So I came across this article on r/Socialism...

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

It's about the apparent link between the sexual revolution and neoliberalism. (http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.co.il/2010/12/between-poly-pushers-and-mono-mongers.html?m=1)

Specifically, the idea that polyamory promotes patrarchy and smacks of liberalism masquerading as radicalism.

.....I'm not quite sure I agree, to put it lightly. Anyone have any thoughts?

[BIXX]

"r/Socialism"


Suddenly all is made clear.


I don't think polyamory or nonpolyamory is even important tbh

[Rafiq]

Please forgive me for making such a long post - for the sake of convenience it might just be better to skim through (the quoted sections at least).

I recommend reading the entire text: (http://daily-struggles.tumblr.com/post/50765863638/slavoj-%C5%BEi%C5%BEek-on-love-as-a-political-category)


Now I could go on here about erotic love, because I sincerely think that in contrast to our youth, the youth of those who are already old, when fighting for sexual freedom was experienced as liberating and even monogamous love was considered/dismissed as a bourgeois convention, I think today, more and more, love is emerging as something dangerous and subversive. Think about how you are addressed in your everyday life by society, what society demands of you. It’s basically a kind of slightly spiritual, pseudo-Buddhist hedonism. Ideology is telling you: “be faithful to yourself”, “realize your true potential”, “experiment with your life”, “try all different options”, “don’t fixate yourself on a certain stable identity”, “life is dynamic, fluid” and so on, and so on. And I claim that within this economy, not only is stable love/passionate love emerging as an obstacle to your “authentic development”, but even the crucial dimension of love is gradually disappearing. What is love? As Alain Badiou, our good friend, put it in his wonderful book In Praise of Love, there is always something traumatic/extremely violent in love. Love is a permanent emergency state. You fall in love. And it’s crucial [to know] that in English and in French we use this expression; you “fall” in love. You lose control. I claim that love, the experience of passionate love, is the most elementary metaphysical experience, it’s a platonic experience. In the sense of, you lead your easy, daily life, you meet friends, go to parties and whatever, everything is normal, maybe here and there a one-night stand, and then you passionately fall in love, [and] everything is ruined. The entire balance of your life is lost. Everything is subordinated to this one person. I almost cannot imagine in normal daily life, outside war and so on, a more violent experience than that of love. And I think [this is] which is why all the “advisers” that we [supposedly] need today are trying precisely to domesticate or erase this excess of love. It’s as if love is too poisonous and then they, all the marriage and dating agencies, tell you that the trick is how to find yourself in love without falling in love. This idea came to me when on one of my Transatlantic flights I read one of those stupid airline journals and there was a text in there, in big letters, claiming: “We will enable you to find yourself in love, without the fall”, without this dangerous exposure. And I think this fits perfectly to our daily narcissistic metaphysics. You know the old story that I repeat all the time; we want coffee without caffeine, we want beer without alcohol, and we want love without its dangerous moment, where you get lost.

Now this is Eros, erotic love. Then we have its counterpoint, in Christianity, Agape. Agape functions in a wholly different way. How? It may appear that in contrast to Eros, with its violent subtraction from the collective space, the love for a collective succeeds in getting rid of the excess of terrorizing violence. Does Agape not imply an emphatic yes to the collective, ultimately to the entire humanity? Or even, as in Buddhism, to the entire domain of suffering life? The first counterargument is provided here by the reply to a simple question, just think about it: which political regimes in the twentieth century legitimized their power by evoking the subjects’ love for their leader? It was the so-called, I don’t like the term, totalitarian ones. Today, remember, it is only and precisely the North Korean regime which evokes all the time the infinite love of the Korean people for Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and so on, and vice versa the radiating love of the leader for his people. Love expressed in continuous acts of grace. Kim Jong Il wrote a short poem along these lines: “In the same way that a sunflower can only thrive if it is turned towards the sun, the Korean people can only thrive if their eyes are turned upwards towards their leader”, towards himself of course. Terror and mercy are thus closely linked. They are effectively the front and the obverse of the same power structure. Only a power which asserts its full terrorist right or capacity to destroy anything and anyone it wants, only such a power can systematically universalize mercy. Since this power could have destroyed everyone, those who survive are all still alive because of the mercy of those in power. Consequently, the very fact that we, the subjects of power, are alive, is the proof of the power’s infinite mercy. This is why the more terrorist a regime is, the more its leaders are praised for their infinite love, goodness and mercy. Theodor Adorno was right to emphasize that in politics love is evoked precisely when another democratic legitimation is missing, loving a leader means you love him for what he is, not for what he does.


There is a slight problem, however. Generally, the critique of "polyamory", and the facade of present sexual relations - unconstrained hedonism (anyone who at this point cannot see that this is the dominant sexual discourse is either too old, or plainly delusional) as being a neoliberal phenomena [I]is correct.

What should concern us, however, are the positive implications of this critique - whether leveled by Badiou, Zizek, or old Leninists. The task of Communists concerning present conditions of sexuality is to critique them, oppose them, in such a way that is not only NOT similar to the reactionary/social conservative criticism of dominant sexual relations, but even more horrifying and subversive to them. What do I mean by this? I DO NOT MEAN we should try to be more edgy or even more sexually explicit - the whole pathology must be scrapped all together.

We must first evaluate what hedonistic-liberal sexuality and its conservative reaction have a common basis in. With sexuality, it is either one or the other - one either commits themselves to a single partner, fully subordinating themselves to the old sexual rituals of bourgeois society (and old is a misleading qualification), whose logical extension is marriage and the family, or they engage in (safe) unconstrained hedonism. It is the ritualistic dimension we must first isolate before we can fight bourgeois sexuality. The first option gives individuals love, warmth and being - the second option forces individuals to treat their sexual partners as bodies they masturbate with. Zizek tells us that more than ever, romantic love is too dangerous and too subversive for our society. But what he should add is that romantic love's expression quickly and immediately is drowned out, mummified and crystallized in rituals slave to worldly considerations. (marriage)

But not so fast - I am fully aware that in sexual culture, it is not so simple. Often times, "polyamory" or unbridled "hedonism" do have emotional implications between partners - even a sort of "love". But this love is a conformist love, it is a Buddhist love - the "love" of compassion and empathy that seeks to eliminate the differences which don't allow us to 'feel" for others. Communists, following the modern tradition (from the French revolution) must triumphantly stay true to the Christian notion of love. The rise of eastern spirituality in the west directly coincides with the decline of modernist values, enlightenment values. Again, read the whole text, but I shall quote Zizek again:


What this means is that the Buddhist all-encompassing compassion has to be opposed to the Christian intolerant violent love. I want to praise the Christian love. Though Christian will probably lynch me for what I will say now. The Buddhist stance is that of indifference, of quenching all passions which strive to establishing differences. While the Christian love is a violent passion introducing difference, a gap in the order of being, to privilege and elevate some object at the expense of others. Love is violence, not in the vulgar sense of the well-known Balkan proverb “if he doesn’t beat me, he doesn’t love me”, [B]violence is already the love choice as such which tears its object out of its context elevating it to the sublime absolute thing. In Montenegrin folklore the origin of Evil is a beautiful woman. She makes men lose their balance, she literally destabilizes the universe, coloring all things with a tone of partiality. Among Christian theologists it was Gilbert Keith Chesterton who fully assumed the consequences of this violent aspect of love: one has to get rid of the old Platonic topos of love as Eros which gradually elevates itself from the love for a particular individual through the love for the beauty of a human body in general and the love of the beautiful form [U]as such to the love for the supreme Good beyond all forms: true love is precisely the opposite move of forsaking the promise of Eternity itself for an imperfect individual. What if the gesture of choosing temporal existence, of giving up eternal existence for the sake of love, from Jesus Christ to, for example Siegmund in Act II of Richard Wagner’s Die Walküre, who prefers to remain a common mortal if his beloved Sieglinde cannot follow him to Walhalla, the eternal dwelling of the dead heroes. What if this is the highest ethical act of them all? I think this is the message of Christianity which is still alive. Not forsake all terrestrial things for eternity, but love means I know you are a miserable, mortal being but I am ready to forsake eternity itself for you. Based on this insight Chesterton rejected the fashionable claim about the alleged spiritual identity of Buddhism and Christianity.

So, back to my point, how exactly is today's liberal hedonistic sexuality "Buddhist"? Listen, let's all be frank. If you've ever gotten ADVICE on sexuality from ordinary people, from television, from the internet or things which embody and represent the "spirit of the times" in general, isn't the basic message to be careful about it, to regulate your emotions, to not be too attached to your partners, and so on? Real love should not be comfortable. Real love is a state of perpetual emergency, real love should be the can of worms that opens up all sorts of existential conundrums. But the message of today's dominant ideological discourse (expressed through people's actions, etc.) is quite different: It's that we shouldn't focus on such "trivialities" which disallow us to reach enlightenment/a "higher perspective'/a "healthy, natural life" and so forth

As a matter of gross exaggeration, let's look at the typical passions that are induced because of sexuality today: It isn't love in the Christian sense. Elliot Rodgers, MRA's, ETC. are produced left and right - but their bitterness and anger stems from their inability to fulfill the sexual rituals of capitalist sexuality. hedonism is never just "doing what you want" - hedonism is conformism, it is a means by which you fit in. if one doesn't fulfill their pleasures today, they feel guilty about it. It's not longer a forbidden fruit. So these passions are largely "Buddhist" passions, because the problems that are induced when you don't fulfill your pleasures is literally the masturbation, re-assertion of today's sexual values.

So what's the solution? The solution is simple: Whether it is monogamy or something else one engages in, the basic experience you have with individuals must be the particular expression of a universal and "supreme good" (the cause of Communism, faith in a new order of free and self-conscious individuals). It sounds crazy, but I'm not saying you should yell "Communism now!" when you're fucking someone. I'm saying that one must articulate (and from this articulation begets a completely different approach to sexuality) ones' sexual experiences devoid of indifferent Buddhist egoism - to opt for instead the particular expression of a universal, unconditional egalitarian love. "How do you do that?" - you fully REJECT all the bullshit about "regulating" your emotions or about not getting "too attached", you fully dive into the void. There's not even anything remotely wrong with having sex because you, within proximity (and in appropriate circumstance) are literally plainly horny. This is quite different from the obsessive, pathological hypersexualized drives people have, though where they feel like shit if they don't 'score". The point is that one should take the risk (I am NOT telling you what you should actually do - but what a general Communist ethics looks like) and do something quite dangerous for their own "mental/emotional health" which is to love one's sexual partners as one would unconditionally love thy neighbor (the social being of a Communist society). "Crazy!" you will all say, but think about it. Even if you're literally just horny, and don't know the person well, love can be there. That's the truly subversive and - yes - crazy position that is 100% Communist.

To conclude, we should stay true to Lenin's take on sexuality. Sexuality is never something you fall back on - sexuality is subordinate and exists within the intricacies of a wider condition of being and struggle. By itself, sex is not subversive at all. Those who keep trying to re-do the counter-culture, or take it to its greatest conclusion set themselves up for failing just as it did. So the Communist approach to love is that our love is that of agape, not eros. What sensual pleasure, or degree of fulfillment of lust you get from sex is the worthless and trivial part, the real dimension which gives meaning to sex, EVEN IN OUR HEDONISTIC SOCIETIES is that of its relation to the conditions of life themselves, its emotional, ideological, and existential dimension. Hence why our "hedonism" is false. If hedonism was merely about unleashing "passive" desires, there would be nothing obsessive about it. One would seek sex when it's appropriate (in a social situation, when is in appropriate proximity with a person, connects with them, and whatever), and shrug it off if they can't get any (and masturbate). Perhaps a post-capitalist society would not have any monogomy at all (which Engels did not seem to think). Perhaps people will just arbitrarily fuck in a Communist society - but this would be under the backdrop of a socially self-conscious society held together by the fabric of an all-encompassing solidarity. It would not be like it is now - you would not fuck "strangers" because you would not be alien from anyone (even people you've never met).

It all sounds pointless - "What is the practical difference between how you articulate it"? But the point is that the practical implications of liberal hedonism are already expressed in the Elliot Rodgers, general hypersexualization, etc. - and that this must be mercilessly fought. ultimately one cannot arbitrarily change this by changing their sexual patterns, but if one embeds this into their political consciousness, it will allow them to avoid falling into stupid traps about feeding into hypsersexualization on political grounds (i.e. "polyamory is subversive") and, perhaps, allow them to be good Socialist intelligentsia who could build something meaningful. The task of socialists today: How to actually threaten the ruling order without falling into the temptation of reaction? And we must answer these questions whether they concern sexuality, or anything in general.

[Sewer Socialist]

Well, that article was sort of silly. Having a bunch of one - night stands isn't any more poly than monogamy. I do agree that neither is really liberatory. Without any actual quips, it's unclear who is saying that it is.

But to be fair, poly practitioners, in my opinion do focus on sex a bit much. To really engage in "poly-amory", the love of many, is to challenge the necessity to couple sex and love. The problem is that our doesn't go far enough.

What I really could flourish with is closeness with friends, love that doesn't need sex necessarily. Maybe that's just me, sick of being ditched for someone else's date, every interaction at the bar began with sex in mind.

[Os Cangaceiros]

That article was dumb.

For one, it willfully conflated polyamory with polygamy. Advocates of polyamory are not referring to some sort of concubine system and that author probably knows that :rolleyes:

And how many examples of monogamy are there in the animal kingdom? How many among the higher mammals that humans are closest related to? It's natural to be attracted to more than one person and there's nothing wrong (either "morally or politically") with acting on that, depending on your understandings with the other parties. I think it's as simple as that.

[BIXX]

I just don't see why we should care

[John Nada]

He's not arguing that polyamory is "wrong" or "unnatural". He's arguing that it's not inherently revolutionary, anymore than celibacy is(which also goes against the capitalist norm, but also has feudalistic vestiges). Nothing, even the family or relationships, is outside of the capitalist superstructure and base. Capitalism can recuperate it. Under capitalism, it's a patriarchy with monogamy as the norm in favor of the male role. That can carries over into how polyamory sometimes gets practiced, a consumerist mentality with the male role in a dominating position. And it can even ends up reverting to a feudalistic polygamy with a male and a harem, because there's even leftovers of the feudal family in capitalism(which sounds far-fetched, but weddings still have rituals from Ancient Rome). Not because it's "bad" or anti-socialist(monogamous and polyamorous relations and celibacy likely won't be the same under socialism) but because it's within a capitalist base.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The author also says that polyamory is a "recent ideology" in far left politics. It isn't. It goes back as far as Emile Armand and probably farther than that, mostly in libertarian communist circles but also among some Marxists. The author frames their objection as being "not moral but political", which to me doesn't reflect a very good understanding of what polyamory meant for people on the far left who practiced and/or endorsed it. It wasn't really a conscious advocacy of polyamory as it was a critical view of monogamy & the role they saw economics and organized religion playing in perpetuating that state of affairs.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

People who think polyamory as a lifestyle is revolutionary are wrong, of course. But this article is also wrong; it also starts prescribing the "correct" view of love halfway through. For the most part it's tilting at windmills, though. To argue against monogamy as a norm is the correct socialist position. Most people just do that. The "poly-pushers" are for the most part an invention of the author, who doesn't appear to have the guts to openly support the family and monogamy.

[Lord Testicles]

I just don't see why we should care

This is a verbal warning.


Spam/One-Line Posts

Please do not post any one-line posts like "I agree", "Good point", "Hear, Hear", or whatever to increase your post count. If you have nothing productive to say, don't say it! Notorious spammers/one-line posters will be banned.

[Luís Henrique]

And how many examples of monogamy are there in the animal kingdom?

It is quite common among birds.

But this is besides the point. Parrots are monogamic because they are hardwired to be monogamic. Dogs are utterly promiscuous, because they are hardwired to be promiscuous. Sea lions are polygamic, because they are hardwired to be polygamic. Humans are not hardwired in any of those ways. And so we have, or have had, promiscuous, monogamic, and polygamic societies. Or we could have a society in which those things are regarded as individual choices, not as rules to be followed by all.

************************

It is obvious that capitalism has adapted to "sexual liberation" - or that it has adapted "sexual liberation" to its own ends (il sesso anale sconfita il capitale, read an Italian grafitti of the late sixties: it has been utterly refuted; il sesso anale rather offers great opportunities to extract and realise surplus value in producing and selling K-Y jelly). It is painfully obvious that the radical left mostly believed otherwise, and was proven wrong. And, of course, Stalinists and other adepts of "monastic socialism" will use these facts to imply, or even openly propose, that we should oppose post-68 mores, on the basis that they don't, by themselves, damage the capitalist system.

But, also of course, neither the romantisation of post-romantic sexual relationships as revolutionary, nor their exploitation by capitalist markets, nor any kind of restaurationism are on our best interests.

Luís Henrique

[Cliff Paul]

This is a verbal warning.



I think asking why/how this is relevant to revolutionary politics is a fair question

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yeah, I mean it's pretty obvious I don't care much for BIXX's politics, but there is something to be said for the notion that this is simply beyond the purview of socialist politics - to be honest, it amounts to weird people trying to deduce the dialectically correct form of love and mutually excommunicating each other by way of Internet.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think asking why/how this is relevant to revolutionary politics is a fair question

It's against the rules to post one-line posts. If you have a contribution then make that contribution, even if it's to ask a question. Give people an understanding of what the reason for that question is; why is it important to ask? Just asking it (after already making the same point) isn't really contributing and is classed as spam. There is a lack of intellectual rigour on this forum and posters need to take responsibility for what they post. It's not just somewhere to come and offload cursory thoughts; it isn't Twitter. It's a place for debate.

[willowtooth]

what if "the harem" is our natural mating ritual? it could explain why our males are so naturally violent, it could be our way of killing off the extra males, a sort of built in or pre programmed social darwinism through banging

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

what if "the harem" is our natural mating ritual? it could explain why our males are so naturally violent, it could be our way of killing off the extra males, a sort of built in or pre programmed social darwinism through banging

Males are "naturally" violent? Why do they need to be socialised to be violent, then? Not to mention that forms of the family change far too quickly for it to have anything to do with biology; and come communism, natural or unnatural, we're going to dispense with the family.

[Luís Henrique]

I think asking why/how this is relevant to revolutionary politics is a fair question

I would be, but that wasn't what Placenta Cream/BIXX was doing.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

I guess there is a claim to be made about the link between sexual permissiveness and the lionised individual of neoliberalism/postmodernity. The uprooting of traditional institutions, the individuated individual and sex as a commodity, all contribute to an acceptance of the logic of unbounded sexual appetites.

Is this what the author is getting at? I have to confess that I haven't read the article as the web page makes my eyes bleed.

[Guardia Rossa]

I just don't see why we should care

Because as we (Socialists, communists, anarchists, ect...) represent a political ideology and as such we are supposed to be actively political and defend the ideas connected with socialism (communism, anarchism, etc...) when faced with liberals in one side and conservatives in the other? Because we need to affirm we are a side, that socialism (communism, anarchism, etc...) isn't an utopia, that we aren't just "Jumpy Liberals" or "Red Conservatives"??? Because we need to affirm to this one society of ours that politics is not a simple non-sided manichaeism?

[Rafiq]

what if "the harem" is our natural mating ritual? it could explain why our males are so naturally violent, it could be our way of killing off the extra males, a sort of built in or pre programmed social darwinism through banging

The gorilla, sitting in the jungle, after he's fucked a female gorilla, doesn't know what to make of all the gorilla sex that goes on in his troop.

He contemplates "What if this is our natural mating ritual?" And realizes it is true. He then returns to his business.

Now tell me what the problem here is.

[John Nada]

I guess there is a claim to be made about the link between sexual permissiveness and the lionised individual of neoliberalism/postmodernity. The uprooting of traditional institutions, the individuated individual and sex as a commodity, all contribute to an acceptance of the logic of unbounded sexual appetites.

Is this what the author is getting at? I have to confess that I haven't read the article as the web page makes my eyes bleed.OP's post is kind of misleading. It's not about polyamory=neoliberalism, postmodernism, individualism and decadent patriarchy so monogamy=good. Rather, it's that polyamory is currently not outside of capitalist base and the heteronormative patriarchy, and class dynamic of society at large can reproduce itself inside that type of relation. It can still take on the overall logic of a Christian monogamous view of love, and the individualist capitalist logic of more is better. Not that it promotes patriarchy and liberalism or makes it worse, but it can takes on aspects of the capitalist base. It can be safely within the confines of capitalism, which to an extent already accepts non-monogamous relations already, like polygamy. So according to the article, while it has some critiques of monogamy, so does feminist advocates of celibacy. Neither are inherently more revolution in of itself as a personal lifestyle.

While I personally think that polyamory can be progressive and the expectation of monogamy is bullshit, I could imagine some who either want to be monogamous or even don't want to fuck at all after monogamy is superceeded, likely under socialism. I think this raises an interesting question. How much are social relations and the family dictated by the capitalist base? Is the current form of sexual relations essential to capitalism? How much does the superstructure of the family and social relations dictate the base productive relations between classes and the capitalist property relations?

[BIXX]

Because as we (Socialists, communists, anarchists, ect...) represent a political ideology and as such we are supposed to be actively political and defend the ideas connected with socialism (communism, anarchism, etc...) when faced with liberals in one side and conservatives in the other? Because we need to affirm we are a side, that socialism (communism, anarchism, etc...) isn't an utopia, that we aren't just "Jumpy Liberals" or "Red Conservatives"??? Because we need to affirm to this one society of ours that politics is not a simple non-sided manichaeism?

Just skimming through the thread I think that you're the only person to actually make an attempt at answering my question, so thank you.

However, it still doesnt make sense for us to give a shit. If communists are on the side of working class liberation then I don't see why it matters if folks are monogamous or poly? If anything I think that going after the stupid morality that says some sex is good and some is bad. Otherwise I think what 870 said above about this being beyond the purview of communist theory and politics is correct.

[Guardia Rossa]

Can't quote you, apparently this computer blocks revleft pages at random.

Nice thing is even in making page-blocking softwares, brazilians are stupid.

We are on the side of the communism and the total emancipation of mankind, we must have a defined view of what is communism, otherwise the bourgeois argument that communism is an utopia gets stronger, after all, if we don't know what we defend, how can we defend it? "It is just a badly-though dream!1!1!"

Also, we are not only for class liberation, we are for the liberation of all humans, from all kinds of oppression. Of course, the MEANS to achieve this ends, is the class struggle and the revolution of the proletariat, with the consequent abolishing of classes.

While it is certain that it is beyond us, that we cannot know how it will be, it is very important in the political side. As Rafiq said, we must be more subversive than any bourgeois ideologies can think of, and IMHO, just for the sake of subversion, as a political weapon. We must fight the bourgeois ideals just for the sake of fighting ALL of the bourgeois ideals, we cannot accept any of their ideals (Except obvious ones: The ones they keep only as an ideal and not as a reality)

This is for 1) Differentiating ourselves from the bourgeois ideologies and political organizations and 2) Show the working class that a completely different reality is possible, on all possible fields, from love, to the mode of production, basically to everything.

Our duty is to question the bourgeoisie, we don't need to believe this questioning as a dogma, but we must question them on all fields to leave no doubt to ourselves that their WHOLE set of ideals must be thrown away.

This is, of course, my Newbie opinion. Feel free to trash it.

[N. Senada]

starting from the fact that an human nature does not exist, what bourgeoisie call "human nature" is a strong part of his ideological building and it serves as one of the main tool to prevent us to even imagine a better world.
I reject any kind of rambling speech about "human nature" and "destiny" which are very powerfull weapons in ours class enemies hands.
For example, from the bourgeois moral point of view, any woman is destined (i would say -doomed-) to be a mother.

we should refuse this kind of stance and support any kind of sexual, moral and romance claim that has the potential to be transitional.

many decades after the '68, we still need to questioning the traditional family (and it seems very clear, since we did not had a revolution that could had flip the table and thrown away the bourgeois habit) and that's still a transitional claim.

so i welcome any kind of experiment in this direction, well-knowing that will not be the individual gain of consciousness, nor the individual practice to challenge and strike the core of the bourgeois moral, but only the raising of the working class, during the next transitional phase from capitalism to socialism.

[N. Senada]

starting from the fact that an human nature does not exist, what bourgeoisie call "human nature" is a strong part of his ideological building and it serves as one of the main tool to prevent us to even imagine a better world.
I reject any kind of rambling speech about "human nature" and "destiny" which are very powerfull weapons in ours class enemies hands.
For example, from the bourgeois moral point of view, any woman is destined (i would say -doomed-) to be a mother.

we should refuse this kind of stance and support any kind of sexual, moral and romance claim that has the potential to be transitional.

many decades after the '68, we still need to questioning the traditional family (and it seems very clear, since we did not had a revolution that could had flip the table and thrown away the bourgeois habit) and that's still a transitional claim.

so i welcome any kind of experiment in this direction, well-knowing that will not be the individual gain of consciousness, nor the individual practice to challenge and strike the core of the bourgeois moral, but only the raising of the working class, during the next transitional phase from capitalism to socialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Just skimming through the thread I think that you're the only person to actually make an attempt at answering my question, so thank you.

However, it still doesnt make sense for us to give a shit. If communists are on the side of working class liberation then I don't see why it matters if folks are monogamous or poly? If anything I think that going after the stupid morality that says some sex is good and some is bad. Otherwise I think what 870 said above about this being beyond the purview of communist theory and politics is correct.

So long as you are able to recognise that monogamy is part of prevailing heteronormative and patriarchal culture, you can do whatever you want. Sure, it's not strictly in the "purview" of communist theory (although I think that's a tenuous claim), but that doesn't mean we can't have an analysis of it, especially when you consider the history of monogamy and the way it has been used to reinforce heteronormative and patriarchal society. Polyamory isn't "revolutionary," but it certainly is a way of making a heterodox challenge to dominating assumptions about how humans should have relationships. You can say, "why should we give a shit?" if that's what you believe, and yeah sure, don't give a shit, but that's not a particularly interesting or useful position to have, and doesn't really address the issues surrounding family, patriarchy and heteronormativity. In many ways, it's a very comfortable, privileged position to have.

I personally don't see communism as a process where you transfer present, prevailing cultural standards and assumptions onto a new economic model. To me, it is the total destruction of bourgeois society and everything that is in it.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think it is pretty strenuous to link monogamy with a prevailing culture of hetero normativety where the logical outcome is that hetero normativety causes monogamy or an essential component of the other.

In other words, something can be a component of something without it being an essential an integral defining part and may be a component because of other factors.

When it comes to the expectation of monogamy there is no discernable difference between hetero groups and non hetero groups. It is just as much expected in the LGBTQ community as it is outside it.

There also doesn't seem to be a real significant difference in occurance of poly amorous personalities between hetero and non hetero groups.

Even historicaly in societies where open homosexuality was pretty much accepted monogamy seemed to pretty much be the prefered mode of relationships. Even in societies where having affairs was the norm. In fact most of these societies allowed affairs because of the arranged form of marriage.

And I think that has everything to do with why people start relationships and how rejection, commitment/reciprocity and trust affect people on a fysiological level.

Even in groups today, where non monogamy is the norm, this isn't universally considered by all partners to be the prefered mode of relationship and is usually the result of external obligations that are accepted. And these groups are often regulated by hetero normativety on a much more profound level.

This doesn't reject cultural influences. In fact I think it is pretty safe to say that culture influences everything. But it does beg the question why something is a part of something else in the first place. And shows that it is not so easy to simply say monogamy is the prefered mode of relationship today and today society is hetronormative that therefore hetronormative = monogamy.

I think it is much more correct to say that monogamy is the result of economic factors such as marriage and inheritance and one can even go so far as linking it to patriarchy.

[Hatshepsut]

That article was dumb. For one, it willfully conflated polyamory with polygamy...

But where in article does its writer do this? Polygamy, as once practiced by the Mormons, is the most blatant immersion of marriage arrangements into patriarchal power you can imagine, with Brigham Young and his 27 wives at the apex of the system. Polygamy has little to do with the sharing of either love or sex; often one “sister wife” is favored above the others, or the plurally married guy plays his women off one against another for perverse entertainment, given resentment and competition among the ladies is pretty fierce. In no case was any male other than Brigham allowed access to any of the women, however. Women are kept in slavery, utterly dependent on their husband, who often has them conceal the marriages and apply for welfare—which then goes into a bank account the man controls.

Polygamous Mormon-based cults still exist. The FLDS in Colorado City, Utah, and until authorities seized the ranch, at El Dorado, Texas are the best-known group. Utah’s then-Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, now notable for the bribery charges he faces after his impeachment, had freely spent Utah taxpayer monies contesting the State of Texas in the FLDS sex abuse case, which involved girls as young as 12 getting married to Warren Jeffs. The FLDS now have properties in Montana and Alberta, Canada. Some descendants of Rulon Allred are able to keep polygamy going in urban areas under superficially normal lifestyles that don’t attract raids by the police.

The sexual revolution of course doesn’t resemble this nightmare. Yet the article’s only assertion is that revolutionary causes aren’t effectively advanced through the use of defiant yet private sexual activity to reject bourgeois norms.

If there is a “norm” for human sexual relationships, it’s probably temporary or serial monogamy, the most common outcome whenever marriage patterns aren’t forced. So the “correct” socialist position entails getting society out of the business of regulating adult consensual sexual activity. Abolishing private property and keeping attempts to revive it off the board are what matter most; socialist society lacks spare supervisory energy to monitor bedrooms.

[BIXX]

I personally don't see communism as a process where you transfer present, prevailing cultural standards and assumptions onto a new economic model. To me, it is the total destruction of bourgeois society and everything that is in it.

This is probably the only way I'd consider myself a communist tbh.

I just don't think critiquing monogamy or polyamory really makes sense. It seems to me that the critique of as acceptable sex, or reproductive sex, etc... Basically sexual morality goes a lot further. I think it goes beyond the aesthetic of polyamory challrnging monogamy and patriarchy (which I dint deny are linked, I just don't think polyamory confronts it).

I'd be far more interested in seeing theory regarding the destruction of sexual morality and how the practice of sex has always been tried to be controlled by society with disastrous results every time, and how both polyamory and monogamy play into that. I am not interested in trying to pick a side between two meaniningless sides.

[Guardia Rossa]

I am not interested in trying to pick a side between two meaniningless sides.

We are the third side.

This is what I'm trying to say. We must fight for our own ideals. We must be an active faction. Otherwise we either take sides in this conflict that are not essentially anti-bourgeois or continue being what we are now: NOTHING.

[BIXX]

We are the third side.

This is what I'm trying to say. We must fight for our own ideals. We must be an active faction. Otherwise we either take sides in this conflict that are not essentially anti-bourgeois or continue being what we are now: NOTHING.

But my argument is being a "third side" (I don't even think that this is something where there can be a third side but simply a active decision to not participate in the game) would constitute not really giving a sbit about polyarmory of monogamy.

[The Feral Underclass]

I just don't think critiquing monogamy or polyamory really makes sense. It seems to me that the critique of as acceptable sex, or reproductive sex, etc... Basically sexual morality goes a lot further. I think it goes beyond the aesthetic of polyamory challrnging monogamy and patriarchy (which I dint deny are linked, I just don't think polyamory confronts it).

But obviously it does challenge it. It might not challenge it in a decisive way or in a objective way, but identity politics is about challenging the ideology and assumptions in practice. Being polyamorous, just like identifying as trans* or as a vegan, doesn't decisively destroy heteronormativity or animal oppression, but being trans*, or vegan or polyamorous are practical ways to challenge and confront ideology and assumptions in a way that prefigures a society that overcomes bourgeois society.


I'd be far more interested in seeing theory regarding the destruction of sexual morality and how the practice of sex has always been tried to be controlled by society with disastrous results every time, and how both polyamory and monogamy play into that. I am not interested in trying to pick a side between two meaniningless sides.

I don't accept that a rejection of monogamy is about sexual morality though...But the question is why has society attempted to control those things. That's the fundamental question. Monogamy developed to reinforce heteronormative and patriarchal society. As a standard and assumption it was used to control and oppress women and gay people. So rejecting monogamy, or at least understanding its history, does pose a challenge to the ideology and assumptions of prevailing standards. That's important; that's not meaningless.