within any given class society and all identities are cross class and non class specific identities towards equality within that structure.

This is known. This is analysed.

Identity politics is limited in its possibilities and opportunities because these identities are not classes and can not, by themselves, in any way shape or form dissolve a given mode of production and the resulting social structures. Identity politics are therefore limited to strive towards the highest amount of conformity to the dominant identity withing these social structures (in this case capitalism and capitalist society). It is a practical and realistic impossibility to expect identity politics to do anything more because it is inherent in the class system of the mode of production.

For that structure to change either the mode of production needs to change or there needs to be a class struggle that ends class society....and outside that...everything is and always will be reform, equality to the normative, or token advances or geared towards ending specific points of discrimination and acceptance within the norm.

The idea that LGBTQ liberation is possible within a capitalist structure is naive. The idea that LGBTQ liberation organizations can topple capitalism is naive. And even the idea that LGBTQ is a uniform group free of the same biases towards each other as general society has is naive.

Does this make that struggle worthless? No.

We all know equal pay will not end patriarchy. Yet we will strive for just that because we know that it is a step towards the goal....and we don't argue against it because pay equality may mean that some women may become complacent and say or think that patriarchy is not such a bad problem anymore. Because that is just silly. It is an all or nothing line of thought which logically means that everything just has to wait until the revolution is finally there. It boils down to the idea that people just have to learn to live with it until "we" are ready.

[The Feral Underclass]

You mean back when we had a relevant Left and "actually existing socialism" was seen as a threat by the ruling class?

No, that's not what I mean.


You know what's going to fix that? A mass struggle against capitalism.

Then why are you supporting political reforms that extends capitalism into the queer community?


I'm not convinced that marriage equality has made the possibility for that struggle any worse than it already is in the US.

History dramatically demonstrates how political reforms pacify generations and strengthens and legitimises bourgeois society. There are literally countless examples of when that has been the case. For you to be unconvinced by that is to be completely unaware of history.

[The Feral Underclass]

For the record, I haven't claimed that queer liberation is possible under capitalism.

[PhoenixAsh]

For the record, I haven't claimed that queer liberation is possible under capitalism.

For the record...I never said you did. :) My post was not specifically aimed at anybody...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Then why are you supporting political reforms that extends capitalism into the queer community?
You mean the queer community that exists within a capitalist society? Capitalism was already there. There is no sphere within capitalism free from capitalism. The idea that the SCOTUS ruling suddenly extended capitalism into a place where it wasn't before is frankly idealist.


History dramatically demonstrates how political reforms pacify generations and strengthens and legitimises bourgeois society. There are literally countless examples of when that has been the case. For you to be unconvinced by that is to be completely unaware of history.As someone active in the US queer community for over two decades, I can assure you it was pacified long, long before the SCOTUS ruling or even before marriage equality was on the agenda, or rather it was self-pacified from within.

[The Feral Underclass]

You mean the queer community that exists within a capitalist society? Capitalism was already there. There is no sphere within capitalism free from capitalism. The idea that the SCOTUS ruling suddenly extended capitalism into a place where it wasn't before is frankly idealist.

Gay marriage didn't exist before it existed, so I'm not disputing your obvious assertion about capitalism, what I'm saying is that you have supported a political reform that has enabled new markets within the queer community and new opportunities for exploitation of workers. You could argue that everything we do conforms to that standard and you'd be right, but I am talking specifically about political process and strategy. Supporting political reforms that strengthen capitalism in this way is counter-intuitive to an anti-capitalist agenda. You appear to be claiming that just because capitalism exists it is therefore just par for the course that we would support political reforms that create new markets for capitalism, or at the very least something that just is. But you also claim that the only way to end capitalism is to create mass struggle against that, which to me seems a contradictory viewpoint. Strategically speaking, how can you build this mass struggle to capitalism if you are supporting political reforms that create markets for capitalism? How is that any different to the view that workers' co-operatives can challenge capitalism?


As someone active in the US queer community for over two decades, I can assure you it was pacified long, long before the SCOTUS ruling or even before marriage equality was on the agenda, or rather it was self-pacified from within.

Then why are you supporting political reforms that solidify that fact? None of what you're saying makes sense: capitalism already exists so why not support capitalist reforms, even though we're anti-capitalist; the queer community is already pacified so lets support reforms that are even more pacifying.

This logic is precisely why the left is so impotent.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

what I'm saying is that you have supported a political reform that has enabled new markets within the queer community and new opportunities for exploitation of workers.
Again, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of capitalism if you think same-sex marriage means new opportunities to exploit workers. Workers are no more or less exploited with or without same-sex marriage.


Supporting political reforms that strengthen capitalism in this way is counter-intuitive to an anti-capitalist agenda.
Capitalism would be just as strong today without marriage equality.


You appear to be claiming that just because capitalism exists it is therefore just par for the course that we would support political reforms
No, I'm saying that opposing reforms without presenting an alternative is just ultraleftism run amok. If a queer worker can't have access to their partner in the hospital or their kids are being taken away because they crossed a state line, is "we'll fix it after the revolution" a realistic solution?


None of what you're saying makes sense: capitalism already exists so why not support capitalist reforms, even though we're anti-capitalist
Marriage should be abolished, but as it's part of the bourgeois ideology, first we must abolish the material conditions behind that ideology. In the meantime, shitting on people having access to their partners in a hospital strikes me as being an ultraleft asshole just for the hell of it.

[Rafiq]

I can't make any certain statements about the future, but scientific evidence strongly suggests that family has a strong psychological and biological basis in the human brain. On the other hand, we have no real evidence to support the idea that family will be abolished in the future. So I find it much for sensical to think critically, and create my theories based on the data that is actually present, rather than believing something just because Marx said so. My theory is that family will probably always exist i n some form or another, among all human societies. I would have to see real, compelling evidence to be convinced otherwise.


I can't believe you actually have the fucking audacity to repeat this when you've been continually, continually knocked the fuck down in the past using the SAME arguments. Just some:

And even if this were true (which it is not, frankly), all this suggests is that in various different cultures marriage was necessitated by a definite relationship to survival. This is not evidence that marriage has a biological basis, it is evidence that every culture was not without the same conditions which made marriage probable. The fact of the matter is that you, like any other evolutionary psychologist, can do nothing but repeat the same old metaphysical logical fallacies - that something may have always existed does not mean it is innate.


There is absolutely no evidence for, and there will never be evidence for, the idea that the family unit is inevitably a result of pre-ordained physiological structures:

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of evolutionary psychology. The point is not to make claims wholly deduced from "data we have", but to justify things which exist today. What you fail to understand is that marriage in a hunter-gatherer society (assuming it existed) existed for entirely different reasons than it does today. And it cannot be called "marriage" in any meaningful sense, as marriage denotes a relationship of power. Even, if we play the devil's advocate, even if it is true that humans are "hormonally" predisposed to pair bonding, this enough does not sustain the structural mechanism of marriage! In present society, most people are capable of having multiple partners and "pair bonding" with multiple people. Communists do not argue that humans will somehow automatically have group-relationships, but that marriage has no biological basis and that only Communism is capable of destroying the foundations which sustain it. Marriage exists to control women's reproductive capacities, in order to reproduce the condition of life. A society that is socially self-conscios does not have to do this, and in addition, with modern day contraceptive methods the entire material basis for marriage in Communism will disappear.

If something is of political significance, it cannot be attributed to "biological mechanisms". Even so, humans do not have
"natural" mating practices. I mean, if anything all you reveal is a lack of imagination. Are you fucking kidding me? We go from the production of oxytocin to the institution of marriage? Oxytocin is not responsible for "committed" inter-sexual relations, it is involved in the facilitation of intimacy. Any idiot with a semblance of experience in matters of love know that intimacy alone cannot sustain not only marriage, but any relationship. The fact that you can't even imagine a world where intimacy between people can exist, but marriage would not, reveals the innate ignorance of the evolutionary psychologist. You simply doesn't understand the variation such biological mechanisms are capable of, you are completely limited by present standards of sexuality. In addition, 95% of marriages at the very least throughout history most likely didn't have a basis of direct intimacy in their inception but were pre-meditated by families. Oxytocin production, if you will, came afterwards as wives learned to adjust to their sexual slavery.

And yet, with all of this in mind, you claim "Marx was probably wrong in this regard". Because of course, during Marx's time, people just didn't know that oxytocin production was real. This philistine, ladies and gentlemen, would have us believe that if Marx and Engels were aware that there was a compound in the brain that was involved in the facilitation of intimacy and its usage in pair bonding, their entire conception of the family would have fallen to pieces. This perfectly encapsulates the sheer arrogance and naivity of those who attempt to challenge Marx in a way that only takes advantage of the fact that he know longer lives to respond, i.e. something that Marx could have been WELL AWARE OF and would have changed nothing.

I mean, even in animals, you're telling me they're monogamous? Let me ask you a very basic question: If marriage 'probably will not disappear' (which is not interchangeable with committed relationships) because we are biologically predisposed to it, why then were societies for thousands of years able to sustain a system of polygamy, i.e. men possessing multiple wives? The question is rather simple: If humans are naturally predisposed to fuck each other solely in pairs, how was this possible? Then comes the hypocrisy: They'll say - "Well men have more sex cells, so it was a biological mechanism all along". They will justify and legitimize any institution which embodies the sexual domination of the female sex, even if it violates their immediate conception of "natural" marriage. So explain away, Dillusionist. Tell us all how humans are "biologically" predisposed to marriage. "It's existed in every human culture". Let's assume this is true (And it's NOT for the last time! There are recorded cultures that simply did not have marriage) - this does not mean it has a biological basis. The fallacy is rather pathetic because hunter-gatherer societies were not the 'natural state' of man, there is no 'natural' state of man wherein he is reducible to an animal. If marriage existed in those societies, it was because it was materially necessiated. Societies that live in a precarious existence, which cannot produce enough food to feed more than small groups, could be posited to have to regulate reproduction in some way. Again, there is no feasible evidence to suggest marriage in any form existed in hunter-gatherer societies.


But to address this in a more pertinent manner, though the "family" has always existed (and let's take a minute to actually think about this - why wouldn't it have existed in pre-civilzied societies? One would have to actually, intentionally go out of their way to dump their fucking kids in the wilderness to prevent some kind of 'family' formation - these were societies that engaged in communal rearing, the idea that they constituted a "family" is beyond fucking stupid), never has the family remained the same trans-historically. If the family continually changes, so much so that it is completely transform wherein all that remains is the abstraction called "the family", what element physiologically is responsible for the structural variance experienced on a historic level? In addition, the family unit is not reducible to "cultural" difference across history, because again, culture in the sense that you employ it is solely a cosmetic, an aesthetic category wherein the same behaviors are mediated but in ways that constituted different appearances. This might be true for historically identical societies - capitalist societies across "cultures" but it is not true for societies in different historic epochs. As I've already mentioned, we cannot be physiologically predisposed to marriage because the various forms marriage has taken throughout history have changed. You mention chemicals involved with "pair bonding" but this is hardly enough to sustain the institution of marraige, for fuck's sake. Those same chemicals are used during one night stands, and yet how many of those end in marriage?

You have offered no evidence, not ANY to suggest that the family has a physiological basis in the brain. You might be able to isolate the chemicals involved with the family, but take a minute to actually think about how fucking stupid this is: There are chemicals in the brain which are involved when you type on your fucking computer. Does that mean, that in fact, the keyboard has its basis in structures in the brain? Previously, you've accused me of "rejecting that some things are knowable", but you're wholly rejecting a critical evaluation of the causal basis of the family, you instead engage in metaphysical, logical fallacies about "this will always be there because it has always existed". Is that scientific in your mind? You claim that we have "no evidence that family will disappear in Communism", but we provide a consistent, scientific basis for the origins of the family and how the conditions which sustain it would not exist in a post-capitalist society, we have no reason to think that the family will exist in a post-capitalist society because saying that "it has always existed" alone is not a sufficiently scientific basis for assuming that it would continue to exist, because ultimately it is superstitious to think something is 'inevitable' in principle without providing a sufficient causal basis. No previous social revolution in the history of class society contained in it the social, or ideological imperative to destroy the family and then - "failed" to do so. Is this not relevant in your eyes? Likewise, there is no evidence that there is no god, but that doesn't negate the reality that there is no god., because one can be free from the unscientific presumptions that lead you to think there would be one. In case you didn't know, ideas occupy energy and effort, whether you're aware or not.

You claim something which there is no evidence for, and then demand there to be evidence on the contrary. Well, what evidence are you looking for? You insist on refraining from critical thinking and "useless and unproductive word producing" so what do you want to hear? You're literally so ignorant that - knowing very well it isn't enough to sufficiently sustain the idea - you just "accept" the idea that the family is inevitable in any society, because "with the data we have, that's all we can know". That's the vulgar logic of the empiricist philistine. What sick, self-limiting way of thinking! But let's evaluate this data, and the qualifications for producing it - by them, we don't have any data which suggests this. We don't have any data which confirms this. For someone who views history as a cycle, wherein change from one thing to another is possible, wherein all that could occur in the future is an exaltation of a quantity already existing in the past, it comes as no surprise when we hear him say:


Therefore I think it is more likely that war and classes could diminish or go away in the future, though it is not scientifically likely that they will go away on a global scale.

This reformist rat - who by now should be shipped off to OI - is led to the conclusion that "It is not scientifically likely that they will go away on a global scale."

Of course, that is because he is incapable of grasping qualitative changes - but let me ask you all, what sustains the kind of logic which attempts to proclaim the impossibility of historic change? What kind of power breaths vitality in the notion that all that has ever existed is a projection of that which already exists, and that all that will ever exist will be nothing more than the quantitative exaltation of what exists now? Where is the point of reference? Present day capitalist society. Who benefits from such logic? Those in power. For someone who is a biological determinist, you should know that our conception of the past and future is entirely contingent upon our present 'biological' constitution - there is no such thing as the "past" or "future" which metaphysically looms over us, everything we can make of them derives from the conditions of now.

Likewise, in virtually every class society that proceeded capitalism, the concept of the future seldom made room for technological innovation. Indeed, in the fantasies, in the predictions of the future, the sword, the bronze ship, the horse, the harvests were all pre-supposed to be as inevitable as classes and war are for Disilluinoist. In fantasies, they could only predict the exaltation of what existed as a quantity - i.e. "swords of great power", "horses faster than any other" and so on. Qualitative difference was not possible in the scope of their imagination, because everything derived from their relationship to their real conditions of life and production. In present day capitalist society, where the means of production are constantly revolutionized, we can perceive a future in terms of technological change, in terms of - even "cultural" and political change, because capitalism's revolutions which permeate all of these things are a part of our whole capitalist epoch.

This man of "science" comes here, and attempts to intimate us into thinking that 'science' supports the conclusion that war and class are inevitabilities of life. No scientific basis of class or war "on a global scale" is offered to us. Instead, everything is an quantitative exaltation of that which "has always existed". Let us prostrate before the ruling classes now, declare the futility of our cause and stop with the harking about in our opposition to war, to the vile domination, exploitation and hell that is our class society. These things are "inevitable"! Our historic Communist tradition... Forget it! Isn't this so convenient, you fucking reactionary piece of shit? Try again.

What this dolt fails to understand is that even if these things are magically inevitable, we know that their present form is not inevitable. We KNOW THEIR BASIS. It is superstitious to think that they will arise again, in some form or another - for reasons that remain inexplicable. Let them hark on with their bullshit.

[Rafiq]

Or, let us proclaim ourselves Chomskyans, "social anarchists", who recognize the futility of the "extreme" demands of the Communists but none the less think that some improvements can be made to "the overall well being of humanity". Right, Disillusionist? Anarchism, to you, is more of a "philosophy", a guiding light and a moral framework about what's right or wrong in pertinence to the reformation of the system.

[PhoenixAsh]

Marriage is not a inate. It is a purely socal construct. But it is constructed around an inate need to bond with somebody and it dictates how that bond should look.

The Disillusionist isn't wrong when they say that people will always feel that need and that for some it will always be important to have that bond with just one person and to formalise it in some way or another.

Where it goes wrong is marriage is a specific property construct whose concept is dependant on the specific era and holds legal consequences.

If marriage is abolished this doesn't mean that people can't have rings and draw up certificates or hold nice ceremonies. But rather than this bond having legal repercussions and having legal obligations the bond is based on mutual consent for as long as that consent exists between whoever and how many people decide to do so and based on the agreements they make in any form they wish. Society doesn't and shouldn't have a stake in it. Nor should the bond be allowed to be based on gederized legal threats. Because that is what marriage in essence is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Again, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of capitalism if you think same-sex marriage means new opportunities to exploit workers. Workers are no more or less exploited with or without same-sex marriage.

Gay marriage is a new market within capitalism. Capitalism exists based on the existence of profit. Profit is created through the labour of others. That is exploitation. This is how capitalism works. This is how all businesses work. You are naive if you think gay marriage is not a business.


Capitalism would be just as strong today without marriage equality.

That's just demonstrably untrue. If marriage equality didn't exist there wouldn't be new markets for the pink pound to exploit. Gay marriage has created brand new opportunities for profit making. That by definition has strengthened capitalism.


No, I'm saying that opposing reforms without presenting an alternative is just ultraleftism run amok. If a queer worker can't have access to their partner in the hospital or their kids are being taken away because they crossed a state line, is "we'll fix it after the revolution" a realistic solution?

The alternative is communism. That is the message. That is the only message that is relevant to communists.

When a queer worker says those things the strategic thing to do is build opposition and conflict with the institutions and logic that have created that situation. I.e. bourgeois, heternormative society. It is not supporting political reforms that do the opposite.


Marriage should be abolished, but as it's part of the bourgeois ideology, first we must abolish the material conditions behind that ideology. In the meantime, shitting on people having access to their partners in a hospital strikes me as being an ultraleft asshole just for the hell of it.

This isn't about shitting on anyone and just using the term ultraleft as a pejorative isn't an adequate response to my criticisms. Its petty and puerile.

I am asking you to look at this situation strategically rather than emotionally. If marriage can only be abolished by abolishing the material conditions behind the ideology, how does supporting marriage move you closer to achieving that?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Gay marriage is a new market within capitalism. Capitalism exists based on the existence of profit. Profit is created through the labour of others. That is exploitation. This is how capitalism works.
Yes, but you specifically said "new opportunities for exploitation of workers." Those workers are exploited by capitalism, and would be even if SCOTUS ruled against same-sex marriage. It's not a new opportunity, it's the same old opportunity.


That's just demonstrably untrue. If marriage equality didn't exist there wouldn't be new markets for the pink pound to exploit.
Specify those markets created by marriage equality. All I see are the same old markets.


The alternative is communism. That is the message. That is the only message that is relevant to communists.
So, if a queer worker's partner is dying in a hospital and they can't see them, your message to them is "tough luck". Do I have that correct?


This isn't about shitting on anyone
See your response above.


I am asking you to look at this situation strategically rather than emotionally. If marriage can only be abolished by abolishing the material conditions behind the ideology, how does supporting marriage move you closer to achieving that?
Do I support marriage? I'd say I support people doing what they have to do to make it in an illogical, inhuman society. Just like I take advantage of the reformist food stamp program to buy food each month, because I don't see you sending me a supply of food each month.

Do you demand that married communists immediately divorce their spouse in the name of the Revolution?

[The Disillusionist]

Marriage is not a inate. It is a purely socal construct. But it is constructed around an inate need to bond with somebody and it dictates how that bond should look.

The Disillusionist isn't wrong when they say that people will always feel that need and that for some it will always be important to have that bond with just one person and to formalise it in some way or another.

Where it goes wrong is marriage is a specific property construct whose concept is dependant on the specific era and holds legal consequences.

If marriage is abolished this doesn't mean that people can't have rings and draw up certificates or hold nice ceremonies. But rather than this bond having legal repercussions and having legal obligations the bond is based on mutual consent for as long as that consent exists between whoever and how many people decide to do so and based on the agreements they make in any form they wish. Society doesn't and shouldn't have a stake in it. Nor should the bond be allowed to be based on gederized legal threats. Because that is what marriage in essence is.

Right, if we're talking about the eventual abolishment of marriage as a legal concept, I'm all for that. It's just not going to go away as a cultural phenomenon. And the fact that this cultural phenomenon is now accessible to people of all sexual orientations in this particular society is what I think is good news.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, but you specifically said "new opportunities for exploitation of workers." Those workers are exploited by capitalism, and would be even if SCOTUS ruled against same-sex marriage. It's not a new opportunity, it's the same old opportunity.

Even if what you are saying is true (which it isn't -- this has nothing to do with which workers are being exploited), how does that relate strategically to our role as communists? If for you gay marriage is supportable because it doesn't really create new opportunities to exploit workers, it just continues to exploit workers like they already have been, how does that benefit you as a communist in your mission to fight for communism?


Specify those markets created by marriage equality. All I see are the same old markets.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/cities/gay-marriage-boost-wedding-industry-2015/

New profit; new exploitation. Whether it is the same workers or different workers doesn't stop it from being a new opportunity to exploit workers.


So, if a queer worker's partner is dying in a hospital and they can't see them, your message to them is "tough luck". Do I have that correct?

No...


See your response above.

I'm not really sure how to respond to a communist who thinks maintaining the message of communism in all circumstances is shitting on someone...That just baffles me into speechlessness.


Do I support marriage? I'd say I support people doing what they have to do to make it in an illogical, inhuman society. Just like I take advantage of the reformist food stamp program to buy food each month, because I don't see you sending me a supply of food each month.

Do you demand that married communists immediately divorce their spouse in the name of the Revolution?

You haven't answered my question. My question was not whether you support marriage. My question was how -- strategically speaking -- do you think supporting the political reform of marriage equality works towards abolishing the material conditions that legitimise bourgeois ideology.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's [marriage] just not going to go away as a cultural phenomenon.

The only way you could believe that is because you cannot see beyond heteronormative ideology. It's essentially the same as saying capitalism as a social phenomenon is never going to go away.

Why is marriage as a cultural phenomenon never going to go away? What possible reason would there be for that to be true?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm not really sure how to respond to a communist who thinks maintaining the message of communism in all circumstances is shitting on someone...That just baffles me into speechlessness.
Nothing could baffle you into speechlessness, I suspect. :lol:

Of course we should always maintain the message, but when people are struggling, we should empathize with that.

I mean, in the times I've struggled to have enough food, someone giving me a "wait until after the revolution" attitude would have seriously angered me.


You haven't answered my question. My question was not whether you support marriage.
It should be, because you keep declaring that I do support it.


My question was how -- strategically speaking -- do you think supporting the political reform of marriage equality works towards abolishing the material conditions that legitimise bourgeois ideology.
I think I answered that before. Lack of marriage equality didn't move us any closer to abolishing capitalism, did it? I doubt having it will move us further away from it.

[The Disillusionist]

The only way you could believe that is because you cannot see beyond heteronormative ideology. It's essentially the same as saying capitalism as a social phenomenon is never going to go away.

Why is marriage as a cultural phenomenon never going to go away? What possible reason would there be for that to be true?

Oh my god... I am not having this discussion again. No.... just no.

I will say though, that I have far more evidence backing up my assertion that pair bonding and its associated cultural ceremonies has a scientific foundation than you do for your assumption that marriage is just the result of a "heteronormative ideology". It is NOT the same as saying capitalism as a social phenomenon is never going to go away, capitalism doesn't have the same kind of developmental foundation, and is not a universal across societies.

[John Nada]

Oh my god... I am not having this discussion again. No.... just no.

I will say though, that I have far more evidence backing up my assertion that pair bonding and its associated cultural ceremonies has a scientific foundation than you do for your assumption that marriage is just the result of a "heteronormative ideology". It is NOT the same as saying capitalism as a social phenomenon is never going to go away, capitalism doesn't have the same kind of developmental foundation, and is not a universal across societies.
Marriage is not universal. And it's been going away for the US proletariat, for the (petit-)bourgeoisie are more likely to be married than the former.

[The Disillusionist]

Marriage is not universal. And it's been going away for the US proletariat, for the (petit-)bourgeoisie are more likely to be married than the former.

Yes it is. There is literally no known culture that doesn't have some form of marriage. Find me any culture that you think this isn't true for, and I'll show you why you're wrong. And no, it isn't going away for the US proletariat, it's simply changing forms. Unofficial forms of marriage are rising even as legal marriage wanes in popularity.

[John Nada]

Yes it is. There is literally no known culture that doesn't have some form of marriage. Find me any culture that you think this isn't true for, and I'll show you why you're wrong. And no, it isn't going away for the US proletariat, it's simply changing forms. Unofficial forms of marriage are rising even as legal marriage wanes in popularity.Depends on how you define marriage. If you broaden it to mean some form of cohabitation, perhaps. By the legal contract, obviously no, it isn't(and is spontaneously being rejected by the US proletariat). The latter being legally denied to LGBTQ people in the US till recently, and even between different races in the US till the 60's.

In the context of capitalism still existing, marriage equality is progressive bourgeois democratic right. It enables LGBTQ couples to get benefits like social security. LGBTQ people should have the same right to marriage as straight people, just like interracial couples should. But marriage is not a timeless institution.

[The Disillusionist]

Depends on how you define marriage. If you broaden it to mean some form of cohabitation, perhaps. By the legal contract, obviously no, it isn't(and is spontaneously being rejected by the US proletariat). The latter being legally denied to LGBTQ people in the US till recently, and even between different races in the US till the 60's.

In the context of capitalism still existing, marriage equality is progressive bourgeois democratic right. It enables LGBTQ couples to get benefits like social security. LGBTQ people should have the same right to marriage as straight people, just like interracial couples should. But marriage is not a timeless institution.

I'm talking about socially recognized cohabitation, usually marked by some kind of cultural ceremony, yes.

But no, you are completely right about marriage as a legal concept.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh my god... I am not having this discussion again. No.... just no.

That's an unusual position for someone who posts on a forum designed specifically for discussion to have...


I will say though, that I have far more evidence backing up my assertion that pair bonding and its associated cultural ceremonies has a scientific foundation than you do for your assumption that marriage is just the result of a "heteronormative ideology".

No you don't.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think I answered that before. Lack of marriage equality didn't move us any closer to abolishing capitalism, did it? I doubt having it will move us further away from it.

You can doubt it as much as you want, it doesn't stop it from being true.

[Sinister Intents]

Yes it is. There is literally no known culture that doesn't have some form of marriage. Find me any culture that you think this isn't true for, and I'll show you why you're wrong. And no, it isn't going away for the US proletariat, it's simply changing forms. Unofficial forms of marriage are rising even as legal marriage wanes in popularity.

Do animals like dogs get married and have little rituals?

[PhoenixAsh]

Several animals mate for life and have expansive courtship rituals be fore they do. So...yes actually.

[Sinister Intents]

Several animals mate for life and have expansive courtship rituals be fore they do. So...yes actually.

I just remembered that lol, like the geese that nest down at the pond. I was more thinking about marriage rituals like that of the one in 'Murica and elsewhere. I don't have anything useful to add then that hasn't already been said.

[PhoenixAsh]

I just remembered that lol, like the geese that nest down at the pond. I was more thinking about marriage rituals like that of the one in 'Murica and elsewhere. I don't have anything useful to add then that hasn't already been said.

Well even though you do bring up an interesting point because some animals may mate for life but others don't ....you can also see the various types of bonding within the animal Kingdom itself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Several animals mate for life and have expansive courtship rituals be fore they do. So...yes actually.

Some animals also commit incest, infanticide, rape and cannibalism.

[Sinister Intents]

Well even though you do bring up an interesting point because some animals may mate for life but others don't ....you can also see the various types of bonding within the animal Kingdom itself.

So... What do chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and other apes do? They live in groups of individuals, but do they not have courtship? I'm sure they do in some manner, but like certain birds and other creatures, is it for life? Couldn't marriage in a respect arose from courtship in nature centering around reproduction of the species as well as living in groups for mutual aid and support?

[Sinister Intents]

Some animals also commit incest, infanticide, rape and cannibalism.

Hoomins do all that, and the Amish seem particularly keen on incest

[The Feral Underclass]

Hoomins do all that, and the Amish seem particularly keen on incest

And yet we construct societies in which those things are rejected...

[Sinister Intents]

And yet we construct societies in which those things are rejected...

Incest isn't really good, and neither is infanticide or the other stuff you mentioned. You could go ahead and say good and bad are subjective, but we all seem to generate our own moralities. Incest over a period of time will kill a population off, like the cheetah which is inbred like the Amish. Incest is so bad in the Amish community in my area that they hide their physically deformed and autistic children and abuse them. It's horrible. Religion and marriage are horrible things we must destroy, as well as this whole property system, and the Amish intentionally inbreed for the same reasons old rich white families had arranged marriages work cousins, to keep the property in the family

[Rafiq]

It's kind of hilarious that someone actually thinks that if the economic role of the family disappears, its material necessity, that it would somehow continue to exist. If the family was no longer necessary for survival, it would not exist anymore.

Again, the family unit among proletarians has nothing to do with that of the bourgeoisie - capitalism has already destroyed the basis of the family unit with things like public education and extra-family association which is vital for the development of the child in our society, and all that's left is its pure material necessity.


I'm talking about socially recognized cohabitation, usually marked by some kind of cultural ceremony, yes.

This is only true for societies that need to regulate reproduction in approximation to production. How it is regulated has no universal basis, which means that no - it isn't an inevitable fact of life.

Because of the variance in its existence (i.e. group marriage), it can't have a definite grounding physiologically, so the very idea becomes an abstraction, something only relevant in our heads. If a society wouldn't have to regulate reproduction in approximation to production, there would be no need for such ceremonies. A socially self-conscious society would have no use for them, any more than it would necessitate superstitious rituals to get people to labor.


So... What do chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and other apes do? They live in groups of individuals, but do they not have courtship? I'm sure they do in some manner, but like certain birds and other creatures, is it for life? Couldn't marriage in a respect arose from courtship in nature centering around reproduction of the species as well as living in groups for mutual aid and support?

None of these animals are monogamous, i.e. none of them have mates for life. The only primates which are permanently monogamous, to my knowledge, are gibbons. It would be a stretch to conceive this as a form of marriage in the animal kingdom though, because among gibbons, like other animals, the monogamy is not a social behavior but a reproductive strategy. Hence, gibbons are sexually opportunistic in that they might not stay with their partners for life.

Monogamy for Gibbons is largely more efficient in defending territory and therefore the basis of survival. No animals have a "ceremonial" form of courtship because all monogamy, and the courting behaviors, is largely autonomous and simply inevitable.

[The Feral Underclass]

You have yet to demonstrate anything but your belief that it's true.

If gay marriage is boosting the marriage industry in the U.S. alone by $2.5 billion then how is that not strengthening capitalism, if capitalism is a system predicated on profit?

[BIXX]

Incest isn't really good, and neither is infanticide or the other stuff you mentioned. You could go ahead and say good and bad are subjective, but we all seem to generate our own moralities. Incest over a period of time will kill a population off, like the cheetah which is inbred like the Amish. Incest is so bad in the Amish community in my area that they hide their physically deformed and autistic children and abuse them. It's horrible. Religion and marriage are horrible things we must destroy, as well as this whole property system, and the Amish intentionally inbreed for the same reasons old rich white families had arranged marriages work cousins, to keep the property in the family

Holy shit are those Amish like the beginning of that one really inbred family in the x-files?

[PhoenixAsh]

Republicans...more revolutionary than you....:laugh:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/28/utah-republicans-draft-bill-to-get-rid-of-all-marriages-to-prevent-gay-marriage/

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If gay marriage is boosting the marriage industry in the U.S. alone by $2.5 billion then how is that not strengthening capitalism, if capitalism is a system predicated on profit?
The bourgeois ideological system isn't strengthened because one industry gets a boost in profits. Everyone here is boosting the profits of an industry if we buy a computer, a phone, a bag of carrots, or a pair of shoes.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Semi related: The mock ISIS flag made out of buttplugs and dildos at the london pride parade yesterday is fucking incredible

Yes! That and CNN's embarrassment over its reaction to said flag.
The flag-maker's reaction to the coverage:


CNN correspondent Lucy Pawle described my flag as a "very bad mimicry" but the only bad mimicry I could see was CNN's impression of a reputable news organization.

:lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

The bourgeois ideological system isn't strengthened because one industry gets a boost in profits.

The issue of bourgeois ideological hegemony strengthening is different to that of capitalism strengthening. You said capitalism wasn't strengthened. Now you have been shown that it is, you have changed your view...

In any case, I don't understand how you can say that bourgeois ideological hegemony isn't strengthened by marriage equality. If marriage is part of bourgeois ideology and has just had huge sections of society rally in support of extending and codifying it in law, as well as championing and celebrating it as a concept, in what way isn't the idea and institution of marriage strengthened?

Im sorry, but this discussion has entered the realm of delusion.


Everyone here is boosting the profits of an industry if we buy a computer, a phone, a bag of carrots, or a pair of shoes.

Why do you keep making this point? It is entirely irrelevant. We're not talking about buying computers, we're talking about communists supporting political reforms. You seem to have a real problem separating people's individual lives and strategy. Stop conflating how people survive under capitalism with what communists do as communists. They're not the same thing. Just because someone buys a computer isn't a reason to support political reforms that strengthen capitalism and bourgeois ideology.

[Antiochus]

I mean if your ideological objection to supporting gay marriage is that it 'strengthens Capitalism', do you in the same vein reject the 13th amendment and the freeing slaves in the U.S? -_-

I think you are totally confusing the entire issue. The fact that gays want the legal right to marry in no ways 'strengthens marriage', because even conservatives note that marriage (as we know it now) exists only as a secular institution. For most conservatives/some liberals marriage is being made a 'mockery of' by permitting previously barred people from engaging in it. What isn't there to like about this?


Just because someone buys a computer isn't a reason to support political reforms that strengthen capitalism and bourgeois ideology.

Supporting gay marriage (in this analogy) would be tantamount to support political reforms that permit more people to buy computers, which would, I suppose, strengthen the tech industry. So?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The issue of bourgeois ideological hegemony strengthening is different to that of capitalism strengthening. You said capitalism wasn't strengthened. Now you have been shown that it is, you have changed your view...
Don't put words in my mouth. I don't believe capitalism is stronger after the SCOTUS ruling than it was before it just because one industry will be making more money. What presents a danger to capitalism--the only actual danger--is a mass movement of class-conscious workers.

Does marriage equality fundamentally make it more difficult to build a mass movement of class-conscious workers? No, I don't believe so. Plenty of revolutionaries have been married.

Is marriage as it exists now a reflection of bourgeois ideology? Yes. But the idea that opposing marriage equality will smash bourgeois ideology is backwards. It's in smashing bourgeois ideology that marriage will be abolished.

I don't advocate reformism, but I also don't see a point to opposing reforms just to show how revolutionary we are.

[The Feral Underclass]

I mean if your ideological objection to supporting gay marriage is that it 'strengthens Capitalism', do you in the same vein reject the 13th amendment and the freeing slaves in the U.S? -_-

My objection is that it is strategically incompetent for communists to support political reforms that legitimise reformism and heteronormativity, pacify the queer community, bolster bourgeois ideological hegemony and strengthen capitalism, if your objective is to see a communist society where heteronormativity is smashed.

Some scene fags getting all dressed up and spending thousands of dollars to have a party that celebrates and formalises their monogamous relationship in the eyes of prevailing social norms is not comparable to the freedom of an entire race of people from brutal servitude and genocide. But no, while granting formal and conditional freedom to slaves is better than them being slaves, my first priority would not be to support the 13th amendment. Despite what many Americans may think, your constitution is not the basis for determining whether human beings get to be free from slavery. My support would have gone to any slave rebellion or to those working towards action that would embolden conflict and sought a fundamentally different world. Why? Because I'm a communist and my first priority is communism.


I think you are totally confusing the entire issue. The fact that gays want the legal right to marry in no ways 'strengthens marriage', because even conservatives note that marriage (as we know it now) exists only as a secular institution. For most conservatives/some liberals marriage is being made a 'mockery of' by permitting previously barred people from engaging in it. What isn't there to like about this?

I've explained numerous times what is not to like about it.

Your view doesn't take into consideration the fact that heteronormativity exists despite what conservatives think about marriage. Whether it's secular or religious; gay or straight, it still conforms to prevailing ideological norms that are specifically and entirely based in a heteronormative world view.


Supporting gay marriage (in this analogy) would be tantamount to support political reforms that permit more people to buy computers, which would, I suppose, strengthen the tech industry. So?

How would more people being able to buy computers strategically benefit your fight for communism?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think its ok to be in opposition to this move without having objective reasons for doing so, because honestly some of the justifications you're grasping for are..uhh a little esoteric. I could apply some of this logic to activities im sure you yourself take part in everyday but that would only encourage more pages of this argument. You oppose this because you feel it undermines queer independence and therefore the struggle for communism, fair enough imo.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think its ok to be in opposition to this move without having objective reasons for doing so, because honestly some of the justifications you're grasping for are..uhh a little esoteric. I could apply some of this logic to activities im sure you yourself take part in everyday but that would only encourage more pages of this argument. You oppose this because you feel it undermines queer independence and therefore the struggle for communism, fair enough imo.

Your patronisation notwithstanding, I'm not "grasping" at anything. I think I've very clearly outlined why we should object to gay marriage. I can't really address your criticism if you're not prepared to actually articulate it properly, but I imagine my response would be that you are conflating being a human within capitalism and our role as communists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't believe capitalism is stronger after the SCOTUS ruling than it was before it just because one industry will be making more money.

Putting aside your glibness over people being exploited, you've still failed to address how the creation of new markets and the increase of profits does not strengthen capitalism.


What presents a danger to capitalism--the only actual danger--is a mass movement of class-conscious workers.

Does marriage equality fundamentally make it more difficult to build a mass movement of class-conscious workers? No, I don't believe so. Plenty of revolutionaries have been married.

But what is the political content of this mass movement you're allegedly fighting for? What does it seek to achieve? What is the political basis of this mass movement? Can you actually answer these questions?

And yeah revolutionaries get married, but then revolutionaries are rapists and homophobes and misogynists...


Is marriage as it exists now a reflection of bourgeois ideology? Yes. But the idea that opposing marriage equality will smash bourgeois ideology is backwards. It's in smashing bourgeois ideology that marriage will be abolished.

Read what I'm saying to you: I don't think opposing gay marriage will smash bourgeois ideology.


I don't advocate reformism, but I also don't see a point to opposing reforms just to show how revolutionary we are.

Yes that's entirely pointless, but no one is advocating that, so what are you talking about?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I apologize I'm not trying to be patronizing. All this talk about normalization can be taken to almost any length though, and thats my point. Following this logic you could oppose just about everything short of mass shootings. I have to run ill post a more thought out response a little later

[PhoenixAsh]

Well if we are going in depth over what our role as communists should be when we want to remain ideologically pure then you do realize that it would logically mean that we should oppose the Queer liberation movement itself...and reject all forms of identity politics, right?

[PhoenixAsh]

Aside from that the argument that it bolsters capitalism is convoluted when it comes to the conclusion you draw from it.

Whether or not something strengthens capitalism doesn't automatically follow it should be opposed and when it weakens capitalism it doesn't automatically follow that it should be supported.

For example...setting the minimum wage and setting social security and legal obstacles for job termination...all bolster and strengthen capitalism in a very direct manner.

Should we oppose them?

[BIXX]

Aside from that the argument that it bolsters capitalism is convoluted when it comes to the conclusion you draw from it.

Whether or not something strengthens capitalism doesn't automatically follow it should be opposed and when it weakens capitalism it doesn't automatically follow that it should be supported.

For example...setting the minimum wage and setting social security and legal obstacles for job termination...all bolster and strengthen capitalism in a very direct manner.

Should we oppose them?

Should we celebrate them though?

[BIXX]

And he'll, why not oppose them, just for arguments sake.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well that depends.

Personally I am not a huge fan of identity politics in and off themselves for the before stated reason. But I do see that inequality within the current social and economic reality distracts from the class struggle and obfuscates the commonality of class interest.

Fe. Black workers do not have the same class interests as white workers on the short term as long as there is a racist structure and a system of privilege that pitts the interests within the structure against each other and which is ingrained on us from birth.

As such identity politics can be an important factor in reducing the issues that detract and divide. And small victories such as being able to marry and have the same legal rights and protections within the current system are valuable to reduce the ability of the system to engrain these cognitive constructed divisions on us.

[The Feral Underclass]

Aside from that the argument that it bolsters capitalism is convoluted when it comes to the conclusion you draw from it.

Whether or not something strengthens capitalism doesn't automatically follow it should be opposed and when it weakens capitalism it doesn't automatically follow that it should be supported.

For example...setting the minimum wage and setting social security and legal obstacles for job termination...all bolster and strengthen capitalism in a very direct manner.

Should we oppose them?

Yes. But from a specific position.

[The Feral Underclass]

= Following this logic you could oppose just about everything short of mass shootings.

Yes, precisely.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yes, precisely.

So using this logic we can substitute anything else for gay marriage; minimum wage laws, the 40 hour workweek, paying for commodities, obeying traffic lights, whatever. I feel confident that I could argue any of these points and show how they serve to reinforce capital, the state, whatever. And it would be true, so I'm not disagreeing with your overall point about gay marriage. But what is the strategy behind it? Is it enough to simply object to something? No, we have to offer alternatives because otherwise, yeah you might be right but who gives a fuck.

So far your only alternative is communism, ok what about in the meantime? Should people just accept that they can't see their partners in the ER? "Oh well, when the revolution gets here this won't be a problem anymore. Sure hope Jamal can wait that long."

It just kind of sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You're right but you're being a real ass about it :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

So using this logic we can substitute anything else for gay marriage; minimum wage laws, the 40 hour workweek, paying for commodities, obeying traffic lights, whatever. I feel confident that I could argue any of these points and show how they serve to reinforce capital, the state, whatever. And it would be true, so I'm not disagreeing with your overall point about gay marriage. But what is the strategy behind it? Is it enough to simply object to something? No, we have to offer alternatives because otherwise, yeah you might be right but who gives a fuck.

No, it's not enough to just object to things, it is also necessary to turn that objection into a coherent conflict. But the alternative is communism. I realise people don't like this, but that is the alternative. There isn't any other. It's either communism or the continuation of what we have now...Or much, much worse.

The point I'm trying to get at is communists operate within the logic of capitalism. It is necessary to break out of that logic if we wish to create a new one. We are not some radical social service.


So far your only alternative is communism, ok what about in the meantime? Should people just accept that they can't see their partners in the ER? "Oh well, when the revolution gets here this won't be a problem anymore. Sure hope Jamal can wait that long."

No, of course people shouldn't just accept that. That's the point. But the choice isn't accept it or fight for and achieve political reform. They are both the wrong choice.


It just kind of sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You're right but you're being a real ass about it :lol:

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm trying to convince people to reassess their priorities.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

You're acting like everyone is just in one static mindset, that if we acknowledge that some superficial possibilities remain open in the context of capitalism that this completely prevents thoughts that conflict with the existence of capitalism itself. I don't think that's how people operate though. Communism does not represent a realistic alternative to anyone today July 1st 2015. July 2nd? Yeah who knows. You keep bringing up priorities but I think I've said 3 or 4 times already that this had no involvement from the radical left, this was pushed entirely by liberal groups. Simply commenting on the short term positive nature of something is not in any way the same thing as changing priorities. It's not like I'm pushing for reforms, I don't have to because I know the fucking liberals will without me. It's not like saying "oh hey cool my next door neighbors can get married now" in any way tells you what my priorities are. You're just making a lot of assumptions man.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Actually now that I think about it, you've just out-ulrtaleft-ed me and that's what really at the root of the issue you cheeky fuck. Im out :wub:

[The Feral Underclass]

You're acting like everyone is just in one static mindset, that if we acknowledge that some superficial possibilities remain open in the context of capitalism that this completely prevents thoughts that conflict with the existence of capitalism itself. I don't think that's how people operate though. Communism does not represent a realistic alternative to anyone today July 1st 2015. July 2nd? Yeah who knows. You keep bringing up priorities but I think I've said 3 or 4 times already that this had no involvement from the radical left, this was pushed entirely by liberal groups. Simply commenting on the short term positive nature of something is not in any way the same thing as changing priorities. It's not like I'm pushing for reforms, I don't have to because I know the fucking liberals will without me. It's not like saying "oh hey cool my next door neighbors can get married now" in any way tells you what my priorities are. You're just making a lot of assumptions man.

I'm not acting like anything, I'm offering my considered political analysis. An analysis that isn't about you specifically. I'm not directing my criticisms at you as an individual.

As I've already responded, the radical left have been part of fighting for it and are directly supporting its existence. It is not being pushed entirely by liberal groups at all. In fact, the idea that we should be fighting for reforms is a strategy pushed by large and vocal sections of the communist movement. But this issue isn't specific to same-sex marriage; same sex-marriage and the celebration and furore over it is simply an example of a much more endemic and embedded problem.

I recognise that communism does not seem an alternative to people, but that is entirely beside the point. It doesn't alter that it is the correct alternative and the only alternative.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes. But from a specific position.

While I agree with the idea behind your argument that they are reformist gains...I don't think opposition is the right principle...but rather using them as a platform for working towards class radicalisation.

But yeah you caught me here trying to argue semantics....come to think of it...I do agree on these issues a lot more with you than on the reforms coming from identity politics.

I realize I used the wrong examples since none of these are resulting from identity politics but from class struggle.

[The Feral Underclass]

While I agree with the idea behind your argument that they are reformist gains...I don't think opposition is the right principle...but rather using them as a platform for working towards class radicalisation.

The issue I have with this is that it never works. I can't think of one example where reforms have been used as a platform to successfully radicalise the class. Reforms have always been used as a tool for the ruling classes to pacify radicalism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Oh I wasn't taking it personally I was just using myself as an example. If all past reforms have already pacified the class then thats even more of a reason to not care about this, gay marriage isn't going to be the one reform that holds back communism hah

[Rafiq]

Feral's position is undoubtedly a reactionary one, however he is right to meet the orgasm of self-praise and celebration by liberals critically. It is owed to the fact that a fundamentally FALSE dichotomy is being presented here - between "everyday struggles" within the "logic of capitalism" and the alternative of Communism. The problem, however, is that Communism cannot be anything more than a process conceived within the framework of capitalism, for it takes the context of our capitalist society, and all of the positions that it entails within the constellations of political discourse as its own presupposition for its existence.

The problem is not that such reforms are wrought out from "within capitalism", but that their emancipatory potential is appropriated by capital within the intricacies of its inception - there are always conditional contingencies in the minds of bourgeois-ideologues which allow them to "accept" homosexuality, which is why more often than not bursts of homophobia are expressed by "progressive" individuals, in the right circumstances. The same absolutely applies for racism, and sexism. Feral is correct ot insinuate that, contra to what the reactionaries believe, the institutional acceptance of homosexuality will not lead to sexual anarchy wherein all is permitted. Quite on the contrary, a subversive sexual phenomena was growing into prominence in a way that capital had to legitimize, within its cultural sphere. Far from opening pandora's box, the taming of homosexuality has occurred. Homosexuality is just as "subversive" vis a vis bourgeois sexuality today, as the debauchery of the college environment is for the university apparatus.

The problem is not that such occurrences are within capitalism, but that they exist outside of the class struggle within capitalism, failing to enter the discourse of proletarian class-based politics in the absence of a real movement which can correctly approximate it. A proletarian based politics would unconditionally support the measures in favor of gay marriage, in that it advances the collective political standards of society and demoralizes the reaction that prattles of the "sacred" institution of marriage.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm asking you these questions because I can't work out what you're on about. If you can answer these questions without the verbosity, it might help me understand.


Feral's position is undoubtedly a reactionary one, however he is right to meet the orgasm of self-praise and celebration by liberals critically. It is owed to the fact that a fundamentally FALSE dichotomy is being presented here - between "everyday struggles" within the "logic of capitalism" and the alternative of Communism.

I am failing to understand why it is a false dichotomy...


The problem, however, is that Communism cannot be anything more than a process conceived within the framework of capitalism, for it takes the context of our capitalist society, and all of the positions that it entails within the constellations of political discourse as its own presupposition for its existence.

Why is that a problem?

[Rafiq]

There is no conflict between the logic of waging so-called "reformist" struggles and the alternative of Communism, because the alternative of Communism is wrought out from within the framework of fighting immediate struggles within capitalism and realizing the futility of succeeding in all of those struggles while relations of private property persist.

The "problem" is in regard to the erroneous idea that Communism as an idea is somehow outside of our conditions in capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is no conflict between the logic of waging so-called "reformist" struggles and the alternative of Communism, because the alternative of Communism is wrought out from within the framework of fighting immediate struggles within capitalism and realizing the futility of succeeding in all of those struggles while relations of private property persist.

Reformist struggles and immediate struggles are not the same thing in my view. The issue for me is not whether we wage struggle, but what the content of that struggle is.


The "problem" is in regard to the erroneous idea that Communism as an idea is somehow outside of our conditions in capitalism.

Communism as an idea is not outside the conditions in capitalism and will be a reality through the conditions of capitalism, but not if you wage reformist struggles.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well if we are going in depth over what our role as communists should be when we want to remain ideologically pure then you do realize that it would logically mean that we should oppose the Queer liberation movement itself...and reject all forms of identity politics, right?This only follows if there is a substantive arguments to be made for the damaging effects of the current Queer liberation campaigns, but not in any ordinary way damaging but a specific one: furthering and bolstering capitalist power. And the latter, the idea of bolstering capitalist power through campaigns for the extension of marriage are completely dependent on a holistic idea of capitalist power of a specific kind: that heteronormativity is inextricably tied to the said power, so that a strike at one locus (if we imagine the overall nexus) would necessarily (and this is the key) produce a sort of domino effect.

I'm not convinced this is actually the case with the subject of this thread and I find that holistic idea dubious.

It just might be best to follow Placenta cream and wonder whether communists should celebrate such campaigns and results.

[BIXX]

To be fair I do oppose queer marriage, as far as it is assimilation. Idk about the idea of it bolstering capitalist power but mainly cause I haven't read that part of the thread too carefully.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh I wasn't taking it personally I was just using myself as an example. If all past reforms have already pacified the class then thats even more of a reason to not care about this, gay marriage isn't going to be the one reform that holds back communism hah

This isn't really an issue of gay marriage being 'the' reform that holds back communism. It isn't about any individual reform, but about how so-called communists refer to reforms in their strategic outlook. You say we shouldn't care about gay marriage. I think that view is reactionary. The idea that communists shouldn't care about issues like this and how they affect our struggle is to concede ground. We can't afford to be glib.

Now, you could argue that gay marriage isn't conceding ground, but history shows very clearly that when the state creates reforms it secures its continued existence. This is why it institutes reforms. I think it is fundamentally necessary to care about that.

[Rafiq]

Reformist struggles and immediate struggles are not the same thing in my view. The issue for me is not whether we wage struggle, but what the content of that struggle is.


You miss the point in that there is no struggle, reformist or otherwise, which an independent proletarian politics cannot address or approximate in some way beyond righteously abstaining. A struggle only becomes a reformist one if it is not taken to its logical conclusion, or integrated into a wider, revolutionary one.

You have politics polarized on the lines of gay marriage, the question is not whether we should participate, but what side we ought to take. The argument is as nonsensical as rejecting the right for blacks to vote on the basis that it systemically integrates them into the bourgeois political process.

[The Feral Underclass]

You miss the point in that there is no struggle, reformist or otherwise, which an independent proletarian politics cannot address or approximate in some way beyond righteously abstaining.

I don't know what this means.


A struggle only becomes a reformist one if it is not taken to its logical conclusion, or integrated into a wider, revolutionary one.

The point being that reformist struggles cannot be integrated into a revolutionary one if you wish for your revolutionary struggle to be successful.


You have politics polarized on the lines of gay marriage, the question is not whether we should participate, but what side we ought to take. The argument is as nonsensical as rejecting the right for blacks to vote on the basis that it systemically integrates them into the bourgeois political process.

You are presenting this as a two-sided choice. It is not a question of supporting or not supporting gay marriage. The logic of communism makes those choices irrelevant.

What is ridiculous is the notion that the proletariat can build resistance to the bourgeois political process if it is being integrated into it. Why make the choice to be integrated into the bourgeois political process if your objective is to destroy it?

[Rafiq]

There can be no talk of "resistance" to the political process anymore than there can be talk of "resistance" to bourgeois society as a whole. That is because the proletariat is necessarily a part of bourgeois society. The "logic of Communism" will never even be organically possible if one cannot approximate themselves to such "small" issues, and that is my point all together - we have no constellation for politics, for our spiritual essence without participation in the polarization of politics.

Only the petite-bourgeoisie "resists" the onslaught of bourgeois society and capital, while the proletariat takes it as the pre-supposition for its own emancipation. The point is that the "bourgeois" political process is, like bourgeois society, rife with antagonisms, and in the process of being "integrated" into it, one constitutes a political antagonism which can destroy it. You cannot destroy capitalism by being outside of it, and this doesn't amount to "working within the system" but abandoning phrase-mongered pseudo-righteous timeless 'principles' as "resisting" the political process devoid of any strategic or tactical insight. It means pre-supposing that "abstaining" from the political process is to take the side of the highest bidder, which can either be the bourgeoisie or the reaction. It is very well that we want to destroy bourgeois politics, and yet it is here - and we are of it - irreversibly. What if I told you that in "resisting" bourgeois politics, you are constituting a PART of bourgeois politics none the less, because you still constitute yourself within a definite bourgeois-political totality? That is the point.

[The Feral Underclass]

There can be no talk of "resistance" to the political process anymore than there can be talk of "resistance" to bourgeois society as a whole. That is because the proletariat is necessarily a part of bourgeois society. The "logic of Communism" will never even be organically possible if one cannot approximate themselves to such "small" issues, and that is my point all together - we have no constellation for politics, for our spiritual essence without participation in the polarization of politics.

Only the petite-bourgeoisie "resists" the onslaught of bourgeois society and capital, while the proletariat takes it as the pre-supposition for its own emancipation. The point is that the "bourgeois" political process is, like bourgeois society, rife with antagonisms, and in the process of being "integrated" into it, one constitutes a political antagonism which can destroy it. You cannot destroy capitalism by being outside of it, and this doesn't amount to "working within the system" but abandoning phrase-mongered pseudo-righteous timeless 'principles' as "resisting" the political process devoid of any strategic or tactical insight. It means pre-supposing that "abstaining" from the political process is to take the side of the highest bidder, which can either be the bourgeoisie or the reaction. It is very well that we want to destroy bourgeois politics, and yet it is here - and we are of it - irreversibly.

I don't accept that the conclusion you have drawn from your premise is true. It does not follow that the proletariat being part of bourgeois society means that they are unable to resist it. I think we can "approximate" ourselves to "small issues" -- we should participate. The point for me is what the content of that participation is. I am not advocating abstention, I am advocating a ruthless criticism of everything and open conflict and escalation with everything bourgeois society stands for. The point is to relate that to what our participation is.


What if I told you that in "resisting" bourgeois politics, you are constituting a PART of bourgeois politics none the less, because you still constitute yourself within a definite bourgeois-political totality? That is the point.

I would say I agree, but that it makes no difference to my overall argument.

[Ele'ill]

Oh I wasn't taking it personally I was just using myself as an example. If all past reforms have already pacified the class then thats even more of a reason to not care about this, gay marriage isn't going to be the one reform that holds back communism hah

*edit, I had posted that I think the issue isn't reforms holding back communism, I don't agree with that I think that reforms are used as a weapon. I also said that the issue is communists holding back communism and I can't really agree with that either. I just don't see this as being good. I am glad people don't have to jump through hoops as much or anymore but the main celebration seems to be social and not economic. I think the celebration from the left and liberals, which I don't really think I've seen much of at all in this thread, is confused. I do agree with what TFU has been posting regarding attacking the point of struggle where reforms end up being proposed/used and how instances of conflict get dowsed by it. Within critical discussions the tactic of assimilation and roles (worker, citizen, etc.) should be brought up more imo

[Rafiq]

I don't accept that the conclusion you have drawn from your premise is true. It does not follow that the proletariat being part of bourgeois society means that they are unable to resist it. I think we can "approximate" ourselves to "small issues" -- we should participate. The point for me is what the content of that participation is. I am not advocating abstention, I am advocating a ruthless criticism of everything and open conflict and escalation with everything bourgeois society stands for. The point is to relate that to what our participation is.


What you mistaken, however, in Marx's call for ruthless criticism of everything as somehow ruthless OPPOSITION to everything. Marx's point was very simple- that we ought to never allow the mystics of ruling ideology to have a free pass, that all ideologically designated ideas should be ruthlessly converted into knowledge, and thereby critically attacked. Ruthless criticism is therefore a criticism that carries no moral connotations, it simply means precisely to question everything, never take anything as a given.

The point is wroguhting out what iti s exactly you are trying to "resist". In being sustained, and a part of bourgeois society, you cannot resist it - for it sustains you. To "resist it" (And I emphasize "resist", rather than struggle to overthrow), therefore, while constituting a part of it - is nothing short of a perversion, and it is for that reason the left today is nothing more than a marginal, "excessive" lifestyle choice seldom different from bronyism or "furries".

The point is that in the process of resisting bourgeois society, one not only is unknowingly a part of it, one PERPETUATES it by constituting a definite, comfortable identity within it (comfortable in the sense of - no political, ideological internal struggle with knowing direction).

[The Feral Underclass]

What you mistaken, however, in Marx's call for ruthless criticism of everything as somehow ruthless OPPOSITION to everything. Marx's point was very simple- that we ought to never allow the mystics of ruling ideology to have a free pass, that all ideologically designated ideas should be ruthlessly converted into knowledge, and thereby critically attacked. Ruthless criticism is therefore a criticism that carries no moral connotations, it simply means precisely to question everything, never take anything as a given.

The point is wroguhting out what iti s exactly you are trying to "resist". In being sustained, and a part of bourgeois society, you cannot resist it - for it sustains you. To "resist it" (And I emphasize "resist", rather than struggle to overthrow), therefore, while constituting a part of it - is nothing short of a perversion, and it is for that reason the left today is nothing more than a marginal, "excessive" lifestyle choice seldom different from bronyism or "furries".

The point is that in the process of resisting bourgeois society, one not only is unknowingly a part of it, one PERPETUATES it by constituting a definite, comfortable identity within it (comfortable in the sense of - no political, ideological internal struggle with knowing direction).

I simply don't understand how it follows that being part of or even created through the existence of bourgeois society, one cannot resist it. I also don't understand the term "perversion" in this context. What exactly is someone who resists bourgeois society perverting?

Unlike reform, which actively legitimises bourgeois society and thus should be opposed, I do not see what "resistance" does that is somehow antithetical to the realisation of communism. The reason you give, while true in and of itself, doesn't adequately answer that question. It simply makes no sense.

[Rafiq]

Because "resisting" implies an affirmative position of power, which we are not in. You cannot "resist" bourgeois society, because you are a part of bourgeois society, saying you want to resist it implies a space of "freedom", a platform that one uses to "resist" society, but no such platform exists. Hence we end up with nonsense like small communes in cities as means of 'resisting' society - it is an illusion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because "resisting" implies an affirmative position of power, which we are not in. You cannot "resist" bourgeois society, because you are a part of bourgeois society, saying you want to resist it implies a space of "freedom", a platform that one uses to "resist" society, but no such platform exists. Hence we end up with nonsense like small communes in cities as means of 'resisting' society - it is an illusion.

To have a space of "freedom" with which to resist bourgeois society implies that one has to be beyond or outside of capitalism. The issue with small communes is that they attempt to create those spaces. I don't accept that it is necessary to create that space or to have that platform of "freedom." Resistance specifically comes from your position of having no space with which to resist. That's the antagonism that gives rise to it, which is precisely why attempting to placate that antagonism by supporting or fighting for legitimised modifications of our conditions are antithetical.

In having a ruthless criticism of everything we must conclude a necessity to be antagonistic to everything, since bourgeois society is everything. In other words we must oppose everything. This is what antagonism is. Bourgeois society has nothing to offer us. It cannot even offer us to ourselves as proletarians. We want to abolish ourselves. That's the foundation with which to be antagonistic and therefore to resist. What form that antagonism/resistance takes is what we should concern ourselves with.

[Rafiq]

In having a ruthless criticism of everything we must conclude a necessity to be antagonistic to everything, since bourgeois society is everything. In other words we must oppose everything. This is what antagonism is. Bourgeois society has nothing to offer us. It cannot even offer us to ourselves as proletarians. We want to abolish ourselves. That's the foundation with which to be antagonistic and therefore to resist. What form that antagonism/resistance takes is what we should concern ourselves with.

This is ridiculous, the point of ruthless criticism is not deliberately being "antagonistic" to everything, but to be ruthlessly critical towards everything, to take nothing for granted. This was the lesson of Marx - question everything.

But let me be more clear. In attempting to be "antagonistic toward everything" while actively constituting a part of bourgeois society, in "opposing everything" while being a part of it, you constitute not an antagonism, but a recuperated identity within capitalism. This is why "oppose everything" can only ever be a theological "no" that will always be redeemed in capitalist society. An antagonism is precisely that which exists WITHIN a given totality, WITHIN a whole, to "oppose" the totality as a whole, is not to actively oppose it, but to perverse, or re-formulate the language of those in power in such a way that makes you feel comfortable. Which means bourgeois society itself is antagonistic - TOWARD itself.

That leftists cannot see this, is symptomatic of the petite-bourgeois character of today's left, which looks everywhere and cannot help but see their failures crystallize in the very formation of our neon-lit cities and societies, as the petite-bourgeois subject might look everywhere and see the failure of the old social bonds, the old morality, in the edifice of society. We oppose society, Feral, but form what reference point? From WHERE do we oppose society? It cannot be "outside" society, and if it is not outside of society, then we most certainly cannot possibly "oppose" bourgeois society as a whole.

is it the Communism in our imagination? Do remember the stoics of Rome, who imagined an egalitarian society as a preferable one, but whose fantasy was contingent upon their role as functionaries of the ruling class, i.e. their fantasy was merely in an enclosed mental space which, just as a dream mediates the desire of a subject, mediated the desires and values of the ruling classes in "conditions" (i.e. utopia) that could never exist. My point is that the society we imagine to replace capitalism, is purely a product of re-hashing ruling ideology abstractly with our imagination.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is ridiculous, the point of ruthless criticism is not deliberately being "antagonistic" to everything, but to be ruthlessly critical towards everything, to take nothing for granted. This was the lesson of Marx - question everything

If you look at what I said, the point I was making was that -- while in agreement with your assessment of what Marx intended -- the conclusion to our questioning we should be antagonism towards everything. Yes, question everything, but what do you expect the answers to be? Bourgeois society has nothing to offer. Question everything, but if the conclusions to your questioning are anything other than antagonism then you are a reactionary. There is no point questioning if it is not in order to conclude a call to arms.


But let me be more clear. In attempting to be "antagonistic toward everything" while actively constituting a part of bourgeois society, in "opposing everything" while being a part of it, you constitute not an antagonism, but a recuperated identity within capitalism. This is why "oppose everything" can only ever be a theological "no" that will always be redeemed in capitalist society. An antagonism is precisely that which exists WITHIN a given totality, WITHIN a whole, to "oppose" the totality as a whole, is not to actively oppose it, but to perverse, or re-formulate the language of those in power in such a way that makes you feel comfortable. Which means bourgeois society itself is antagonistic - TOWARD itself.

That leftists cannot see this, is symptomatic of the petite-bourgeois character of today's left, which looks everywhere and cannot help but see their failures crystallize in the very formation of our neon-lit cities and societies, as the petite-bourgeois subject might look everywhere and see the failure of the old social bonds, the old morality, in the edifice of society. We oppose society, Feral, but form what reference point? From WHERE do we oppose society? It cannot be "outside" society, and if it is not outside of society, then we most certainly cannot possibly "oppose" bourgeois society as a whole.

is it the Communism in our imagination? Do remember the stoics of Rome, who imagined an egalitarian society as a preferable one, but whose fantasy was contingent upon their role as functionaries of the ruling class, i.e. their fantasy was merely in an enclosed mental space which, just as a dream mediates the desire of a subject, mediated the desires and values of the ruling classes in "conditions" (i.e. utopia) that could never exist. My point is that the society we imagine to replace capitalism, is purely a product of re-hashing ruling ideology abstractly with our imagination.

I don't accept this analysis -- if you can call it an analysis. It really makes no sense. It appears to rely upon an assertion that we as actors within bourgeois narratives are subsumed as entities without ability to act or establish our own narratives, despite existing precisely for that purpose. Yes we are constituent part of bourgeois society but our existence as proletarians -- created because of antagonism -- necessarily means that antagonism exists. We are constituent part of bourgeois society because we are created by bourgeois society -- and we exist to oppose it. The proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie is the greatest antagonism in this epoch. Even if we are re-formulating the language of those in power, so what? Our existence is to negate theirs. We are a product of their existence, existing to deny theirs -- and indeed our own. It is our historical mission to be antagonistic. Bourgeois society created that antagonism, we simply have to act in our interests. Where do we oppose bourgeois society? In our communities, schools, universities, families, relationships, on the streets and in our workplaces.

[Rafiq]

But in constituting an antagonism, you remain a part of a wider whole. My point is a very simple one: That our basis of opposition to bourgeois society must firmly pre-suppose its achievements vis a vis the proletariat, not a blind, pure negative "opposition". Look at the most elementary examples: Feminism, anti-semitism, and so on. Bourgeois feminism has somewhat entered into the discourse of ruling ideology, do we oppose it? Only insofar as it is a bourgeois feminism. To "oppose everything" is reserved for the petite-bourgeoisie for the following reasons:

Only the big bourgeoisie is capable of revolutionizing the means of production, and thereby social life. The petite-bourgeoisie, conversely, is largely left behind amidst all these changes and whose power is regularly threatened by the emergence of trusts, and the large state-corporate bureaucratic apparatus. Of course, the petite-bourgeoisie can regularly keep itself up to date, but it cannot be the driving force of technological, social 'revolution', it remains crystallized and static in yesterday, indefinitely. It is therefore by this basis that the petite-bourgeoisie "opposes everything". It is therefore for this reason that the spontaneous "opposition" to the existing order by proletarians is always reactionary, because the only basis of opposition conceivable is in the dead past.

The proletariat cannot get caught in entangled mistakes of the true socialists of the 19th century, in assuming the role of the petite-bourgeoisie in their opposition to society. This doesn't just mean an aversion toward reactionary ideas, it means matching the ruling classes ideologically insofar as they exercise the highest creative, affirmative, and regularly transformative vitality.


We are a product of their existence, existing to deny theirs -- and indeed our own.

Correct, but the basis of doing so is in the condition of the proletariat itself, not in a god or humanity, not in nature or any other kind of timeless abstraction, and certainly not in the past. I say this not because you think this directly, but because we must recognize that if the basis of opposition is in the general condition of the proletariat themselves, the class which has nothing to lose, than there can be no universal "other" which is transfixed upon their basis of opposition, it means the ideas of Communism derive from the here and the now, from the coordinates of struggle presented by what petite-bourgeois ideologues construe as a "rotten" world.

The condition of the proletariat is contingent upon its dynamic approximation to the regular changes and movement of capitalist society, which is why often times workers will meet leftists the same way they'll meet street preachers, i.e. as a demand to abandon their lives, etc. For this reason, "Communists" today largely remain a fringe, a marginalized extreme lifestyle no different than internet-fetishistic subcultures like bronies, etc.