Socialism & Islam

[Peacekeeper]

Bismillah hir Rahman nir Raheem
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Firstly, I would like to thank the half dozen or so people who commented on my profile and voiced their outrage at my restriction. You are the reason I decided to make my case on RevLeft rather than abandon it as a lost cause.

In this post I will explain a lot of things about myself and my ideological and religious development. Some things may seem irrelevant, but bear with me, everything is relevant here.

Economic & Class Background:

I suppose I had better start off by saying that I am a high school student (gasp!) and that my family is, and has been for the entirety of my life, well under the poverty line, as far as income is concerned.

My father remodels houses independently, and for some reason, he refuses to charge more than cost on materials, so the only money coming into the household is the money he gets for his wage-labor.

When my mother lived with us, before my parents were divorced, and when my four sisters lived here as well, money was very tight. For one, my mother cannot work because of a back injury, and is always taking muscle relaxers and pain relievers. So there was one man, supporting a family of seven.

At this time, we only ate the cheapest foods, whatever was on sale at the local Safeway, and we frequently went without power because we could not pay the PUD (Public Utility District) bill.

During these early years, I developed a left-leaning view of things. I was extremely precocious and politically aware. My parents listened to NPR and had liberal views. Both were atheists, and I was raised this way as well.

I considered myself a liberal and Democrat until a few years ago, when I first read the Communist Manifesto. I began reading other works by communist philosophers and revolutionaries, such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

At this point, I began to consider myself a communist. I believed then, as I do now, that it was historically inevitable that the capitalist class would need to make larger and larger profits, so had to pay their workers less and less, and so led to a worker's revolution, which would completely rejuvenate society.

My Socialism:

To expound upon my socialist views, I believe in a vanguard party consisting of the revolutionary working class. This party must seize, through revolution, the reins of government, and create a socialist order.

This includes the nationalization of major industries, buying out small businesses, and giving all workers the benefits of being State employees, such as universal health care, housing, food, and other necessities of life. Assuring the people employment and opportunities for education and intellectual fulfillment should be the socialist state's top priorities.

I don't remember where I read this, but it struck a chord with me, "Socialism does not create happiness, it creates the conditions in which happiness can be achieved." Once a man no longer has to worry about finding a job, paying for his kids' college, and his own retirement, he can begin to do what makes him happy.

This could be learning another language, or learning to ski, or finding a wife, or spending more time with the kids, or painting, or writing, or attending conventions relevant to what interests him.

The point is to have an active, stimulated people, who have everything they need to be fulfilled emotionally, physically, and mentally. This is socialism.

Reversion to Islam:

Until less than a year ago, I completely rejected the idea of a God. The idea just seemed ludicrous to me. An invisible guy in the sky who can do anything? Please.

However, when I looked at Muslims I knew, I saw an inner peace that I admired. A dedication and discipline that I admired. You pray five times a day? And so do 1.5 billion other people? And you all do it in the same way, reciting the exact same words?

What also drew me initially was the emphasis on anti-materialism (in the literal sense). Islam rejects the concept of hoarding money and wealth and consumer goods, as I did, as an atheist communist.

Also, I personally feel most comfortable when there is a set order of things. Surely, I had morals as an atheist, and as many humanist philosophers have pointed out, there can be morality without God. But if God gives religious people a reason to have strict moral principles, what is wrong with that?

The regimentation of Islam intrigued me. Everyone prays the same way. Everyone prays five times a day, towards the same Holy place. There is a set of rules, handed down by God, that everyone follows.

And of course, the Holy Koran is incredibly beautiful when recited in the original Arabic.


Now, there seems to be some question about my views on women, which is the stated reason for my restriction, as far as I know. I'll do my best to clear up any misconceptions you may have about my views concerning women, hijab, etc.

One thing you must realize: Don't assume you know everything about Muslims, and don't assume that everything you know about Muslims applies to me. I am not a typical Muslim in numerous ways.

To start off, women are my sisters. Muslim, non-Muslim, whatever. They are all worthy of my respect. As for working class, revolutionary women, you are my dearest sisters and comrades.

Regarding rights - all people should be guaranteed the same rights, in matters of law. I am at odds with some extremists within the Muslim ummah on this point. Some communities, especially Wahhabi, make hijab mandatory.

This is against Islam. The Holy Koran states that there is no compulsion of religion in Islam. I would never want to make a woman wear a hijab when she does not wish to. To do so is a violation of her basic human rights.

But women who do wear hijab are guaranteed my respect, because the mere action of putting on hijab and walking out the door into the world, especially in the USA, is a very brave and bold statement to the world, that you are strong in faith and modesty!

It has been stated that I said women who do not wear hijab will not find loving husbands. Perhaps I was unclear. I believe that a woman who wears hijab is more likely to find a husband who will love her for her personality rather than her body/attractiveness. Nothing more than that was meant, and I apologize to whomever I offended if you took my statement to mean anything other than that.


Recently:

I have come across the works of Colonel Muammar al-Qadathi, the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Arabic for "state of the masses"), including his ideological work, The Green Book.

I find his ideology of Islamic Socialism extremely interesting and insightful, and similar to my own. I strongly recommend the Green Book to everyone who calls themselves a Leftist.


If you wish to comment or ask questions or in any way discuss what I wrote above, feel free, I only ask that you keep things civil and serious. I will do the same.


NOTICE:

I DO NOT CONDONE MAKING HIJAB MANDATORY.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MEN SHOULD BE THE ONES TO CHANGE, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT VIEW WOMEN AS SEXUAL OBJECTS, RATHER THAN THE WOMAN HAVING TO COVER HERSELF TO FEEL COMFORTABLE.
I RECOGNIZE THAT IN SOCIETY TODAY, MEN WILL NOT CHANGE. TO STOP WOMEN BEING VIEWED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS, WE MUST HAVE AN END TO CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC & SOCIAL INEQUALITIES, ONLY THEN CAN WE CHANGE SOCIETY.
I SUPPORT EVERY RIGHT FOR WOMEN, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ABORTION, THE RIGHT TO MARRY WHOMEVER THEY THEY WANT, THE RIGHT TO VOTE, THE RIGHT TO DRESS HOW THEY WANT, AND THE RIGHT F*CK WHOMEVER THEY WANT.

SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW I AM A SEXIST.

[Die Neue Zeit]

At this point, I began to consider myself a communist. I believed then, as I do now, that it was historically inevitable that the capitalist class would need to make larger and larger profits, so had to pay their workers less and less, and so led to a worker's revolution, which would completely rejuvenate society.

My Socialism:

To expound upon my socialist views, I believe in a vanguard party consisting of the revolutionary working class. This party must seize, through revolution, the reins of government, and create a socialist order.

This includes the nationalization of major industries, buying out small businesses, and giving all workers the benefits of being State employees, such as universal health care, housing, food, and other necessities of life. Assuring the people employment and opportunities for education and intellectual fulfillment should be the socialist state's top priorities.

But that is still state capitalism, though:

"Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!" (Wilhelm Liebknecht)

You did not address the issues of workers' control over the process and wage slavery. :(


Also, I personally feel most comfortable when there is a set order of things. Surely, I had morals as an atheist, and as many humanist philosophers have pointed out, there can be morality without God. But if God gives religious people a reason to have strict moral principles, what is wrong with that?

The regimentation of Islam intrigued me. Everyone prays the same way. Everyone prays five times a day, towards the same Holy place. There is a set of rules, handed down by God, that everyone follows.

And of course, the Holy Koran is incredibly beautiful when recited in the original Arabic.

If you're interesting in having a liberation-theology take on Islam (like some "heretical" Catholics did in Central America), then by all means. However, the problem with "Islam" as a term is that it means "to submit."


Recently:

I have come across the works of Colonel Muammar al-Qadathi, the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Arabic for "state of the masses"), including his ideoloical work, The Green Book.

I find his ideology of Islamic Socialism extremely interesting and insightful, and similar to my own. I strongly recommend the green Book to everyone who calls themselves a Leftist.

Gaddafi is little more than a confused kook. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi)

[Peacekeeper]

I'm not stating that this planned economy ("state-capitalism") is the final product. It is merely a means to an end, and of course, does not solve all problems, it merely gives man the tools he needs to build a communist society, without need for wage-slavery.

Islam means peace and submission to God. However, the idea of a God, while appealing to me, is irrelevant if someone is a truly good and compassionate person. If you need a God to be a good person, by all means, pray. But if you don't, then that is fine with me as well. Look at the actions and deeds of people rather than their motivations when you see people clothing then naked and feeding the starving and employing the jobless.

That is simply a link to a Wikipedia page. I'm waiting for an explanation of your claim.

EDIT: Oh, you want me to talk about wage-slavery.

Okay - The worker produces a product, and is payed for his labor by the capitalist who "owns" the factory he works in. He is payed less than the product is worth, this is so the item can be sold to a middle-man or retailer at a profit, which the capitalist pockets. Essentially, if a worker produces one item, and is payed, he cannot afford to buy the item he just created! This is how the worker becomes alienated from his product. The capitalist class must be eliminated, and "ownership" of both the factory and the product placed in the hands of the workers.

[Plagueround]

While I don't have much of a say on your restriction either way, I honestly think you just need to think before you post some of the things you do. It's probably not so much what you say because if one looks closer you do make an attempt to clarify and justify what you are saying, however when someone angers you you're set off rather easily and start insulting people. I don't know if this is purely an online problem for you and is sheerly my observation. Not to say I'm any better, I've always had anger problems (probably more so than most) and it's something I work on every single day. What I'm saying here probably applies to me as well so don't think I'm singling you out.

I think that with you and most other religious posters on this board, there is always an underlying bias that occurs because many of the ideals and writings of islam, christianity, etc. are in direct opposition to socialism, communism, anarchy, and other far left philosophy. If you are able to reconcile the two belief systems in your own heart and head that, to me, is all that matters. However, I think that some of the things you've written betray that notion and lead people to believe you want to impose that belief on others. Whether this is the case or not, putting a bit more thought and patience into what you write may help convince others of this.

Either way I encourage you to post here again, even if you have to hang out behind the bars for a bit.

P.S. This topic is now making the ad bars on the top of the page link to places to meet single muslim women. :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Simple: Gaddafi was, AT BEST, a hypocrite. At worst, his "pan-Arabism" was/is quite worrisome.


But if you don't, then that is fine with me as well. Look at the actions and deeds of people rather than their motivations when you see people clothing then naked and feeding the starving and employing the jobless.

My personal views on "spirituality" vs. organized religion notwithstanding, you are quite correct. I would extend this to micro-credit financing, as well. :)

[Peacekeeper]

however when someone angers you you're set off rather easily and start insulting people.

:scared:

Is this true? Oh my. :(

I truly had not noticed that. I will from now on make a serious effort to be more polite. People who know me in real life would tell you I am rather quiet and introverted (unless talking politics, of course)!

Also, I'd like to say that you are probably the most polite person on these boards, and a voice of reason that all should be attentive to.

@Jacob: You lost me with "micro-credit financing." :blushing:

[Dean]

I appreciate this post, it was clearly very heart felt and meaningful

While I don't agree with a lot of what you say, I think you have a clear background in communism, and you have many of the basics right. I'm glad to see you back.

[Baconator]

Bismillah hir Rahman nir Raheem
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the MercifulHe doesn't seem very 'merciful' to me. But cool , I'll call my pink unicorn merciful too.


Firstly, I would like to thank the half dozen or so people who commented on my profile and voiced their outrage at my restriction. You are the reason I decided to make my case on RevLeft rather than abandon it as a lost cause.The mods have rigid standards. But welcome to the cell block :P


Economic & Class Background:

I suppose I had better start off by saying that I am a high school student (gasp!) and that my family is, and has been for the entirety of my life, well under the poverty line, as far as income is concerned.Ah, young , in high school , and living in less than desirable conditions. Perfect recruit for socialism.


My father remodels houses independently, and for some reason, he refuses to charge more than cost on materials, so the only money coming into the household is the money he gets for his wage-labor.Then your father is clearly exploiting himself by not charging interest on supplies. Remember, your father labored for his money prior to, and then he saved , to buy those supplies. Time is part of labor. In other words, he's not charging for his time and is therefore, exploiting himself. Not good. But I think your religion forbids interest (time income) and commands you to exploit yourself if I'm not mistaking.


When my mother lived with us, before my parents were divorced, and when my four sisters lived here as well, money was very tight. For one, my mother cannot work because of a back injury, and is always taking muscle relaxers and pain relievers. So there was one man, supporting a family of seven.Ouch. Sorry to hear that man. Thats a huge responsibility your parents created for themselves. We're either of you guys encouraged to work part time when you were old enough?



At this time, we only ate the cheapest foods, whatever was on sale at the local Safeway, and we frequently went without power because we could not pay the PUD (Public Utility District) bill.Yeah. I remember Safeway days. I grew up in less than desirable conditions as well. We scraped and saved what we could. Thats so sad to hear dude. You have my sympathies.


During these early years, I developed a left-leaning view of things. I was extremely precocious and politically aware. My parents listened to NPR and had liberal views. Both were atheists, and I was raised this way as well.Ah, my parents were theists. I chose Atheism and hence , rationality, on my own accord. I was a bit of Marxist in HS. Some people on this forum already know I was part of Marxist club in HS . Hehe. My rationality spilled over into economics and social studies and I soon figured out Marxism and Statism was full of inconsistencies. Today I am a libertarian principled free market anarchist. lol.



I considered myself a liberal and Democrat until a few years ago, when I first read the Communist Manifesto. I began reading other works by communist philosophers and revolutionaries, such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.You mean the Clintons didn't satisfy your political appetite. Heh.


At this point, I began to consider myself a communist. I believed then, as I do now, that it was historically inevitable that the capitalist class would need to make larger and larger profits, so had to pay their workers less and less, and so led to a worker's revolution, which would completely rejuvenate society.Well, Marx predicted this back right before the Industrial Revolution. He predicted this would happen in Western countries to boot. Unfortunately for Marx, the exact opposite happened. The communist revolutions actually took place in underdeveloped countries such as Russia and some other third world hot spots.




To expound upon my socialist views, I believe in a vanguard party consisting of the revolutionary working class. This party must seize, through revolution, the reins of government, and create a socialist order.Yeah, this happened...



This includes the nationalization of major industries, buying out small businesses, and giving all workers the benefits of being State employees, such as universal health care, housing, food, and other necessities of life. Assuring the people employment and opportunities for education and intellectual fulfillment should be the socialist state's top priorities.Direct state control of everything also happened.....

Except all the intended effects never happened. Everything unintended happened. State-run farms were in constant state of failure, food lines were the norm, health care left something to be desired , shoddy houses , and people wanted to leave this state socialist society a.l.a. the Berlin Wall.


I don't remember where I read this, but it struck a chord with me, "Socialism does not create happiness, it creates the conditions in which happiness can be achieved." Once a man no longer has to worry about finding a job, paying for his kids' college, and his own retirement, he can begin to do what makes him happy.Right. Its egalitarian though. Man must determine his own lot in society. To fight against providing for yourself necessities for life is no fault of capitalism , socialism , or any other system. This is the fault of nature for dealing with mortal man in a world of finite resources.


This could be learning another language, or learning to ski, or finding a wife, or spending more time with the kids, or painting, or writing, or attending conventions relevant to what interests him.Agreed. These are great things to do with your own time.


The point is to have an active, stimulated people, who have everything they need to be fulfilled emotionally, physically, and mentally. This is socialism.Socialism is 'collective ownership' over the 'means of production.' Stimulation comes from incentives and individual preferences. Fulfillment is on the individual to decide his own values and what he values most.



Until less than a year ago, I completely rejected the idea of a God. The idea just seemed ludicrous to me. An invisible guy in the sky who can do anything? Please.Should have stuck with this thought. It was rational. :D


However, when I looked at Muslims I knew, I saw an inner peace that I admired. A dedication and discipline that I admired. You pray five times a day? And so do 1.5 billion other people? And you all do it in the same way, reciting the exact same words?I can find solace in people praying to various gods besides Allah. Hell, I find peace in many atheists. This just means all these people believe in that sky god that can't be proven to exist. The lie of god existing might give them an falsehood they can feel comfortable with but I personally find much more joy with philosophy and seeking objective truth.


What also drew me initially was the emphasis on anti-materialism (in the literal sense). Islam rejects the concept of hoarding money and wealth and consumer goods, as I did, as an atheist communist.Right. Religious doctrine ( though not religious structure itself) is very compatible with other forms of irrationality and egalitarianism such as communism. Doesn't surprise me in the least that you would embrace both of these concepts.



Also, I personally feel most comfortable when there is a set order of things. Surely, I had morals as an atheist, and as many humanist philosophers have pointed out, there can be morality without God. But if God gives religious people a reason to have strict moral principles, what is wrong with that?Right but it doesn't mean those moral propositions made by religions are valid. One must examine the logical consistencies of 'God's morality' in order to begin to accept it might be valid. Of course, many inconsistencies exist which I won't get into right now which invalidates the propositions. Not all atheists accept the possibility of objective ethics and morality and this is why they might go religious to get that 'quick fix' answer .


The regimentation of Islam intrigued me. Everyone prays the same way. Everyone prays five times a day, towards the same Holy place. There is a set of rules, handed down by God, that everyone follows.Right, you must examine the consistency of those rules. If they are truly universal and moral, then what about all those people that have never prayed toward Mecca 5 times a day or those people that never prayed before Mecca even existed? Are they immoral for not doing so? If it is moral and universal to pray 5x , then it must be immoral to do the opposite. You cannot call one both moral and immoral without arriving at a contradiction.


One thing you must realize: Don't assume you know everything about Muslims, and don't assume that everything you know about Muslims applies to me. I am not a typical Muslim in numerous ways.Right but many Muslims already assume they know universal truths based on a doctrines that are mostly fairy tales. Making the positive claim that Allah created everything requires proof. Faith isn't proof.



Regarding rights - all people should be guaranteed the same rights, in matters of law. I am at odds with some extremists within the Muslim ummah on this point. Some communities, especially Wahhabi, make hijab mandatory.All individual human beings should have the same rights. That is the only way to be consistent and rational. If a man may order a woman to wear a hijab then a woman should be able to order a man to do the same thing.


This is against Islam. The Holy Koran states that there is no compulsion of religion in Islam. I would never want to make a woman wear a hijab when she does not wish to. To do so is a violation of her basic human rights.Yeah but the most adamant Muslim clerics still promote this contradiction.


But women who do wear hijab are guaranteed my respect, because the mere action of putting on hijab and walking out the door into the world, especially in the USA, is a very brave and bold statement to the world, that you are strong in faith and modesty!Actually its a sign of weakness to me. It demonstrates the woman does so based on a belief that cannot be substantiated by anything objective. If its voluntary and on her own accord and her reasoning is Islam then it shows fear from some irrational belief. Weakness of the mind. If it is because she fears her husband and the irrational belief , then it shows even more weakness. What would be really brave is leaving her husband ( especially in the West) who's clearly an irrational sociopath.


It has been stated that I said women who do not wear hijab will not find loving husbands. Perhaps I was unclear. I believe that a woman who wears hijab is more likely to find a husband who will love her for her personality rather than her body/attractiveness. Nothing more than that was meant, and I apologize to whomever I offended if you took my statement to mean anything other than that.That doesn't make sense , sorry. Because how can one suggest that one will love you more or less because of an object you put or don't put on your body and then claim that to be love? Love is earned through admiration of virtue on the behalf of the individual you love. If he truly loves her, he won't love her or certainly not scorn her for not wearing a hijab.

[pusher robot]

I don't remember where I read this, but it struck a chord with me, "Socialism does not create happiness, it creates the conditions in which happiness can be achieved." Once a man no longer has to worry about finding a job, paying for his kids' college, and his own retirement, he can begin to do what makes him happy.


This is such a trite view of happiness though. What about the pride and dignity gained from being able to support one's own existence? What about the feeling of empowerment one gets from being able to manage one's own life priorities? What about the joy of competing and winning? Of achievement following struggle? You cannot experience the happiness of success without the possibility of failure. "Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. "

[Kami]

It has been stated that I said women who do not wear hijab will not find loving husbands. Perhaps I was unclear. I believe that a woman who wears hijab is more likely to find a husband who will love her for her personality rather than her body/attractiveness. Nothing more than that was meant

And that's still fucking terrible. Do you think changing the way you phrase it somehow makes it alright?
What we object to is the onus being placed on the woman to do this so that people judge her for her personality. You're victim-blaming; you take the woman and blame her, when the blame rests on the observer; he is the one who should be held accountable if he's enough of a pig to judge someone solely on how they look.

I have some problems with the assumption that men will judge on appearance without an alternative, too. Don't know about you, but strikes me as rather sexist. While we're looking at men, why is it alright for them to be judged based on appearance while it is not for women, in your twisted view of reality?

[Plagueround]

This is such a trite view of happiness though. What about the pride and dignity gained from being able to support one's own existence? What about the feeling of empowerment one gets from being able to manage one's own life priorities? What about the joy of competing and winning? Of achievement following struggle? You cannot experience the happiness of success without the possibility of failure. "Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorius triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. "

This is an honest question and not an attempt to be rude:

Do you feel that capitalism accurately represents all this self empowerment and rising above struggle? To me it seems like the opposite. There are not many people that get anywhere in capitalism without standing on the shoulders of others and crushing them in some way.
Why does the need for competition have to be satisfied by capital gains? What sense of pride and dignity is to be gained from knowing the system you're "winning in" includes things like sweatshop exploitation of the third world and profit motivated imperialism?

[Peacekeeper]

He doesn't seem very 'merciful' to me. But cool , I'll call my pink unicorn merciful too.

He will forgive almost anything if you make it up with good deeds. Sounds merciful to me.


The mods have rigid standards. But welcome to the cell block :P Indeed. Hopefully only for a temporary period.


Ah, young , in high school , and living in less than desirable conditions. Perfect recruit for socialism. Indeed.


Then your father is clearly exploiting himself by not charging interest on supplies. Remember, your father labored for his money prior to, and then he saved , to buy those supplies. Time is part of labor. In other words, he's not charging for his time and is therefore, exploiting himself. Not good. But I think your religion forbids interest (time income) and commands you to exploit yourself if I'm not mistaking. No... he isn't saving to buy those supplies. In the estimate he makes, he says he will need X dollars for supplies, and his client pays him, he goes out and buys them. Then he is payed at the end of the job, or weekly, depending on which is shorter. It's a strange business model... he doesn't exactly have a business degree. Interest in banking, yes. This was specifically referring to the Jews, who were the first to profit from loans by charging interest.


Ouch. Sorry to hear that man. Thats a huge responsibility your parents created for themselves. We're either of you guys encouraged to work part time when you were old enough? Not really, it's all about academic success. Although my sisters did have some part-time jobs, they used the money for clothes, etc. because my parents could rarely afford to buy us things.


Yeah. I remember Safeway days. I grew up in less than desirable conditions as well. We scraped and saved what we could. Thats so sad to hear dude. You have my sympathies. Thank you.



Ah, my parents were theists. I chose Atheism and hence , rationality, on my own accord. I was a bit of Marxist in HS. Some people on this forum already know I was part of Marxist club in HS . Hehe. My rationality spilled over into economics and social studies and I soon figured out Marxism and Statism was full of inconsistencies. Today I am a libertarian principled free market anarchist. lol. Hence the restriction.



You mean the Clintons didn't satisfy your political appetite. Heh. Not exactly.


Well, Marx predicted this back right before the Industrial Revolution. He predicted this would happen in Western countries to boot. Unfortunately for Marx, the exact opposite happened. The communist revolutions actually took place in underdeveloped countries such as Russia and some other third world hot spots. Empty stomaches make for revolution. :lol:



Except all the intended effects never happened. Everything unintended happened. State-run farms were in constant state of failure, food lines were the norm, health care left something to be desired , shoddy houses , and people wanted to leave this state socialist society a.l.a. the Berlin Wall. Typical Western propaganda. In western China, there are still the most voluntary collective farms in the world, and they are successful. The reason many collective farms failed in the Soviet Union was because kulaks would hoard grain, burn/salt fields, and destroy faming equipment, not through any fundamental flaw in the process of collective farming.


Right. Its egalitarian though. Man must determine his own lot in society. To fight against providing for yourself necessities for life is no fault of capitalism , socialism , or any other system. This is the fault of nature for dealing with mortal man in a world of finite resources. There are plenty of resources to go around, even with our rapidly expanding population. The problem is, most of the resources are controlled in some way or another by the capitalist class.



Socialism is 'collective ownership' over the 'means of production.' Stimulation comes from incentives and individual preferences. Fulfillment is on the individual to decide his own values and what he values most. That's socialism from a strictly literal and scientific standpoint. I was attempting to explore the implications it has for revitalizing society.


Should have stuck with this thought. It was rational. :DAs rational as denying your feet exist because you cannot see them while wearing shoes.


I can find solace in people praying to various gods besides Allah. Hell, I find peace in many atheists. This just means all these people believe in that sky god that can't be proven to exist. The lie of god existing might give them an falsehood they can feel comfortable with but I personally find much more joy with philosophy and seeking objective truth. I didn't say others cannot have peace without Islam. I'm saying it is easier for me to be at peace this way. I'm not telling you to convert because you would feel better about life, I'm just stating that I did.


Right. Religious doctrine ( though not religious structure itself) is very compatible with other forms of irrationality and egalitarianism such as communism. Doesn't surprise me in the least that you would embrace both of these concepts. Are you comparing egalitarianism and irrationality? What kind of anarchist (ANY kind of anarchist) calls egalitarianism irrational?


Right but it doesn't mean those moral propositions made by religions are valid. One must examine the logical consistencies of 'God's morality' in order to begin to accept it might be valid. Of course, many inconsistencies exist which I won't get into right now which invalidates the propositions. Not all atheists accept the possibility of objective ethics and morality and this is why they might go religious to get that 'quick fix' answer . They are valid in the respect that I agree with (most) of them, so I choose to follow them. No one should be forced to follow Shari'a, but if it makes you happy, by all means, go ahead.


Right, you must examine the consistency of those rules. If they are truly universal and moral, then what about all those people that have never prayed toward Mecca 5 times a day or those people that never prayed before Mecca even existed? Are they immoral for not doing so? If it is moral and universal to pray 5x , then it must be immoral to do the opposite. You cannot call one both moral and immoral without arriving at a contradiction.They aren't universal for everyone, in all time periods (pre-Abrahamic religion for example, as you said). But they apply to those 1.5 billion people who follow the path set forth in the Holy Koran.


Right but many Muslims already assume they know universal truths based on a doctrines that are mostly fairy tales. Making the positive claim that Allah created everything requires proof. Faith isn't proof. Atheists put too much emphasis on the belief in God. The important part (to me) is to live a disciplined life. I don't need to prove anything in order to live a disciplined life.



All individual human beings should have the same rights. That is the only way to be consistent and rational. If a man may order a woman to wear a hijab then a woman should be able to order a man to do the same thing. I completely agree.



Yeah but the most adamant Muslim clerics still promote this contradiction. ...then I guess it's good that I'm not an adamant Muslim cleric.



Actually its a sign of weakness to me. It demonstrates the woman does so based on a belief that cannot be substantiated by anything objective. If its voluntary and on her own accord and her reasoning is Islam then it shows fear from some irrational belief. Weakness of the mind. If it is because she fears her husband and the irrational belief , then it shows even more weakness. What would be really brave is leaving her husband ( especially in the West) who's clearly an irrational sociopath. It can and is based on something objective. A man does not look at a woman in a hijab lecherously, and man does look at a woman in a mini skirt and low-cut shirt lustfully.


That doesn't make sense , sorry. Because how can one suggest that one will love you more or less because of an object you put or don't put on your body and then claim that to be love? Love is earned through admiration of virtue on the behalf of the individual you love. If he truly loves her, he won't love her or certainly not scorn her for not wearing a hijab.You're looking at hijab as an object. In reality, hijab is also the practice of moving and dressing modestly in general. I, personally, admire a woman who will do this, and I know many of my Muslim brothers do as well. Also, in practice, we do not scorn or talk down to or whatever a girl who chooses not to wear hijab. And this is in practice, what I see and hear from my Muslim brothers in the USA. If you want to bring up some incident from Saudi Arabia that shows otherwise, that doesn't apply to me or most American Muslims.


What about the joy of competing and winning?And the knowledge that the guy who didn't get the job lost his house and his family is living on the street? Capitalism cannot exist without unemployment, because there needs to be competition for jobs. This means that there will always be 5-15% of the population who are unemployed, and many people starving and generally suffering in a state of poverty. It is an inhuman system.


And that's still fucking terrible. Do you think changing the way you phrase it somehow makes it alright?
What we object to is the onus being placed on the woman to do this so that people judge her for her personality. You're victim-blaming; you take the woman and blame her, when the blame rests on the observer; he is the one who should be held accountable if he's enough of a pig to judge someone solely on how they look.

I completely agree. The man is the one at fault here. A woman should not have to feel that she has to cover her hair to feel safe. But this is the society we live in right now. And until that changes, I don't want to hear it. And I do believe that a classless society could solve these problems created by unequal economic and social systems. The solution is not to give into the sexism and wear revealing clothing and act like how the media portrays women. Maybe you don't think the solution is to wear hijab, but she does, and it's her choice. Hate the societal conditions that makes a girl feel this way, not the religion that suggest hijab as a solution.


I have some problems with the assumption that men will judge on appearance without an alternative, too. Don't know about you, but strikes me as rather sexist. While we're looking at men, why is it alright for them to be judged based on appearance while it is not for women, in your twisted view of reality?To be blunt, men are hornier as a gender. In this society, we are more open about our sexuality than women. It is much more socially accepted for a man to display sexual desire than for a woman to. The typical double standard of "players" and "sluts." Yes - we all know that women have sexual desire too. But it is considered less likely for a man to be looked at as a sexual object. It's not my twisted reality. I didn't create it, and I want to destroy it.

[pusher robot]

This is an honest question and not an attempt to be rude:

Do you feel that capitalism accurately represents all this self empowerment and rising above struggle? To me it seems like the opposite. There are not many people that get anywhere in capitalism without standing on the shoulders of others and crushing them in some way.
Why does the need for competition have to be satisfied by capital gains? What sense of pride and dignity is to be gained from knowing the system you're "winning in" includes things like sweatshop exploitation of the third world and profit motivated imperialism?

"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures." Your error is in assuming that "success" has anything to do with capital or profit or what other people are or are not doing. But success, true contentment, comes from the knowledge that one did the best that could have been expected. The stoics were right about this. No amount of prosperity can fulfill a person who has not had to exercise his judgment to earn or keep it. No amount of poverty can break a person who knows he has made the very best of what reality would permit him. But we can never know, we can never test ourselves, unless we are free to win and lose by the sweat of our own brows and the judgments of our own minds. The most tragic regret, the most crippling roadblock to feelings of success, is looking back and wondering what might have been, and the only cure to this malady is to try.

[Plagueround]

"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures." Your error is in assuming that "success" has anything to do with capital or profit or what other people are or are not doing. But success, true contentment, comes from the knowledge that one did the best that could have been expected. The stoics were right about this. No amount of prosperity can fulfill a person who has not had to exercise his judgment to earn or keep it. No amount of poverty can break a person who knows he has made the very best of what reality would permit him. But we can never know, we can never test ourselves, unless we are free to win and lose by the sweat of our own brows and the judgments of our own minds. The most tragic regret, the most crippling roadblock to feelings of success, is looking back and wondering what might have been, and the only cure to this malady is to try.

Sounds like a Gatorade ad.
I've made no error in my thinking. I understand what sense of accomplishment and merit you are describing and it's something that won't go away unless you're overly concerned with a numerical value to validate it. What makes you think that people won't be able to achieve a feeling of accomplishment in a communist or socialist system? I imagine there would be plenty of opportunity to gain that feeling of accomplishment you describe, and only those who need a monetary sum or better possessions than others would feel left out.
I don't claim to have the answers to everything. I honestly do not know what the best answer for humanity is, which is why you don't see Marxist, Lenninist, Troskyist, King Hippoist or anything else in my signature. The only thing I know is this: While I'm quite content with my personal state of being and my career, that doesn't stop me from recognizing that we can make things better for people. We are social animals and we should embrace some form of system that benefits society, not one that places falsehoods of individuality and personal responsibility on exploitation and greed, kind of like the one that guy (a socialist) who wrote the song in your quote described a lot.

[RHIZOMES]

And that's still fucking terrible. Do you think changing the way you phrase it somehow makes it alright?
What we object to is the onus being placed on the woman to do this so that people judge her for her personality. You're victim-blaming; you take the woman and blame her, when the blame rests on the observer; he is the one who should be held accountable if he's enough of a pig to judge someone solely on how they look.

I have some problems with the assumption that men will judge on appearance without an alternative, too. Don't know about you, but strikes me as rather sexist. While we're looking at men, why is it alright for them to be judged based on appearance while it is not for women, in your twisted view of reality?

THIS.

Peacekeeper, on your restriction: it has nothing to do with your religion. There have been Muslims on this board who weren't restricted, since they weren't sexist fucks like you.

[Peacekeeper]

THIS.

Peacekeeper, on your restriction: it has nothing to do with your religion. There have been Muslims on this board who weren't restricted, since they weren't sexist fucks like you.

You're arguing against something I never said.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x25/artr0/Straw_Man_Kit.jpg

Please come back when you've actually read what I wrote.


Now, there seems to be some question about my views on women, which is the stated reason for my restriction, as far as I know.Also, prove you claims, or get out.

Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

My views on women: I believe that women should have the same rights as men, the unquestioned right to abortion, the right to marry other women, the right to dress however they want, and the right to f*ck whomever they want. Where is the sexism, friend?

I'm waiting.

[BobKKKindle$]

However, when I looked at Muslims I knew, I saw an inner peace that I admired. A dedication and discipline that I admired. You pray five times a day? And so do 1.5 billion other people? And you all do it in the same way, reciting the exact same words?There are many people who find that religion can give them a sense of purpose and moral direction in life, but just because religion may be seen as useful, that does not make it true. In the same way, many young children invent imaginary friends as a source of comfort or amusement, but no rational human would ever claim that because imaginary friends can serve a useful purpose, they must actually exist.

This is called the separation of truth-value and use-value.

Can you provide evidence supporting the existence of a supreme being? If no evidence exists, then what rational reason is there to believe in god?

If belief requires no supporting evidence (this is a common theist response to demands for evidence) then what is the nature of truth? If we do not have to justify out beliefs with empirical evidence, then what makes believing in god any more sensible than, say, believing in unicorns or fairies?


Where is the sexism, friend? The problem with your statement is that it makes the assumption that women need to be protected from men by covering up. However, some women enjoy displaying their bodies, with the knowledge that men will be sexually attracted to them and admire them - that is the nature of human sexual interaction, we all use the desirable features of our body to attract the opposite sex. This is nothing to be ashamed about. Your statement is also sexist against men, because it rests on the assumption that men will be unable to interact with women as human beings unless they are covered with with a hijab - although some men are sexist and view women solely as objects to be used for sexual pleasure, this is not true of all men, and if a man already holds sexist attitudes, it is unlikely that wearing a hijab will make him more likely to show the respect women deserve.

[Peacekeeper]

There are many people who find that religion can give them a sense of purpose and moral direction in life, but just because religion may be seen as useful, that does not make it true. In the same way, many young children invent imaginary friends as a source of comfort or amusement, but no rational human would ever claim that because imaginary friends can serve a useful purpose, they must actually exist.

This is called the separation of truth-value and use-value.

Can you provide evidence supporting the existence of a supreme being? If no evidence exists, then what rational reason is there to believe in god?

If belief requires no supporting evidence (this is a common theist response to demands for evidence) then what is the nature of truth? If we do not have to justify out beliefs with empirical evidence, then what makes believing in god any more sensible than, say, believing in unicorns or fairies?

I've said this before: Astifir'Allah for saying this, but whether God is real or not is irrelevant. The way that belief in God makes you act is the important part. Even if God was proven to be false, I would act the same way I do now, praying five times a day to center myself, and continue to follow the Holy Koran and the words of the Prophet Muhammad, sal allahu alayhi wasalaam, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and the Twelve Imams, peace be upon them.


The problem with your statement is that it makes the assumption that women need to be protected from men by covering up. However, some women enjoy displaying their bodies, with the knowledge that men will be sexually attracted to them and admire them - that is the nature of human sexual interaction, we all the desirable features of our body to attract the opposite sex. This is nothing to be ashamed about. Your statement is also sexist against men, because it rests on the assumption that men will be unable to interact with women as human beings unless they are covered with with a hijab - although some men are sexist and view women solely as objects to be used for sexual pleasure, this is not true of all men, and if a man already holds sexist attitudes, it is unlikely that wearing a hijab will make him more likely to show the respect women deserve.

I don't say they need to be protected. They do, and that's why they wear hijab. I'm well aware that some women enjoy displaying their bodies. They have the right to display them, and I have the right to be personally repulsed by their actions.
Men are able to interact on a personal level with women without a woman following hijab, of course. But it makes it easier, and gives the woman a sense of security (so I'm told by my hijabi sisters).
I take issue with your assertion that a sexist man will be more likely to show respect towards a hijabi. For example, if I am a sexist (:laugh:), then your statement must be taken as false immediately. Now let's assume that am not (:)). A sexist man (a man who sees a woman as a sexual object), walking down the street, sees two women. One wearing revealing clothing, one wearing hijab. He will stare at the woman in revealing clothes, because he can see more of her body, and is aroused/intrigued by her body.

EDIT: Actually, he may, being sexist, be ignorant and stare at the hijabi girl out of fear, confusion, xenophobia, or hate. :rolleyes:

[BobKKKindle$]

I've said this before: Astifir'Allah for saying this, but whether God is real or not is irrelevant.Don't try and dodge the issue: Do you believe in god? If yes, why?

If god does not exist, or the existence of god is irrelevant, then what reason is there to follow the morality prescribed in religious texts, given that no negative consequences will occur if we do not obey this morality?


I have the right to be personally repulsed by their actions.Why are you "repulsed" by the idea of women displaying their bodies?

Let us assume, for argument's sake, that men are able to engage with women as human beings when they wear the hijab, but view women mainly as sex obejects when they do not wear the hijab - in other words, let us take a simplified and insulting view of male behaviour. Why is it that women are being made to alter their mode of dress so as to guard against the sexist prejudices of men? Surely it is the men who are at fault, and they are the ones who should be encouraged to change the way they view women?

[RHIZOMES]

You're arguing against something I never said.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x25/artr0/Straw_Man_Kit.jpg

Please come back when you've actually read what I wrote.

Also, prove you claims, or get out.

Sexism: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

My views on women: I believe that women should have the same rights as men, the unquestioned right to abortion, the right to marry other women, the right to dress however they want, and the right to f*ck whomever they want. Where is the sexism, friend?

I'm waiting.

i did read what you said. Kami summed up what I think of your bullshit. Also bobkindles is doing quite an excellent job too.

Having such a view is SEXIST, no matter if you believe it for religious reasons or not. An atheist could say that women who cover themselves up are more likely to find a loving husband and they find women who flaunt their bodies disgusting, it would still be sexist (Also fucking stupid) and that person would still be restricted. This is why this little "religious persecution" card you're pulling is completely baseless in fact or reality.

But then again, you're religious, why exactly am I expecting arguments based on fact or reality to come from you? :rolleyes:

[Peacekeeper]

This is why this little "religious persecution" card you're pulling is completely baseless in fact or reality.

But then again, you're religious, why exactly am I expecting arguments based on fact or reality to come from you? :rolleyes:

You make me smile. :)
Because not once on this board, EVER, have I said that I thought I was being persecuted because of my religion. Sorry to disappoint, but it seems that your arguments are the ones not based on fact or reality. :)


Don't try and dodge the issue: Do you believe in god? If yes, why?

If god does not exist, or the existence of god is irrelevant, then what reason is there to follow the morality prescribed in religious texts, given that no negative consequences will occur if we do not obey this morality?

I pray because it feels good. I follow the Holy Koran because it is pleasing and fulfilling to me. That is the reason.


Why are you "repulsed" by the idea of women displaying their bodies?

Let us assume, for argument's sake, that men are able to engage with women as human beings when they wear the hijab, but view women mainly as sex obejects when they do not wear the hijab - in other words, let us take a simplified and insulting view of male behaviour. Why is it that women are being made to alter their mode of dress so as to guard against the sexist prejudices of men? Surely it is the men who are at fault, and they are the ones who should be encouraged to change the way they view women?

It's just the way I am. Something in the environment of my upbringing must have happened to cause that, as with all feelings that anyone has about anything. Because I'm an "emotional fuck-up," as one RevLeft-er put it bluntly. :rolleyes:
Also, I have acknowledged that the onus of the blame is on the men several times. See previous posts in this thread where I have addressed this issue.

[BobKKKindle$]

I pray because it feels good. I follow the Holy Koran because it is pleasing and fulfilling to me. That is the reason.

The reason for what? Believing in god?

If this is what you meant, then your case still fails. To return to my analogy - young children may find it "pleasing" to talk to an imaginary friend if they do not have any real friends or feel alone, but the fact that this is "pleasing" to the child does not mean that the imaginary friend actually exists.


Also, I have acknowledged that the onus of the blame is on the men several times.

Clearly you have not acknowledged this, because you insist that women should wear the hijab, and so it is the women who are being forced to adapt to prejudice.

Putting aside the issue of whether this position puts on onus on women or men, it is questionable as to whether your premise - that the hijab encourages men to show respect to women - stands. In Saudi Arabia, wearing the Hijab is compulsory, and yet it is clear that Saudi Arabia is one of the most regressive states in the world when it comes to womens rights. Women are not given the right to vote, or the right to drive, and women are not able to give testimony in a court of law unless the event they witnessed was also witnessed by a man who is able to support the woman's claims. If the hijab does encourage respect for women, why is it that in a country where the hijab is mandatory, women are subject to such discrimination?

[Peacekeeper]

The reason for what? Believing in god?

If this is what you meant, then your case still fails. To return to my analogy - young children may find it "pleasing" to talk to an imaginary friend if they do not have any real friends or feel alone, but the fact that this is "pleasing" to the child does not mean that the imaginary friend actually exists.

No... the reason I pray and follow the word of God, is because it makes me happy. I'm not making a case that God exists. That's for you to decide for yourself and me to decide for myself. I'm not making a case for anything on this point. I'm just saying that religion fulfills me, and that is the only relevant part of it. If someone is miserable worshiping God, they should stop, in my humble opinion.





Clearly you have not acknowledged this, because you insist that women should wear the hijab, and so it is the women who are being forced to adapt to prejudice.

Putting aside the issue of whether this position puts on onus on women or men, it is questionable as to whether your premise - that the hijab encourages men to show respect to women - stands. In Saudi Arabia, wearing the Hijab is compulsory, and yet it is clear that Saudi Arabia is one of the most regressive states in the world when it comes to womens rights. Women are not given the right to vote, or the right to drive, and women are not able to give testimony in a court of law unless the event they witnessed was also witnessed by a man who is able to support the woman's claims. If the hijab does encourage respect for women, why is it that in a country where the hijab is mandatory, women are subject to such discrimination?You really didn't read my posts, did you? Here, I'll quote myself for you:


I completely agree. The man is the one at fault here. A woman should not have to feel that she has to cover her hair to feel safe. But this is the society we live in right now. And until that changes, I don't want to hear it. And I do believe that a classless society could solve these problems created by unequal economic and social systems. The solution is not to give into the sexism and wear revealing clothing and act like how the media portrays women. Maybe you don't think the solution is to wear hijab, but she does, and it's her choice. Hate the societal conditions that makes a girl feel this way, not the religion that suggest hijab as a solution. Also, cases of rape and other sexual crimes are higher in Western countries such as the USA where there is a hedonist culture, and lower in Muslim countries where there is a culture of chastity and modesty.

The bolded area of the bit I quoted from you has more errors than just that, too. I never said women should do anything. I've merely stated why Muslim women wear hijab, and why I approve of their personal choice, along with pointing out that the societal conditions that cause them to want to wear hijab are created by economic and social inequality. I continue to fail to see how this view is in any way sexist.

Hmm. It seems that the same misconceptions keep being made over and over again. I think I'll go edit the OP.

[BobKKKindle$]

No... the reason I pray and follow the word of God, is because it makes me happy. I'm not making a case that God exists. That's for you7 to decide for yourself and me to decide for myself.So have you made a decision on the question of whether god exists? If so, would you care to share the decision with the rest of us so we can get an idea of where you stand on this issue, instead of obscuring what you believe?


You really didn't read my posts..[etc]You are still failing to acknowledge the issue, because of instead of confronting the problem as it currently exists, you are adopting a defeatist approach and asserting that women can only attain greater independence in the far future under a different social system. Capitalism will always generate sexist oppression, but there are at least some things which can be done now to fight against against sexism - as shown by the incredible advances which have been made in the sphere of womens rights (right to abortion, right to divorce without consent of partner, etc.) and this means that instead of turning to the hijab as the only feasible "solution" Socialists should seek to identify the origin of sexist attitudes and confront men who exhibit open sexism.

You have made an assumption that all of the women who wear the hijab have made a personal choice to do so. Although this may be true in some cases, there are also women who are forced to wear the hijab through religious indoctrination, and the social pressure imposed by men in the Muslim community, and some women who have refused to wear the hijab have faced violence (example (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2007/12/10/teen-girl-in-critical-condition-after-alleged-dispute-over-hijab.aspx)) because this refusal has not been accepted as a legitimate choice. Clearly these women [those who wear the hijab for the reasons noted above] cannot be seen as making a choice, because they are coerced into doing something.


Also, cases of rape and other sexual crimes are higher in Western countries such as the USA where there is a hedonist culture, and lower in Muslim countries where there is a culture of chastity and modesty.This is doubtful, because most sex crimes which occur in Muslim countries are not reported, especially in Saudi Arabia, where, in a recent case, a women who was gang raped was punished because she was outside her home without a male relative. (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7098480.stm))

[Peacekeeper]

What? Of course I believe God exists. I apologize if it appeared I was trying to obscure anything. I believe God exists because the Holy Koran is perfectly applicable to me, and the rules set by it are pleasing for me to follow.
This will sound absurd at first, but have you seen the Never-Ending Story? ;)
The book in that movie is a book that states every detail of your life, perfectly. When I read the Holy Koran for the first time, it was as if it was speaking directly to me, like it was written especially for me, but millenia before I was born, by people who never knew me. It was incredible.

Okay, it is a defeatist attitude. But what do you want me to do? Tell my sisters to stop wearing hijab because we're going to go to a rally in support of lesbian marriage instead?

As I've stated before, I do not support women being forced to wear hijab. It is un-Islamic, and I find it personally repulsive and degrading when a women is forced to do anything against her will. Also, Saudi Arabia has a f*cked up government. I'd enjoy dragging the entire House of Saud through the streets for what they've done to their people and two of the three holiest places in Islam. Don't cite those Wahhabis against me, they have nothing to do with me or what I believe.

[BobKKKindle$]

What? Of course I believe God exists. What empirical evidence can you provide to support belief in the existence of god?

The fact that the Koran had an profound emotional effect is not sufficient evidence that god exists, because it is possible for someone to be affected in the same way when they read a beautiful poem or listen to a musical composition. I, for example, cannot help but feel overcome with emotion when I read If by Rudyard Kipling. That humans can be affected in this way by art is a tribute to the ability of artists to speak to our emotions, and an insight into the way our minds function, not evidence of the divine.


Okay, it is a defeatist attitude. But what do you want me to do?In your addition to your opening post, you wrote that men cannot change. This is a fundamentally flawed assertion, and may be the root of your support for the hijab as a "solution" to sexism. Men are capable of change - as shown by the incredible changes in attitudes which have taken place. At the beginning of the twentieth century, sexual activity outside of marriage was looked down upon, women were expected to stay at home and care for children instead of pursuing an independent career, and in general men had a conservative view of women - as can be seen by talking to the men who grew up during this era. This stands in stark contrast to the views of the men who have grown up during or after the sexual revolution of the 1960s - although there are some sexist attitudes which remain, in general, men have a more progressive outlook - women are appreciated as having mental talents equal to those of men, and the rights which women have gained though struggle are accepted.

A similar shift in attitudes can be seen with homosexuality - I hope you won't think it patronizing if I try and get my point across by speaking to part of your personal identity.

Therefore, instead of adopting what you yourself describe as a defeatist approach, Socialists should focus on agitation, to further change mens' attitudes and confront sexism where it still exists - that's being progressive.


It is un-Islamic, and I find it personally repulsive and degrading when a women is forced to do anything against her will. Indeed - but surely the discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia shows that the hijab is not effective in changing mens attitudes and discouraging sexism?

[Peacekeeper]

What empirical evidence can you provide to support belief in the existence of god?

There isn't any. And I feel no need to prove it.



In your addition to your opening post, you wrote that men cannot change. WHAT?!

I am beginning to think that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying. I said that men cannot change in a capitalist society. That is to say, most men will always see women as sexual objects, as long as capitalism is in existence, due to the corporate media and other factors.


At the beginning of the twentieth century, sexual activity outside of marriage was looked down upon, women were expected to stay at home and care for children instead of pursuing an independent career, and in general men had a conservative view of women - as can be seen by talking to the men who grew up during this era. This stands in stark contrast to the views of the men who have grown up during or after the sexual revolution of the 1960s - although there are some sexist attitudes which remain, in general, men have a more progressive outlook - women are appreciated as having mental talents equal to those of men, and the rights which women have gained though struggle are accepted.Are you equating the struggle for women's rights with the acceptance of adultery and the rise of hedonism? I am appalled. You're the one who should be restricted, not me.


A similar shift in attitudes can be seen with homosexuality - I hope you won't think it patronizing if I try and get my point across by speaking to part of your personal identity. "My personal identity"...
I haven't seen any shift whatsoever in how society sees homosexuals. There are the people who hate them because of obscure religious reasons, people who love them because they talk and dress funny, and the very few who see us as no different from the rest. The two former being the vast majority. While those two views have perhaps traded spaces with each other in terms pf how many people think that way, both views are extremely degrading. Although even they are not as bad as the gays who act like the stereotypical queers. Oh, how they make everything worse for us.:(
F*ck the liberal "I love gay people!" attitude. Why not trying loving humanity, rather than singling people out like that?
Sorry for the small rant - I guess you can tell I'm not one of those effeminate gay-bois.



Therefore, instead of adopting what you yourself describe as a defeatist approach, Socialists should focus on agitation, to further change mens' attitudes and confront sexism where it still exists - that's being progressive.There's that word again...
I don't like it. In my mind, it is associated with petty liberalism and the petit-bourgeois. It is not related to class struggle or the worker;s movement.

Sorry if I'm relating too many things to movies, but have you seen the Anarchist Cookbook? Because you're sounding a lot like Johnny Red.

"Things will be different... after the revolution!"

Yes - but what about now? I don't mean changing someone's mind, I mean, what can be done to counteract the negative effects of society on women at this very instant? Well - there is this thing that covers your hair...

Yes, that is a simplistic approach to the problem, but what else if there, before this "agitation" becomes effective? By buying into the bullsh*t hedonist culture by wearing their clothes, eating their food, buying their techno-gadgets? Hell no.


Indeed - but surely the discrimination against women in Saudi Arabia shows that the hijab is not effective in changing mens attitudes and discouraging sexism?Saudi Arabia is an autocratic state. The discrimination against them is inherent in the system, not in society. In Saudi society (not government or law!), women are much more respected than in the West. It is the opposite in the West, where women are equal in the eyes of the state, but considered mere sexual playthings (by the hedonist youth) or incubators (the religious right) by the majority of society. A sorry state of affairs indeed for my sisters. :(

[RHIZOMES]

You make me smile. :)
Because not once on this board, EVER, have I said that I thought I was being persecuted because of my religion. Sorry to disappoint, but it seems that your arguments are the ones not based on fact or reality. :)

Well that's what accusing us of "petty sectarianism" when we restricted your sexist ass looked like to me (And a few other comrades). :rolleyes: Unless railing against blatant sexism is sectarian somehow. :rolleyes:

[BobKKKindle$]

There isn't any. And I feel no need to prove it. There is no evidence supporting the existence of unicorns. Do you believe in unicorns? If not, why do you choose to believe in god, but not unicorns, given that there is the same amount of evidence for both?


I am beginning to think that you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying. I said that men cannot change in a capitalist society.I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear - I was referring to your assertion that men cannot change in a capitalist society, and I soundly refuted this assertion with a description of how male attitudes have changed. Asserting that attitudes have remained the same for the duration of capitalism's existence and that all men are completely incapable of changing the way they see women is to utterly disregard reality. If attitudes have not changed and are the same attitudes as those which prevailed in the Victorian era (when capitalism first came to exist) why is it that women are now an accepted part of the workforce, whereas previously they were expected to stay at home and abstain from participation in public life? Why is it that women have been able to win the right to vote, and are accepted as candidates for elections?


Are you equating the struggle for women's rights with the acceptance of adultery and the rise of hedonism?There is nothing wrong with adultery as such - people should not be forced to restrict the scope of sexual relations to one person if they want to have sex with multiple partners. The right to access birth control, and the right terminate unwanted pregnancy were important achievements in the struggle for womens equality, because in the absence of these rights, women are unable to enjoy free sexual relations in the same way as men, due to the fear of getting pregnant.

You seem to have an aversion to people having sex for pleasure outside of a relationship - but as a Socialist I fully support sexual liberalism (or "hedonism" as you might prefer to call it) as conducive to human happiness.


I haven't seen any shift whatsoever in how society sees homosexuals.That's absurd. Prior to 1967, homosexuality was illegal in England, which meant that someone who was found guilty of engaging in homosexual intercourse was subject to punishment. Now, homosexuality is legal, homosexual characters are present in popular media (for example, the sitcom Will and Grace) and homosexuality is an acceptable topic of discussion in political discourse. Again, there are still some people who hold discriminatory views against homosexuals, but it is clear that there has been a radical shift in attitudes - contrary to what you suggest.


Because you're sounding a lot like Johnny Red...[etc]I don't understand what you're trying to say. You have been arguing that male attitudes are incapable of changing under capitalism - but this has been refuted with a description of how male attitudes have changed, with corresponding changes in legislation which have enabled women to attain rights which were not previously available. It is you who are discarding the possibility of immediate change by assuming that men will always see women in the same way, an assumption from which you have derived the alleged "need" to wear the Hijab.

Instead of making women adapt to male prejudice, women should be encouraged to actively confront sexism when it appears - if a man does not show a woman the respect she deserves, by making sexist comments, or by ignoring her views because she is a woman, then women should feel able to force the man to justify his behaviour, and expose his prejudices. This is preferable to making women wear a hijab, which does not do anything to alter the views of men, and so is only a partial solution.


In Saudi society (not government or law!), women are much more respected than in the West.Are you actually serious? In Muslim countries, women are obviously not more free than women who are living in the west - as shown by the prevalence of honor killings in Turkey, which are directed against women who are seen as betraying the family by having open sexual relations. This is not something which is condoned by the government - it occurs in Turkish families, and is indicative of the way Turkish society (and Muslim societies in general) perceive women.

You also did not make a response to my explanation of how some women wear the hijab because they are forced to, including the case study given.

---------------

For your case to make any sense, you need to provide evidence of how the attitudes of men can never change under capitalism. However, I have already refuted this assertion with a description of the ways attitudes have changed, and so it would seem that your entire sorry case has no basis.

You have also made several references to hedonism - can you explain what you understand hedonism to mean, and why it is bad?

[pusher robot]

Sounds like a Gatorade ad.
I've made no error in my thinking. I understand what sense of accomplishment and merit you are describing and it's something that won't go away unless you're overly concerned with a numerical value to validate it. What makes you think that people won't be able to achieve a feeling of accomplishment in a communist or socialist system? I imagine there would be plenty of opportunity to gain that feeling of accomplishment you describe, and only those who need a monetary sum or better possessions than others would feel left out.
Respectfully, I disagree. How can you measure personal accomplishment in a society that doesn't permit personal failure?

I don't claim to have the answers to everything. I honestly do not know what the best answer for humanity is, which is why you don't see Marxist, Lenninist, Troskyist, King Hippoist or anything else in my signature. The only thing I know is this: While I'm quite content with my personal state of being and my career, that doesn't stop me from recognizing that we can make things better for people. We are social animals and we should embrace some form of system that benefits society, not one that places falsehoods of individuality and personal responsibility on exploitation and greed, kind of like the one that guy (a socialist) who wrote the song in your quote described a lot.[/QUOTE]It's a noble impulse, but in my view a misguided one. You cannot provide fulfillment to a man, he must find it himself, and you must accept the fact that if people choose not to fulfill themselves - and some will - there is nothing you can do about it. You know that old chestnut, "if you love it, set it free?" There's a bit of truth there. Any attempt, no matter how well-intentioned, to make people happy, is doomed to end badly.

[Plagueround]

Respectfully, I disagree. How can you measure personal accomplishment in a society that doesn't permit personal failure? It's a noble impulse, but in my view a misguided one. You cannot provide fulfillment to a man, he must find it himself, and you must accept the fact that if people choose not to fulfill themselves - and some will - there is nothing you can do about it. You know that old chestnut, "if you love it, set it free?" There's a bit of truth there. Any attempt, no matter how well-intentioned, to make people happy, is doomed to end badly.

I suppose this is one of those instances where we simply agree to disagree upon our noted philosophical opinions. I appreciate and respect your views, even if they aren't much like mine.

[Peacekeeper]

Please excuse me for making an incomplete post, but it is late, and I should be getting to bed. I just want to say that the points you bring up only help my case:


That's absurd. Prior to 1967, homosexuality was illegal in England, which meant that someone who was found guilty of engaging in homosexual intercourse was subject to punishment. Now, homosexuality is legal, homosexual characters are present in popular media (for example, the sitcom Will and Grace) and homosexuality is an acceptable topic of discussion in political discourse. Again, there are still some people who hold discriminatory views against homosexuals, but it is clear that there has been a radical shift in attitudes - contrary to what you suggest.

Yes - and homosexuality is STILL ILLEGAL. In the US, there are numerous states where homosexuality is a punishable crime. Not to mention the dozens of other countries, not just in the West, where homosexuality is outlawed.

If you are insinuating that homosexual characters, especially in Will & Grace, are a positive view of homosexuals, you're extremely out of touch. They are, on the contrary, incredibly offending. The vast majority of homosexual men are impossible to tell from heterosexual men through the way they speak, act, and dress. However, in the media, the minority is overwhelmingly portrayed, wherein the homosexual man is an effeminate... well, faggot, to put it bluntly. It's disgusting, not "progressive."

I'll complete this post tomorrow, I'm going to bed now.

[pusher robot]

In the US, there are numerous states where homosexuality is a punishable crime.

Zero is not "numerous."

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes - and homosexuality is STILL ILLEGAL. In the US, there are numerous states where homosexuality is a punishable crime. Not to mention the dozens of other countries, not just in the West, where homosexuality is outlawed.So are you saying that social attitudes towards homosexuality are the same as the prevailing attitudes which existed in fifty years ago, or during an earlier time period? I have never suggested that homosexuals are now free from all discrimination, as unfortunately homophobia and misconceptions about homosexuality still exist, but to claim that attitudes have not changed at all is an absurd position, because it is directly contradicted by evidence - most obviously the fact that homosexuality is now legal in some states (including most liberal democracies) whereas it used to be illegal throughout the world. If attitudes had remained the same, this change in legal status would not have been possible.

That the presentation of homosexuals in the media is stereotypical is also an issue of concern - but the fact that homosexuality now exists in the popular media (not only in the form of sitcoms which are enjoyed by many people, but also television channels were are created by and targeted at the gay community) is an indication of how attitudes have changed, because this would once have been unacceptable. If, as you suggest, attitudes towards homosexuals have not changed and no advances have been made, then why do homosexual rights groups exist, and why have homosexual activists pressed for changes in government legislation? What is the purpose of such activism, if it is impossible to change the way people feel about homosexuals?

However, the issue of attitudes towards homosexuals was only brought up as a parallel to the main topic of discussion - male attitudes towards women. Again, a direct question: Do you feel that social attitudes towards women are the same as the prevailing attitudes which existed fifty years ago, or during an earlier time period? Evidence to contradict this absurd position has already been given in my previous posts (Hillary Clinton was almost able to win the democratic nomination, and women have been elected to positions of leadership in several countries, such as Chile) but you have not engaged with this issue - which is central to your case, because the alleged need to wear the hijab only makes sense if male attitudes are incapable of changing under capitalism.

[Lector Malibu]

Yes - and homosexuality is STILL ILLEGAL. In the US, there are numerous states where homosexuality is a punishable crime. Not to mention the dozens of other countries, not just in the West, where homosexuality is outlawed.


Please support this claim.

I'm aware of the sodomy laws. Is that what you are referring too?

[Plagueround]

Please support this claim.

I'm aware of the sodomy laws. Is that what you are referring too?

If sodomy is against the law I need to flee this country asap.

[Lector Malibu]

If sodomy is against the law I need to flee this country asap.

Certain states have weird sodomy laws. Alabama springs to mind (Big Surprise There)

[punisa]

Bismillah hir Rahman nir Raheem
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Firstly, I would like to thank the half dozen or so people who commented on my profile and voiced their outrage at my restriction. You are the reason I decided to make my case on RevLeft rather than abandon it as a lost cause.

In this post I will explain a lot of things about myself and my ideological and religious development. Some things may seem irrelevant, but bear with me, everything is relevant here.

Hi Comrade Peacekeeper,
as you mentioned you received a lot of comments on your statements. I haven't caught the time to read those, but I believe there was a lot of criticism as well.

Always consider such as a good thing.
If you made your posts and just came back from time to time to see "0 replays" you would probably give up on your writings long time ago.



Economic & Class Background:

I suppose I had better start off by saying that I am a high school student (gasp!) and that my family is, and has been for the entirety of my life, well under the poverty line, as far as income is concerned.



Starting early on your politics (high school) can get you very far. Pursue education, go for college if possible. Once you'll be able to find a good job and raise a family easier, but your early political knowledge will assist you in defending yourself against the media and propaganda influences.

Remember that all of us need to go with a flow right now. The current system we live in doesn't give us a choice to lead a "different" life, at least not yet.
All of this does NOT mean that you should abandon your ideas, on the contrary - learning to survive in the capitalist system and holding on to your leftist ideology is probably the hardest way to go, but it will repay itself one day.

People that tell you the opposite are just full of shit and probably practice capitalism themselves. Once again, this is not for the sake of being a capitalist - this is for the sake of surviving and lasting up to the point when the society is ready for a revolution.



My father remodels houses independently, and for some reason, he refuses to charge more than cost on materials, so the only money coming into the household is the money he gets for his wage-labor.

When my mother lived with us, before my parents were divorced, and when my four sisters lived here as well, money was very tight. For one, my mother cannot work because of a back injury, and is always taking muscle relaxers and pain relievers. So there was one man, supporting a family of seven.

At this time, we only ate the cheapest foods, whatever was on sale at the local Safeway, and we frequently went without power because we could not pay the PUD (Public Utility District) bill.

During these early years, I developed a left-leaning view of things. I was extremely precocious and politically aware. My parents listened to NPR and had liberal views. Both were atheists, and I was raised this way as well.

I considered myself a liberal and Democrat until a few years ago, when I first read the Communist Manifesto. I began reading other works by communist philosophers and revolutionaries, such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.

At this point, I began to consider myself a communist. I believed then, as I do now, that it was historically inevitable that the capitalist class would need to make larger and larger profits, so had to pay their workers less and less, and so led to a worker's revolution, which would completely rejuvenate society.


Classic storyline that could be told from the point of many of us. Our family struggles, in the absence of our ability to change the situation, usually lead us to an only option we have at the moment - studying and learning about the system that brought such an injustice upon us.




My Socialism:

To expound upon my socialist views, I believe in a vanguard party consisting of the revolutionary working class. This party must seize, through revolution, the reins of government, and create a socialist order.

This includes the nationalization of major industries, buying out small businesses, and giving all workers the benefits of being State employees, such as universal health care, housing, food, and other necessities of life. Assuring the people employment and opportunities for education and intellectual fulfillment should be the socialist state's top priorities.

I don't remember where I read this, but it struck a chord with me, "Socialism does not create happiness, it creates the conditions in which happiness can be achieved." Once a man no longer has to worry about finding a job, paying for his kids' college, and his own retirement, he can begin to do what makes him happy.

This could be learning another language, or learning to ski, or finding a wife, or spending more time with the kids, or painting, or writing, or attending conventions relevant to what interests him.

The point is to have an active, stimulated people, who have everything they need to be fulfilled emotionally, physically, and mentally. This is socialism.


Some good stuff you got there. It's mostly true and self-explanatory. Seeking your passions when having the foundations secure (roof,job,food) is indeed a great advantage of socialism.
In the capitalist environment these passions are usually unreachable, even if you have the roof,job,food. Why? Because you will NEVER be sure that you'll be able to hold on to these.
That's one of the basic rules why in capitalism people who succeed and earn some money always tend to earn more - constant insecurity.

Besides the current mind frame you got developed there I would also urge you to think critical (many might disagree with me on this one). But do try to imagine the society you live in after the hypothetical revolution takes place. Would it be a long term good? Or would the revolution produce leaders that would once again take themselves over people?
Would the majority of people be satisfied with new situation? Your ma and pa probably would, but consider the masses around you.

I'm saying this because I'm coming from a society that had all we mentioned here: roof,job,food (plenty of each) - only to rebel, crush and destroy it in order to live in the same shitty environment you do.

Yeah, we have like 26 different sink cleaning materials, but does it justify?



Reversion to Islam:

Until less than a year ago, I completely rejected the idea of a God. The idea just seemed ludicrous to me. An invisible guy in the sky who can do anything? Please.

However, when I looked at Muslims I knew, I saw an inner peace that I admired. A dedication and discipline that I admired. You pray five times a day? And so do 1.5 billion other people? And you all do it in the same way, reciting the exact same words?

What also drew me initially was the emphasis on anti-materialism (in the literal sense). Islam rejects the concept of hoarding money and wealth and consumer goods, as I did, as an atheist communist.

Also, I personally feel most comfortable when there is a set order of things. Surely, I had morals as an atheist, and as many humanist philosophers have pointed out, there can be morality without God. But if God gives religious people a reason to have strict moral principles, what is wrong with that?

The regimentation of Islam intrigued me. Everyone prays the same way. Everyone prays five times a day, towards the same Holy place. There is a set of rules, handed down by God, that everyone follows.

And of course, the Holy Koran is incredibly beautiful when recited in the original Arabic.


Now, there seems to be some question about my views on women, which is the stated reason for my restriction, as far as I know. I'll do my best to clear up any misconceptions you may have about my views concerning women, hijab, etc.

One thing you must realize: Don't assume you know everything about Muslims, and don't assume that everything you know about Muslims applies to me. I am not a typical Muslim in numerous ways.

To start off, women are my sisters. Muslim, non-Muslim, whatever. They are all worthy of my respect. As for working class, revolutionary women, you are my dearest sisters and comrades.

Regarding rights - all people should be guaranteed the same rights, in matters of law. I am at odds with some extremists within the Muslim ummah on this point. Some communities, especially Wahhabi, make hijab mandatory.

This is against Islam. The Holy Koran states that there is no compulsion of religion in Islam. I would never want to make a woman wear a hijab when she does not wish to. To do so is a violation of her basic human rights.

But women who do wear hijab are guaranteed my respect, because the mere action of putting on hijab and walking out the door into the world, especially in the USA, is a very brave and bold statement to the world, that you are strong in faith and modesty!

It has been stated that I said women who do not wear hijab will not find loving husbands. Perhaps I was unclear. I believe that a woman who wears hijab is more likely to find a husband who will love her for her personality rather than her body/attractiveness. Nothing more than that was meant, and I apologize to whomever I offended if you took my statement to mean anything other than that.


Recently:

I have come across the works of Colonel Muammar al-Qadathi, the Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Arabic for "state of the masses"), including his ideological work, The Green Book.

I find his ideology of Islamic Socialism extremely interesting and insightful, and similar to my own. I strongly recommend the Green Book to everyone who calls themselves a Leftist.


Unfortunately my knowledge of Islam is very shallow and thus I'm not competent to comment on any of this. Praising/criticising something you know very little of is not just ignorant, it's dumb.





If you wish to comment or ask questions or in any way discuss what I wrote above, feel free, I only ask that you keep things civil and serious. I will do the same.


NOTICE:

I DO NOT CONDONE MAKING HIJAB MANDATORY.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MEN SHOULD BE THE ONES TO CHANGE, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT VIEW WOMEN AS SEXUAL OBJECTS, RATHER THAN THE WOMAN HAVING TO COVER HERSELF TO FEEL COMFORTABLE.
I RECOGNIZE THAT IN SOCIETY TODAY, MEN WILL NOT CHANGE. TO STOP WOMEN BEING VIEWED AS SEXUAL OBJECTS, WE MUST HAVE AN END TO CAPITALISM AND ECONOMIC & SOCIAL INEQUALITIES, ONLY THEN CAN WE CHANGE SOCIETY.
I SUPPORT EVERY RIGHT FOR WOMEN, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ABORTION, THE RIGHT TO MARRY WHOMEVER THEY THEY WANT, THE RIGHT TO VOTE, THE RIGHT TO DRESS HOW THEY WANT, AND THE RIGHT F*CK WHOMEVER THEY WANT.

SO PLEASE TELL ME HOW I AM A SEXIST.

One small humble advice for the end - try and learn to write something and delete it before you post, in the same manner try to pump up the font and lower it before you post. By not doing so you usually just give people the reason to criticise it.
(this is just an honest friendly advice, no irony meant there )

All in all good read Comrade, see ya around.

[eyedrop]

Another point of how far the view on females have come. Would such commercials such as the one I posted in chit-chat have been able to be aired in the 50'ties? Without a large outcry?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uWAgFlxuFFo (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uWAgFlxuFFo)

[Post-Something]

It's good to see you back Peacekeeper :)

[Peacekeeper]

Please support this claim.

I'm aware of the sodomy laws. Is that what you are referring too?

States where sodomy is illegal:
Florida
Idaho
Alabama
Louisiana
Mississippi
North & South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

States where homosexual sodomy is illegal:
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas

That doesn't sound like zero to me, Pusher Robot.


Hi Comrade Peacekeeper,
as you mentioned you received a lot of comments on your statements. I haven't caught the time to read those, but I believe there was a lot of criticism as well.

Always consider such as a good thing.
If you made your posts and just came back from time to time to see "0 replays" you would probably give up on your writings long time ago.Plagueround offered criticism as well, but the others did not.
Yes - if no one had shown support I would not have come back to RevLeft.


Starting early on your politics (high school) can get you very far. Pursue education, go for college if possible. Once you'll be able to find a good job and raise a family easier, but your early political knowledge will assist you in defending yourself against the media and propaganda influences.

Remember that all of us need to go with a flow right now. The current system we live in doesn't give us a choice to lead a "different" life, at least not yet.
All of this does NOT mean that you should abandon your ideas, on the contrary - learning to survive in the capitalist system and holding on to your leftist ideology is probably the hardest way to go, but it will repay itself one day.

People that tell you the opposite are just full of shit and probably practice capitalism themselves. Once again, this is not for the sake of being a capitalist - this is for the sake of surviving and lasting up to the point when the society is ready for a revolution.This is an attitude in the "Left" that I simply cannot agree with. I WILL NOT eat their food, wear their clothes, buy their toys, or live in their housing. I consider it my internationalist duty to help the revolutions going on around the world, while I wait for the revolution in the USA. I'm not going to go handing out leaflets in Seattle when I could be building houses in Chiapas, or blowing up Humvees in Iraq or launching rockets into Haifa. I don't want to become middle class through the magic of the capitalist system like my (blood) sisters.

Classic storyline that could be told from the point of many of us. Our family struggles, in the absence of our ability to change the situation, usually lead us to an only option we have at the moment - studying and learning about the system that brought such an injustice upon us.Indeed.


Some good stuff you got there. It's mostly true and self-explanatory. Seeking your passions when having the foundations secure (roof,job,food) is indeed a great advantage of socialism.
In the capitalist environment these passions are usually unreachable, even if you have the roof,job,food. Why? Because you will NEVER be sure that you'll be able to hold on to these.
That's one of the basic rules why in capitalism people who succeed and earn some money always tend to earn more - constant insecurity.

Besides the current mind frame you got developed there I would also urge you to think critical (many might disagree with me on this one). But do try to imagine the society you live in after the hypothetical revolution takes place. Would it be a long term good? Or would the revolution produce leaders that would once again take themselves over people?
Would the majority of people be satisfied with new situation? Your ma and pa probably would, but consider the masses around you.

I'm saying this because I'm coming from a society that had all we mentioned here: roof,job,food (plenty of each) - only to rebel, crush and destroy it in order to live in the same shitty environment you do.

Yeah, we have like 26 different sink cleaning materials, but does it justify?Where are you from? :confused:


All in all good read Comrade, see ya around.Yep :)


It's good to see you back Peacekeeper :)Thanks :D


Another point of how far the view on females have come. Would such commercials such as the one I posted in chit-chat have been able to be aired in the 50'ties? Without a large outcry?This is why I don't watch tv.

[eyedrop]

This is why I don't watch tv.

Why if I may ask? Dare I guess that it's because it portrays women as lustful, sexual beings?


Edit: I felt like doing an addition.

I can see how you can be against portraying females as lustful sexual beings without being sexists. That would mean that you are also against the same for men. There doesn't neccesarely have to be sexist logic behind it. But for me the sexual liberation is an important sideeffect of the transformation of society. You would probably hang yourself on the spot, if Allah permits it, if you had lived in such a postrevolutionary society as I envision. With a lot of open lustful beings all around. We have opposed views for the future.


PS! I got this quite funny picture in my head of you telling your male partner to wear a hijab (or whatever those headscarves are called) so you won't look lustfully at him.

[Kami]

States where sodomy is illegal:
Florida
Idaho
Alabama
Louisiana
Mississippi
North & South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

States where homosexual sodomy is illegal:
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas

That doesn't sound like zero to me, Pusher Robot.
You do realise all sodomy laws in the US were invalidated by a supreme court judgement in 2003, right?


I WILL NOT eat their food, wear their clothes, buy their toys, or live in their housing.Whose food are you eating, whose clothes are you wearing, and whose houses are you living in then?

[Peacekeeper]

You do realise all sodomy laws in the US were invalidated by a supreme court judgement in 2003, right?

Whose food are you eating, whose clothes are you wearing, and whose houses are you living in then?

The laws are still in the books, buddy.

The cheapest of that available, friend. Once I graduate high school, it's off to Mexico. (Actually, I don't even need to graduate, I just need to show up for Spanish class!)


Why if I may ask? Dare I guess that it's because it portrays women as lustful, sexual beings?

Indeed.



Edit: I felt like doing an addition.

I can see how you can be against portraying females as lustful sexual beings without being sexists. That would mean that you are also against the same for men. There doesn't neccesarely have to be sexist logic behind it.

I am well aware of this. Apparently, some people on RevLeft are not.


But for me the sexual liberation is an important sideeffect of the transformation of society. You would probably hang yourself on the spot, if Allah permits it, if you had lived in such a postrevolutionary society as I envision. With a lot of open lustful beings all around. We have opposed views for the future.

I suppose that this could come about in post-revolutionary societies in the West, and a few of the more culturally Western countries in the East... but if that was the case, I would move somewhere else. That's fine for you, but it doesn't work for me, and a lot of other people. I don't buy into that "drinking a glass of water" stuff about sex in a communist society.



PS! I got this quite funny picture in my head of you telling your male partner to wear a hijab (or whatever those headscarves are called) so you won't look lustfully at him.

:lol:
That made me laugh!

[eyedrop]

I suppose that this could come about in post-revolutionary societies in the West, and a few of the more culturally Western countries in the East... but if that was the case, I would move somewhere else. That's fine for you, but it doesn't work for me, and a lot of other people. I don't buy into that "drinking a glass of water" stuff about sex in a communist society.
Good luck, but be aware that culture changes according to material conditions.

[Lector Malibu]

There are all kinds of invalidated laws still in the books Peacekeeper

[RHIZOMES]

I suppose that this could come about in post-revolutionary societies in the West, and a few of the more culturally Western countries in the East... but if that was the case, I would move somewhere else. That's fine for you, but it doesn't work for me, and a lot of other people. I don't buy into that "drinking a glass of water" stuff about sex in a communist society.

:lol: And now you're saying you would prefer to live somewhere that's highly patriarchal and conservative.

That word "Restricted" under your name just keeps making more and more sense.

[Peacekeeper]

:lol: And now you're saying you would prefer to live somewhere that's highly patriarchal and conservative.

That word "Restricted" under your name just keeps making more and more sense.

You really are dense. :)

I said that I would not want to live in a society absent of monogamy. That is not saying I would want to live in a conservative or patriarchal society, only that I want to have one partner rather than many.

[Kami]

I said that I would not want to live in a society absent of monogamy. That is not saying I would want to live in a conservative or patriarchal society, only that I want to have one partner rather than many.

Just to clarify, when you mention monogamy there, do you mean in addition to or to the exclusion of other relationships? I don't think anyone would argue forcing you to have multiple partners :P

[Peacekeeper]

Eyedrop made it sound like everyone in his dream of a post-revolutionary society was an openly "lustful being. " In other words, even if I was not, it would be hard for me to find someone who would not want to have sex with other partners.

[RHIZOMES]

You really are dense. :)

Says the Muslim "revert". :rolleyes:


I said that I would not want to live in a society absent of monogamy. That is not saying I would want to live in a conservative or patriarchal society, only that I want to have one partner rather than many.

Whoever the fuck said that a post-revolutionary society would be absent of monogamy? Monogamy would just be one of many different forms of relationship and sexuality that would be accepted.

[BobKKKindle$]

Peacekeeper, you have not engaged with any of my points. You made the assertion that attitudes towards women have not changed and are incapable of changing under capitalism,and this judgment has expanded to include attitudes towards homosexuals as well. I have produced evidence against this assertion, and have asked you to support your position by showing how attitudes have remained constant. If you cannot support your position and refute the evidence which has been given, your insistence on the Hijab makes no sense and must be rejected, because it is based on the premise that male attitudes are incapable of changing under capitalism - as you noted in your opening post.

[Dros]

:lol:

What a shock! Peacekeeper came back!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

This is fun.


Institutionalized monogamy is conditioned by and in fact induced by patriarchal structures within capitalist production relations. That is, marriage as it currently exists will not exist in a Communist society.

In fact, I would argue that modern society is sexually backwards, that capitalism is itself obsessed with and horrified by sex. This is because under capitalism and more specifically under capitalist patriarchy, sex is a means of both creating a mode of inheritance of wealth necessary for the maintenance of the Bourgeoisie as the dominant class but also as a means of producing laborers. Thus, institutionalized monogamy and reactionary views of sexuality generally (including the horror seen at birth control, homophobia, pornography, and "promiscuity") are in fact deeply rooted in the capitalist mode of production. I think the Communist revolution and the end of the material conditions that create these backwards views, will lead to the sexual emancipation of humanity. Sex should not be something embarrassing or even something elevated. It should be an activity taken between two people who are interested in each other sexually. That's all! All of this "fuss" (for lack of a better word) over sex is nothing but the ideological manifestation of capitalist property and production relations in the realm of human reproduction.

So, back to the specific issue of hijab which Peacekeeper has amusingly argued is a way of preventing women from being viewed sexually. I say to you that there is nothing wrong with women being viewed sexually. There is also nothing wrong with men being viewed sexually. In fact, I think that's a good thing. The problem only begins when viewing someone in this way leads to "de-subjectification" or dehumanization which is not necessarily a consequence. Instead of advancing starkly reactionary views of women as people who need to be protected (a notion rejected by most all feminists today) we should fight for sexual emancipation. Don't be confused. Hijab is not about protecting women. It is about hiding them and forcing them into subservient positions.

[BobKKKindle$]

It should be an activity taken between two people

Why only two?

There is no reason to be ashamed about sex - everyone experiences the desire to have sex, and sex is an important part of human interaction, and so instead of trying to pretend that people should be kept ignorant about sex, Socialists should promote sexual openness, so that women feel comfortable making sexual advances, and people who sexual engage in relations with multiple partners are not looked upon as "sluts" etc.

As for Lenin's comment about "glasses of water" he was exhibiting a conservative attitude towards sex, and was simply wrong, as he was on other issues.

[Peacekeeper]

My apologies for not replying to this sooner.


So are you saying that social attitudes towards homosexuality are the same as the prevailing attitudes which existed in fifty years ago, or during an earlier time period?

No, no. Not the same. I said that the prevailing view used to be condemnation for religious reasons, and now it is acceptance for the sake of acceptance and liberalism, both of which are degrading views. I understand that many advances in the legal rights of homosexuals have been made in the last century within liberal bourgeois democracies.


I have never suggested that homosexuals are now free from all discrimination, as unfortunately homophobia and misconceptions about homosexuality still exist, but to claim that attitudes have not changed at all is an absurd position, because it is directly contradicted by evidence - most obviously the fact that homosexuality is now legal in some states (including most liberal democracies) whereas it used to be illegal throughout the world. If attitudes had remained the same, this change in legal status would not have been possible. Agreed - to an extent. Our legal status has change,and our social status as well. But we are still not equals, and I do not see that happening ever within a capitalist society.


That the presentation of homosexuals in the media is stereotypical is also an issue of concern - but the fact that homosexuality now exists in the popular media (not only in the form of sitcoms which are enjoyed by many people, but also television channels were are created by and targeted at the gay community) is an indication of how attitudes have changed, because this would once have been unacceptable.Liberalization of media to portray the stereotypes of capitalist society is not progressive. Just as portraying women as sexual objects in the media and treating them in such a way in real life is not progressive.


If, as you suggest, attitudes towards homosexuals have not changed and no advances have been made, then why do homosexual rights groups exist, and why have homosexual activists pressed for changes in government legislation? What is the purpose of such activism, if it is impossible to change the way people feel about homosexuals? Legislation =/= Society
The laws enacted by the legislature can not be taken in any way to be representative of the political climate or society as a whole. To say that bourgeois government is in any way representative of "the way people feel," is an extremely bourgeois notion.


However, the issue of attitudes towards homosexuals was only brought up as a parallel to the main topic of discussion - male attitudes towards women. Again, a direct question: Do you feel that social attitudes towards women are the same as the prevailing attitudes which existed fifty years ago, or during an earlier time period? Are they the same: no. Have they "progressed?" Yes.
But that's only a good thing if your into this reformism bullsh*t. Real progress, towards a truly liberated woman and working class, can only be achieved through revolution. This reformism, this appeasement only distracts from the one thing that can set us all free from social and economic inequalities and injustices. As Lenin said, "Hoodshiy bit dyerzhashshiy pari." "Worse is better."

This is true according to the theory of monistic materialism as well, wherein the material dictates the ideal. Not enough suffering and poverty, not discontent, so no revolution. The goal of the bourgeois liberal democracies is to keep the lower and middle classes content enough to not revolt against their corporate masters, but miserable enough that they can still turn a hefty profit. I view reformist socialists who advocate democratic change as agents of the bourgeois state.



Evidence to contradict this absurd position has already been given in my previous posts (Hillary Clinton was almost able to win the democratic nomination, and women have been elected to positions of leadership in several countries, such as Chile) but you have not engaged with this issue - which is central to your case, because the alleged need to wear the hijab only makes sense if male attitudes are incapable of changing under capitalism.Incapable of changing into a "New, Socialist Man." There's the rub.

Aside: Hillary Clinton is a Zionist c*nt.


Institutionalized monogamy is conditioned by and in fact induced by patriarchal structures within capitalist production relations. That is, marriage as it currently exists will not exist in a Communist society.

You're half right. The family as an economic unit is an artificial structure created by economically unequal society. Tribalism on a smaller scale - you provide for your blood relatives in order to secure a future for your children. The family itself, that is, a tightly knit unit of individuals related by blood (I'm excluding adoptions, etc. for the sake of simplicity) is an instinctual construct, wherein you stay close to your mate and your children and protect them from predators and assure them shelter and food. In a communist society of course, there will be no "predators," and nothing to stop your children from growing old, save for diseases and accidents. But the instinct will still be there, and thus people will be more comfortable living in such units. But it would be possible to have as they had in the Soviet Union, communal mess halls and day care centers, etc.


In fact, I would argue that modern society is sexually backwards, that capitalism is itself obsessed with and horrified by sex. This is because under capitalism and more specifically under capitalist patriarchy, sex is a means of both creating a mode of inheritance of wealth necessary for the maintenance of the Bourgeoisie as the dominant class but also as a means of producing laborers. Thus, institutionalized monogamy and reactionary views of sexuality generally (including the horror seen at birth control, homophobia, pornography, and "promiscuity") are in fact deeply rooted in the capitalist mode of production.

That is simply false. Disgust with promiscuity by far pre-dates the capitalist mode of production. For one, it is in all major religions, that alone proving that it pre-dates capitalism. One could attempt to argue that it is a result of economically unequal societies (pre-capitalism), but it is also found in primitive communist tribal arrangements as well, modern and ancient. Although, I would agree that institutionalized monogamy is completely contrary to a socialist society, as all a legal marriage is for is to secure certain economic privileges and, as you said, a right of inheritance, etc.


I think the Communist revolution and the end of the material conditions that create these backwards views, will lead to the sexual emancipation of humanity. Sex should not be something embarrassing or even something elevated. It should be an activity taken between two people who are interested in each other sexually. That's all! All of this "fuss" (for lack of a better word) over sex is nothing but the ideological manifestation of capitalist property and production relations in the realm of human reproduction.

I think this view is too much influenced by Western liberal media and "philosophy." You need to realize that the corporate media are the ones who created a twisted view of human sexuality, (mainly, promiscuity) and it is not "progressive" or "revolutionary" to embrace an idea spoon-fed to us by our capitalist masters. Why else do you see "MTV Spring Break" and "The Real World?" The capitalist class wishes to glorify hedonism so as to distract the lower and middle classes from revolution and educating themselves and recognizing class conflict and antagonisms. A youth that f*cks and drinks and smokes consumes much more (and think nothing of revolt) than a self-disciplined, class-aware revolutionary, so it is beneficial to the upper classes to embrace and promote this view of "sexual liberation."


So, back to the specific issue of hijab which Peacekeeper has amusingly argued is a way of preventing women from being viewed sexually.
THAT'S WHAT IT DOES! There is no way to deny that men do not look at women in hijab as sexual objects.


I say to you that there is nothing wrong with women being viewed sexually.

There's a difference between being viewed sexually and being viewed as a sexual plaything.


There is also nothing wrong with men being viewed sexually. In fact, I think that's a good thing.

What a surprise, embracing liberal bourgeois notions of sexuality. How revolutionary of you. Call me conservative on this issue if that's how you see it, but I'd rather be a conservative than a filthy f*cking bourgeois liberalist.


The problem only begins when viewing someone in this way leads to "de-subjectification" or dehumanization which is not necessarily a consequence.

You're drawing a line that is meaningless in this discussion, as I never said women shouldn't be viewed sexually, but I said they should not be dehumanized by being viewed as sexual objects...


Instead of advancing starkly reactionary views of women as people who need to be protected (a notion rejected by most all feminists today) we should fight for sexual emancipation. Don't be confused. Hijab is not about protecting women. It is about hiding them and forcing them into subservient positions.

Fight for sexual emancipation through a socialist revolution, not through democratic reforms. Do you think we would still be living in a capitalist society if women had never been given the right to vote? Anger would have boiled up and up and up, probably resulting in a socialist-feminist revolution. I expect the same to happen in places such as Saudi Arabia, one of the few remaining absolute monarchies in the world, with some of the most completely disenfranchised women.

Also, to me, and the women who wear hijab, it is not about forcing them into subservient positions. If I thought it was about that, do you honestly think I would support women wearing them? Absolutely not. The point is, I am of the opinion that it is beneficial (especially emotionally) to the women who choose to wear it, as they tell me. If a woman feels that she is being forced into a subservient position by wearing hijab, I wouldn't want her to wear it, which is why I am opposed to making it mandatory, even in nations were the vast majority are practicing Muslims.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is true according to the theory of monistic materialism as well, wherein the material dictates the ideal. Not enough suffering and poverty, not discontent, so no revolution.Do you oppose changes under capitalism which improve the material condition of the working class? For example, increased government spending on the provision of healthcare, or an improvement in wages through strike action?


Are they the same: no. Have they "progressed?" Yes.You have admitted that the attitudes of men towards women are capable of changing, even if some forms of sexism will always exist because of capitalism. However, this directly contradicts your basic premise that men will not change under capitalism. If men are capable of change, then instead of encouraging women to adapt to male sexism by wearing the hijab so that men do not become aroused at the sight of a woman's hair, socialists should focus on engaging with men and further changing male attitudes through agitation. Even if there are some men who will still retain sexist ideas, this is preferable to making woman wear such an oppressive garment as the Hijab, as it is unfair that women should be forced to adapt to prejudice.

This entire discussion, of course, rests on the premise that women wear the Hijab because they have made a choice, and want to deter sexual advances - but you did not respond to the argument that women may also wear the hijab because of male oppression inside the Muslim community.


Agreed - to an extent. Our legal status has change,and our social status as well.You have admitted that people have become more accepting of homosexuals. How does this compare to your previous statement that:

"I haven't seen any shift whatsoever in how society sees homosexuals"

'Whatsoever' is an absolute term - it infers that not even a small degree of change has occurred. It would seem that, as in the case of male attitudes towards women, there is a gaping contradiction in your argument, and you have suddenly changed your views in the face of my evidence of how attitudes have changed. Will you admit that you were utterly wrong?


To say that bourgeois government is in any way representative of "the way people feel," is an extremely bourgeois notion.
The bourgeois state is not fully representative - but why would the state change the legal status of homosexuality if the population retained a conservative/prejudiced view of sex between people of the same sex?

Although the government is subject to the influence of the ruling class, in a bourgeois democracy, the electorate retains a degree of control over how the government acts. A government which attempts to pass unpopular legislation will be met with unrest, and this unrest may force the government to reverse its decision - as shown by the Poll tax riots which occurred in 1990 in the UK. Therefore, to claim that the bourgeois government is totally unresponsive to the demands of the people is incorrect.


THAT'S WHAT IT DOES! There is no way to deny that men do not look at women in hijab as sexual objects.

This is another assertion for which you have provided no evidence. The hijab is based on a simplistic view of men - men are unlikely to become aroused simply because a woman does not cover her hair, and men who already possess sexist views are unlikely to show women more respect solely because they wear the hijab.


Just as portraying women as sexual objects in the media and treating them in such a way in real life... [etc]Throughout this discussion you have shown an aversion to human lust - and yet you have given no explanation of why you find the idea of people having liberal sexual relations so distasteful. You have insisted that seeing women as sex objects is wrong - but the truth is that men will always see women as sex objects (except when they [men] are attracted to other men, of course) because is is natural to feel sexually attracted to other people - this is only wrong when the person who is the object of sexual desire is seen as lacking personal qualities and solely as a source of sexual pleasure.


youth that f*cks and drinks and smokes consumes much more (and think nothing of revolt) than a self-disciplined, class-aware revolutionary, so it is beneficial to the upper classes to embrace and promote this view of "sexual liberation."There have always been some sections of the bourgeoisie which have opposed a liberal approach to sex - for example, the Politicians of the Religious right who have criticized the distribution of contraception in schools and called for the imposition of restrictions on abortion. Therefore, the argument that sexual liberation is a "bourgeois" strategy to undermine class consciousness is incorrect, because it does not account for bourgeois opposition to sexual liberation.

Should a good revolutionary abstain from masturbation, Peacekeeper?

-------------

Peacekeeper, you have been exposed as having no case. Your stated reason for women wearing the hijab - that men cannot change the way they see women and so women need to be protected - has been shown to be false. You have avoided discussion of the imposition of the Hijab on women, and have also failed to respond to my comments on evidence for god, or the lack thereof.

[pusher robot]

The laws are still in the books, buddy.

But not punishable because of their unconstitutionality. Remember, you said:

there are numerous states where homosexuality is a punishable crime [emphasis added].You were wrong. Deal with it.

[Peacekeeper]

Are you like, always on RevLeft? I just posted that like ten minutes ago.
Also, I always give you the courtesy of quoting your entire post and responding to every line of it, I would hope that you respond in kind, as you only quoted a few lines in this post, and left them all out of context. I see that as very impolite.


Do you oppose changes under capitalism which improve the material condition of the working class? For example, increased government spending on the provision of healthcare, or an improvement in wages through strike action?

Strikes are practice for revolution, and good union-building tactics. I classify that as a preparation for revolution. However, I am against any form of institutional democratic reform, as it is completely counterproductive.




You have admitted that the attitudes of men towards women are capable of changing, even if some forms of sexism will always exist because of capitalism. [quote]

Not some. The most significant part: that women will be viewed as sexual objects. That is what is meant by how the capitalist man views the woman, and it will not change.


[quote]However, this directly contradicts your basic premise that men will not change under capitalism.I suppose I am not being clear enough in stating my views, for that I sincerely apologize. Sometimes I do not recognize that I am asking the reader to read between the lines a little too much. Let's try this, "The majority of men in a capitalist system will always view women as sexual objects."


If men are capable of change, then instead of encouraging women to adapt to male sexism by wearing the hijab so that men do not view them as sex objects or become aroused at the sight of a woman's hair, socialists should focus on engaging with men and further changing male attitudes through agitation.Wrong. Because the majority of men will never stop viewing women as sexual objects outside of a socialist society.


Even if there are some men who will still retain sexist ideas, this is preferable to making woman wear such an oppressive garment as the Hijab, as it is unfair that women should be forced to adapt to prejudice.I don't understand what you are referring to here. Men who retain sexist ideas in a socialist society, or in capitalist society? Because the majority of men will always view women as sexual objects within a capitalist society. Arguing against that is arguing against Marxist Feminism, which states that true liberation and equality can only be achieved for women through a socialist revolution, which is what I am asserting.


This entire discussion, of course, rests on the premise that women wear the Hijab because they have made a choice, and want to deter sexual advances - but you did not respond to the argument that women may also wear the hijab because of male oppression inside the Muslim community.You are referring to social pressures as opposed to state oppression, correct? In that case, I believe I have said that it is taught not to judge (specific word was "backbite") girls who choose not to wear hijab. A very strong element in Islam is not to judge others, as only Allah (saw) knows what is in someone's heart. In other words, a girl not wearing hijab does nto necessarily make her lower in the eyes of God, for some reason unknown to those who would judge. I believe this is common in American Islam, I am not sure about other cultures though.




You have admitted that people have become more accepting of homosexuals. How does this compare to your previous statement that:

"I haven't seen any shift whatsoever in how society sees homosexuals"

'Whatsoever' is an absolute term - it infers that not even a small degree of change has occurred. It would seem that, as in the case of male attitudes towards women, there is a gaping contradiction in your argument, and you have suddenly changed your views in the face of my evidence of how attitudes have changed. Will you admit that you were utterly wrong?Okay - on that point, I definitely overstated my hatred for the new liberal portrayal of homosexuals. I was exaggerating my view that there is not much difference between religious disapproval and liberal acceptance, as both are tremendously offensive.


The bourgeois state is not fully representative - but why would the state change the legal status of homosexuality is the population retained a conservative/prejudiced view of sex between people of the same sex? You sound like you are arguing for a bourgeois state.


Although the government is subject to the influence of the ruling class, in a bourgeois democracy, the electorate retains a degree of control over how the government acts. A government which attempts to pass unpopular legislation will be met with unrest, and this unrest may force the government to reverse its decision - as shown by the Poll tax riots which occurred in 1990 in the UK. Therefore, to claim that the bourgeois government is totally unresponsive to the demands of the people is incorrect.The bourgeois state ultimately serves the corporate "elite." To think that it is a representative body is pure, unadulterated fantasy.




Throughout this discussion you have shown an aversion to human lust - and yet you have given no explanation of why you find the idea of people having liberal sexual relations so distasteful.Disgust with my past and disgust with my generation as a whole, as we stand for hedonism in its purest form yet seen on this Earth.



You have insisted that seeing women as sex objects is wrong - but the truth is that men will always see women as sex objects (except when they [men] are attracted to other men, of course)Who is the defeatist now?


because is is natural to feel sexually attracted to other people - this is only wrong when the person who is the object of sexual desire is seen as lacking personal qualities and solely as a source of sexual pleasure. This is what a sexual object is. An object has no personality or mind to speak of. When I say sexual object, I thought that point was understood. Sexual attraction =/= Sexual objectification

-------------


Peacekeeper, you have been exposed as having no case. "I claim victory through semantics!" - Bob Kindles
Not so fast. :)


Your stated reason for women wearing the hijab - that men cannot change the way they see women and so women need to be protected - has been shown to be false. You have avoided discussion of the imposition of the Hijab on women, and have also failed to respond to my comments on evidence for god, or the lack thereof."The way they see women" mainly being seeing them as sexual objects. This cannot change in a capitalist society. Where ahs that shown to be false? Did you take a survey of every American male?

I addressed the imposition by the state several times, and I just now addressed the social imposition issue.

Buddy, there is no evidence for god, I choose to believe in Him because it is a good thing for me. Compare that to an imaginary friend if you like, it doesn't remove the good it does me and billions of others the world over. I've stated this before.

Also - I'm going to bed, it's 1:00 >.>

EDIT: I guess I'm not going to bed just yet, as you added to your post.


Should a good revolutionary abstain from masturbation, Peacekeeper?

Certainly. I do.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is what a sexual object is. An object has no personality or mind to speak of. When I say sexual object, I thought that point was understood. Sexual attraction =/= Sexual objectificationThe term "sex object" has not been used in the way you understand it in this discussion. To view someone as a sex object does not mean that a person is deprived of their personal qualities - although during sexual intercourse someone may be viewed primarily in terms of their sexual appeal. Sex-positive feminists identify objectification as a problem only when a woman is denied her sexual subjectivity.


Sometimes I do not recognize that I am asking the reader to read between the lines a little too much. Let's try this, "The majority of men in a capitalist system will always view women as sexual objects."Men seeing women as sex objects is not the totality of male attitudes towards women - how men see women in terms of their socioeconomic role and intellectual abilities has also changed, and so you have twisted the meaning of your original statement to make it seem as if your position stands, when it clearly does not.


Not some. The most significant part: that women will be viewed as sexual objects.Women will be viewed as sex objects in any society, because sexual arousal/attraction is a natural instinct which all humans experience, regardless of the society they inhabit. This is only wrong when people are viewed solely as sex objects (de-subjectification) and not as beings who have personal qualities which extend beyond sex appeal.

Women also view men as sex objects. The idea that it is only men who see the opposite sex as sex objects promotes a sexist view of women, as it portrays them as innocent beings who are incapable of wanting to have sex or experiencing sexual arousal. However, women are just as horny as men, and so if viewing the opposite sex as sex objects is sufficient grounds for wearing a garment which covers up any part of a person's appearance which has the potential to arouse, men should also wear the equivalent of a hijab.

Why don't men wear the hijab, or an equivalent thereof?

You make the mistake of assuming that viewing other people as sex objects is always a form of sexism and inherently oppressive. What makes you think that men will suddenly stop viewing women as sex objects after a revolution has taken place? Will people no longer have sex?

Even assuming that men not seeing women as sex objects was desirable, how does the Hijab achieve this? You did not respond to this point made in my last post:

"The hijab is based on a simplistic view of men - men are unlikely to become aroused simply because a woman does not cover her hair, and men who already possess sexist views are unlikely to show women more respect solely because they wear the hijab."


In that case, I believe I have said that it is taught not to judge (specific word was "backbite") girls who choose not to wear hijab... [etc]You have not understood the point - some women wear the hijab not because they want to, but because they are forced to by the men in the Muslim community, as shown by the example given in my previous post. How do you respond to this issue?


Disgust with my past and disgust with my generation as a whole, as we stand for hedonism in its purest form yet seen on this Earth.What do you define as hedonism, and why is hedonism wrong? If by hedonism you mean the pursuit of pleasure, then people will continue to engage in hedonistic behaviour after the revolution as taken place, because people enjoy having sex, eating good food, and drinking alcohol, and there is no reason to feel guilty about any of these activities.


The bourgeois state ultimately serves the corporate "elite." To think that it is a representative body is pure, unadulterated fantasy.Did you even read my post? The bourgeois state is not fully democratic - but to claim that it is not democratic at all is wrong, as governments have responded to popular unrest - as shown by the Poll Tax riots.


Who is the defeatist now? I'm not being a defeatist, as I do not see viewing women as sex objects as inherently wrong.


Certainly. I do.Why? Masturbation is a pleasurable activity.

[punisa]

Where are you from? :confused:


Croatia - part of the former communist Yugoslavia

[bcbm]

Disgust with promiscuity by far pre-dates the capitalist mode of production. For one, it is in all major religions, that alone proving that it pre-dates capitalism.

This isn't really true. Buddhism is not against sex, so long as those involved are consenting. Hinduism, while being more varied due to the number of sects, interpretations of scripture, etc, has historically been open with sex as well- look at the temples covered in sexual imagery.

Beyond that, while it is true that religions have been hard on promiscuity, the mass of common people rarely have been. Look at a recording of fines given out during the middle ages and see how many were for "fornication." Or examine some of the bawdier tales of the era- Canterbury Tales for one. Japan in the same period and for sometime after was also quite sexually liberated. You can't deny that people have always enjoyed pleasure and have always slept around to some extent.


One could attempt to argue that it is a result of economically unequal societies (pre-capitalism), but it is also found in primitive communist tribal arrangements as well, modern and ancient.

In some. In others, sexually promiscuity is the standard and practiced quite freely, without any moralist crap against it.


as we stand for hedonism in its purest form yet seen on this Earth.

And so what? It is good to start overthrowing the oppressive morals the ruling classes have historically tried to place upon us (and largely failed). Why should human beings not do the things that make them feel good?

[Dros]

You're half right.

I'm two halves right.;)


The family as an economic unit is an artificial structure created by economically unequal society. Tribalism on a smaller scale - you provide for your blood relatives in order to secure a future for your children. The family itself, that is, a tightly knit unit of individuals related by blood (I'm excluding adoptions, etc. for the sake of simplicity) is an instinctual construct, wherein you stay close to your mate and your children and protect them from predators and assure them shelter and food.

That's not necessarily true. There are lots of societies, pre-irrigation societies, that raise children in common.


In a communist society of course, there will be no "predators," and nothing to stop your children from growing old, save for diseases and accidents. But the instinct will still be there, and thus people will be more comfortable living in such units.

Right. Because humans are still bound up by their instincts.;)


That is simply false. Disgust with promiscuity by far pre-dates the capitalist mode of production.

That's true. I was referring to today. Today, disgust with promiscuity is engendered by the mode of production. But, disgust with promiscuity is engendered by propertied modes of production grounded in exploitation. The argument is applicable to all such modes of production.


For one, it is in all major religions, that alone proving that it pre-dates capitalism.

And also demonstrates how reactionary it is.


One could attempt to argue that it is a result of economically unequal societies (pre-capitalism), but it is also found in primitive communist tribal arrangements as well, modern and ancient.

Which societies are you referring to?


Although, I would agree that institutionalized monogamy is completely contrary to a socialist society, as all a legal marriage is for is to secure certain economic privileges and, as you said, a right of inheritance, etc.

Sweetness.


I think this view is too much influenced by Western liberal media and "philosophy." You need to realize that the corporate media are the ones who created a twisted view of human sexuality, (mainly, promiscuity) and it is not "progressive" or "revolutionary" to embrace an idea spoon-fed to us by our capitalist masters. Why else do you see "MTV Spring Break" and "The Real World?" The capitalist class wishes to glorify hedonism so as to distract the lower and middle classes from revolution and educating themselves and recognizing class conflict and antagonisms.

:lol::lol::lol:

Has it ever occurred to you that not everything the capitalists do is about suppressing the revolution? We're not that important to them yet! Did it possibly occur to you that they are also in the business of accruing capital and that people want to watch these tv shows because it turns them on?


A youth that f*cks and drinks and smokes consumes much more (and think nothing of revolt) than a self-disciplined, class-aware revolutionary, so it is beneficial to the upper classes to embrace and promote this view of "sexual liberation."

Consumption is wrong now to?

I don't think you know many revolutionaries. Many of the most theoretically advanced and active revolutionaries on this site and indeed in the world smoke marijuana, have sex, and occasionally get drunk.


THAT'S WHAT IT DOES! There is no way to deny that men do not look at women in hijab as sexual objects.

That's what it does because men don't look at women as ANYTHING! The hijab makes women nonexistent to society!


There's a difference between being viewed sexually and being viewed as a sexual plaything.

I did say that.


What a surprise, embracing liberal bourgeois notions of sexuality. How revolutionary of you. Call me conservative on this issue if that's how you see it, but I'd rather be a conservative than a filthy f*cking bourgeois liberalist.

:lol::lol::lol:

I'm glad you came back. It's worth it for the laughs.

You are a conservative, or perhaps more accurately a reactionary.

You also have a totally unscientific approach to questions of line. If a bourgeois liberal zionist shit-sack says that gravity exists, is that bad?

And secondly, this is not at all a liberal view of sex. This is a revolutionary view of sexuality. Do you think Hillary Clinton talks about sex this way?


You're drawing a line that is meaningless in this discussion, as I never said women shouldn't be viewed sexually, but I said they should not be dehumanized by being viewed as sexual objects...

Right. Instead, they should be dehumanized by the hijab! You have yet to prove this causation.


Fight for sexual emancipation through a socialist revolution, not through democratic reforms. Do you think we would still be living in a capitalist society if women had never been given the right to vote? Anger would have boiled up and up and up, probably resulting in a socialist-feminist revolution.

Umm... Yes. We would still be living in capitalism. This is hilarious. Women are not a class. Read something.


I expect the same to happen in places such as Saudi Arabia, one of the few remaining absolute monarchies in the world, with some of the most completely disenfranchised women.

If there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia, it will be of the Iranian variety. Wahabism is very firmly grounded there, and any deposal of the king would lead towards Islamic fascism. You might like it there!


Also, to me, and the women who wear hijab, it is not about forcing them into subservient positions.

I'm glad that you think so.:rolleyes:


If I thought it was about that, do you honestly think I would support women wearing them? Absolutely not. The point is, I am of the opinion that it is beneficial (especially emotionally) to the women who choose to wear it

No. The point is, that it doesn't matter whether you think it's oppressive or not. It IS oppressive.

[Peacekeeper]

Bob Kindles, it seems that we have a fundamental disagreement on which views are sexist and which are not. No one is going to "win" this argument or change the other's mind.

Punisa, that's cool, I have a couple friends who are Croat. Nice quote in your signature, by the way, it made me laugh :lol:


This isn't really true. Buddhism is not against sex, so long as those involved are consenting. Hinduism, while being more varied due to the number of sects, interpretations of scripture, etc, has historically been open with sex as well- look at the temples covered in sexual imagery.

Buddhism, in comparison to Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam, is a small religion. Those three religions making up, the majority of the people on Earth (Christianity (all sects) being about 33% and Islam (all sects) being about 21%).


Beyond that, while it is true that religions have been hard on promiscuity, the mass of common people rarely have been. Look at a recording of fines given out during the middle ages and see how many were for "fornication." Or examine some of the bawdier tales of the era- Canterbury Tales for one. Japan in the same period and for sometime after was also quite sexually liberated. You can't deny that people have always enjoyed pleasure and have always slept around to some extent.

Yes, and look who wrote Canterbury Tales. Geoffrey Chaucer, one of the elite. Throughout history, the libertines have been the upper class. And that is the first time I have heard the nation that invented foot-binding referred to as sexually liberated.


That's not necessarily true. There are lots of societies, pre-irrigation societies, that raise children in common.

There were several, but I would assume that they would save their own child first from a burning hut rather than someone's else's.


Right. Because humans are still bound up by their instincts.

Exactly.


That's true. I was referring to today. Today, disgust with promiscuity is engendered by the mode of production. But, disgust with promiscuity is engendered by propertied modes of production grounded in exploitation. The argument is applicable to all such modes of production.

Are you going to find examples of societies with non-propertied modes of production in which promiscuity was acceptable, or are you going to make baseless claims?


And also demonstrates how reactionary it is.

Find me a few Marxist-Leninist philosophers that supported promiscuity.


Sweetness.
Mhm.



Has it ever occurred to you that not everything the capitalists do is about suppressing the revolution? We're not that important to them yet! Did it possibly occur to you that they are also in the business of accruing capital and that people want to watch these tv shows because it turns them on?

Even with that view you should resist hedonism.


Consumption is wrong now to?

I don't think you know many revolutionaries. Many of the most theoretically advanced and active revolutionaries on this site and indeed in the world smoke marijuana, have sex, and occasionally get drunk.

Consuming more than is necessary, absolutely. Americans, on average, consume much more than is needed, in terms of food, clothing, living space, etc. Also, my aversion to alcohol and marijuana is personal, not moral, as there have been drug and alcohol related problems in my family that I do not wish to see in other people's families.


That's what it does because men don't look at women as ANYTHING! The hijab makes women nonexistent to society!

What? Please explain.


I did say that.

As long as we're clear on that.


I'm glad you came back. It's worth it for the laughs.

You are a conservative, or perhaps more accurately a reactionary.

You also have a totally unscientific approach to questions of line. If a bourgeois liberal zionist shit-sack says that gravity exists, is that bad?

And secondly, this is not at all a liberal view of sex. This is a revolutionary view of sexuality. Do you think Hillary Clinton talks about sex this way?

If she doesn't, she's not much of a liberal.
I don't understand how you can call me a reactionary when I say that the working class must seize the means of production through revolution as well as establish a socialist state whose goal is to eliminate gradually all aspects of economic and social class. It is merely my personal view that I support women who choose to wear hijab in capitalist society of their own fee will. I also think the need for this will disappear in a post-revolutionary society, where the new, socialist man will become the norm. I think you have some twisted ideas about human sexuality, but I would still fight alongside you in the revolution. I'm not an ounce reactionary.


Right. Instead, they should be dehumanized by the hijab! You have yet to prove this causation.

What the sh*t.

Women are dehumanized by revealing clothing because most men will see them as sexual objects rather than people to get to know. However, a woman in a hijab cannot be viewed sexually, so you are ultimately forced to think of her as person, and get to know her through conversation, without looking at her sexually. It is very clear to me, and all Muslims. I say again, if a woman is being forced to wear hijab, or wearing it makes her feel dehumanized for some reason, I would fight for her right to NOT wear it. I only support women wearing it if they fell it has the desired effect.


Umm... Yes. We would still be living in capitalism. This is hilarious. Women are not a class. Read something.

I am aware of that. But they are a group of people, and if a group of people are targeted and systematically oppressed, they tend to organize and revolt. Read some history.


If there is a revolution in Saudi Arabia, it will be of the Iranian variety. Wahabism is very firmly grounded there, and any deposal of the king would lead towards Islamic fascism. You might like it there!

Even a revolution for a bourgeois Islamic Republic would be an improvement over their current Western capitalist policies and autocratic government.


I'm glad that you think so.

This is what am told my my hijabi sisters, I have never heard one of them say they feel repressed because of hijab, only that they feel liberated.


No. The point is, that it doesn't matter whether you think it's oppressive or not. It IS oppressive.

If I don't think it's oppressive, if the women don't think it is oppressive, and Muslim men don't think it's oppressive, then how the hell is it oppressive?

[Kami]

Buddhism, in comparison to Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam, is a small religion. Those three religions making up, the majority of the people on Earth (Christianity (all sects) being about 33% and Islam (all sects) being about 21%).

Roughly 14% of the world's population is Hindu. 6.27% (larger than the population of north america) are chinese universists, and 5.87% are buddhist, at a conservative estimate. You really can't write these off, they are major religions.

And that is the first time I have heard the nation that invented foot-binding referred to as sexually liberated.
Dude, CHINA. It's a different place!

There were several, but I would assume that they would save their own child first from a burning hut rather than someone's else's.
Your assumptions are worthless, anything to back this up?

Consuming more than is necessary, absolutely.
Fuck off. Why, oh why, would we have to limit ourselves strictly to what is "necessary"? That's just retarded.


Women are dehumanized by revealing clothing because most men will see them as sexual objects rather than people to get to know.
Fuck off with your "most men", again. One cannot be "Dehumanized" by revealing a human body, and what the hell is with your assumption men are some kind of sexual animal?

Even a revolution for a bourgeois Islamic Republic would be an improvement over their current Western capitalist policies and autocratic government.
Call me "out there" or whatever, but I'd take bougeois libralism over religious authoritarianism any day -.-

This is what am told my my hijabi sisters, I have never heard one of them say they feel repressed because of hijab, only that they feel liberated.
Their preacher is doing his job well, then.

If I don't think it's oppressive, if the women don't think it is oppressive, and Muslim men don't think it's oppressive, then how the hell is it oppressive?
HAve you not read any of this discussion?

[Peacekeeper]

Roughly 14% of the world's population is Hindu. 6.27% (larger than the population of north america) are chinese universists, and 5.87% are buddhist, at a conservative estimate. You really can't write these off, they are major religions.

That's a small minority where I come from.


Dude, CHINA. It's a different place!

Hahahah! :lol:
Oh man. I'm going to regret making that mistake.


Your assumptions are worthless, anything to back this up?

Anything to back up he would care for other children equally?


Fuck off. Why, oh why, would we have to limit ourselves strictly to what is "necessary"? That's just retarded.

What kind of communist are you? Ever heard of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need?" Consuming more than necessary is wasting resources that could go to someone that does not have enough, dipsh*t.


Fuck off with your "most men", again. One cannot be "Dehumanized" by revealing a human body, and what the hell is with your assumption men are some kind of sexual animal?

That's also Bob Kindle's assumption, if you've even read this discussion.


Call me "out there" or whatever, but I'd take bougeois libralism over religious authoritarianism any day -.-

Are you calling autocratic Saudi Arabia liberal?


Their preacher is doing his job well, then.

Sheikh, you mean. :)


HAve you not read any of this discussion?

Have you been high while you were reading it?

[RHIZOMES]

Consumption is wrong now to?

I don't think you know many revolutionaries. Many of the most theoretically advanced and active revolutionaries on this site and indeed in the world smoke marijuana, have sex, and occasionally get drunk.

I'll vouch for that. :lol: In fact, one of the most theoretically knowledgable comrades I know got incredibly fucking wasted last week.

Anyway back on topic.


Buddhism, in comparison to Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam, is a small religion. Those three religions making up, the majority of the people on Earth (Christianity (all sects) being about 33% and Islam (all sects) being about 21%).

yeah, and you wanna know WHY they're the largest? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a "w" and ends with an "r". :rolleyes:


That's a small minority where I come from.

Dude, Hinduism is the 3rd fucking largest religion in the world. 14% of the population is nearly a billion people. That is NOT a fucking minority by any stretch of imagination or argument, unless Islam is a minority too. :laugh:

[Peacekeeper]

Well - yes. Islam is a minority as well. 1.5 billion of over 6 billion is not a majority. Do you... um... know the definition of the word minority?

"A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_%28sociology%29) that does not constitute a politically dominant plurality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality) of the total population of a given society."

:)

[BobKKKindle$]

Peacekepper, even if we have different conceptions of what sexual objectification means, there are some other issues you have not addressed.

Why is it that only women should wear a hijab, when women also view men as sex objects and are just as interested in having sex as men? Surely men should also wear a hijab to prevent women from seeing then as sex objects?

What is wrong with hedonism? Having sex and drinking are fun - and so why should people feel guilty about having a good time? Do you think people will stop wanting to drink and have sex for pleasure when we live in a socialist society? Will we sit around reciting the Koran instead?

[RHIZOMES]

Well - yes. Islam is a minority as well. 1.5 billion of over 6 billion is not a majority. Do you... um... know the definition of the word minority?

"A minority or subordinate group is a sociological group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_%28sociology%29) that does not constitute a politically dominant plurality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality) of the total population of a given society."

:)

try saying Hinduism is a minority in India or Nepal. :laugh: That's not a MINOR religion. You said that all major religions are anti-promiscuity. Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion in the world. Karma Sutra much?

Also, I see how you ignored what I said, regarding WHY they are the two largest religions: you know why Christianity and Islam are the largest religions? Mostly forced conversion and war. It isn't much of a surprise that a religion with such draconian views on sex would have such draconian views on other issues, such as spreading their beliefs. They do believe, after all, that their truth is the only truth. :rolleyes:

[Peacekeeper]

Minor in terms of the world, friend.

Forced conversion and war? Then why is Islam still the fastest growing religion in the US and the world? We aren't invading America and putting guns to their heads, are we? In fact, it is just the opposite.

Also, during the expansion of the Muslim empire, people were not forced to convert or die. It was mostly government policy that convinced many to convert: Muslims were favored for jobs, government positions, and payed less taxes. If anything, it was an economic decision.

[Dros]

There were several, but I would assume that they would save their own child first from a burning hut rather than someone's else's.

No. The whole point is that children aren't conceived of as property being held by the people who made it. Child care is held in common with all adults helping to raise all children.


Exactly.

:lol: You fail.


Are you going to find examples of societies with non-propertied modes of production in which promiscuity was acceptable, or are you going to make baseless claims?


Polygamy is an ancient practice found in manyhuman societies and Islam is not adverse to it.

Do you actually want a list or something? Go read about anthropology.


Find me a few Marxist-Leninist philosophers that supported promiscuity.

Who cares? Refute my argument or shut up!


Even with that view you should resist hedonism.

lol at hedonism.

Why exactly? I've made an argument about monogamy and sexuality which you have simply decided not to refute.

I'm also glad you've abandoned your dumb conspiracy theory.


Consuming more than is necessary, absolutely. Americans, on average, consume much more than is needed, in terms of food, clothing, living space, etc.

Which is bad because...?


Also, my aversion to alcohol and marijuana is personal, not moral, as there have been drug and alcohol related problems in my family that I do not wish to see in other people's families.

Fine. Then don't turn it into a moral or political issue. At least acknowledge that its possible for healthy people to use marijuana and remain healthy people and don't make silly assertions about revolutionaries who do use these.


What? Please explain.

The hijab is an instrument of patriarchal repression of women through psychological shame and cultural subservience.


If she doesn't, she's not much of a liberal.

Do you live in reality, or have you recently move away?

You seem to be claiming that my view is a criterion for being a liberal. Firstly, I challenge you to find one classic liberal writer who expressed my view. Two, I challenge you to demonstrate how my view fits into a liberal orientation. Three, I challenge you to find one mainstream bourgeois democratic liberal who advocates my line on sexuality.

If my views are as liberal, and indeed as central to liberalism as a world view as you claim, this should be exceedingly easy.

If however, you have absolutely no idea what liberalism is as I suspect, this will probably prove quite difficult. And by difficult, I mean impossible.


I don't understand how you can call me a reactionary when I say that the working class must seize the means of production through revolution as well as establish a socialist state whose goal is to eliminate gradually all aspects of economic and social class.

Oh where to begin.

1.) You're religious. 'Nuff said.
2.) You support Shari'a.
3.) You support Hijab.

There's a start.


It is merely my personal view that I support women who choose to wear hijab in capitalist society of their own fee will.

Guess what! Your personal views dictate whether or not you're a revolutionary or a reactionary!


I also think the need for this will disappear in a post-revolutionary society, where the new, socialist man will become the norm. I think you have some twisted ideas about human sexuality, but I would still fight alongside you in the revolution. I'm not an ounce reactionary.

I'd say more than an ounce.


What the sh*t.


Women are dehumanized by revealing clothing because most men will see them as sexual objects rather than people to get to know.

That's simply a restatement of your premise. It's not an argument.

When I see a girl I find attractive, I don't treat her like a piece of meat! Most men don't! The reason is that viewing someone sexually does not necessitate dehumanization! In fact, I think it humanizing!


However, a woman in a hijab cannot be viewed sexually,

:lol:

I guess the solution to sexism is simply to hide all of the women!


I say again, if a woman is being forced to wear hijab, or wearing it makes her feel dehumanized for some reason, I would fight for her right to NOT wear it.

Congratulations on not being a fascist.


I am aware of that. But they are a group of people, and if a group of people are targeted and systematically oppressed, they tend to organize and revolt. Read some history.

:lol:

You just claimed that they'd make a revolution that would overthrow capitalism. That requires a proletarian class outlook which is not something innate to women or men. This means that a female revolution would not be able to create socialism even if it happened.

Which would be impossible by the way. Women have been oppressed since the rise of large scale agriculture some seven thousand years ago! Why didn't they revolt? Ever! Why is it that there is never any instance in the entirety of human history of a women's revolution? Go read some history you dumb fuck! It's because there is no basis for that to occur! It would have been tactically infeasible because there is no material basis and no practical basis for such a thing to occur.


Even a revolution for a bourgeois Islamic Republic would be an improvement over their current Western capitalist policies and autocratic government.

Okay. So fascism is better. You call yourself a Leninist?:rolleyes:


This is what am told my my hijabi sisters, I have never heard one of them say they feel repressed because of hijab, only that they feel liberated.

So...


If I don't think it's oppressive, if the women don't think it is oppressive, and Muslim men don't think it's oppressive, then how the hell is it oppressive?

Do you know what the Cult of Domesticity is? That's a rhetorical question the answer to which I can pretty confidently predict will be in the negative. This was the patriarchal system set up during the later half of the nineteenth century that claimed that the jobs of women in society were to make and raise children and to increase the "moral" character of their household. Of course, it locked women out of economic and political power and reinforced the oppression and secondary nature of women in society. It was a role widely accepted by and encouraged by women, women's organizations, and society in general.

That justification is a patently and obviously fallacious and anti-Marxist argument. Anyone can see that.

So in conclusion let me ask you a question: why is it that nations where the hijab is prevalent are also the same nations with the most backward gender relations in the world?

[Random Precision]

Find me a few Marxist-Leninist philosophers that supported promiscuity.

Alexandra Kollontai (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/)
Clara Zetkin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/)

[Peacekeeper]

I am overwhelmed.

Drosera, you may claim victory, for that post left me speechless.

It appears that it I most definitely have not studied enough theory or history to know what the hell I'm talking about. :(


Personally, I think it was those ":lol:" emoticons that did it. Laughing... mocking me! Hahahaha

So anyhow... what do we do now? I've never admitted defeat before.

EDIT: Thanks, Random Precision, reading "New Woman" now.

EDIT2: Sounds nice:


She is severe in dress, she apportions her time strictly, she struggles to acquire a practice and experiences the triumph of self-love with the victory over her male colleagues as diagnostician.EDIT3: Good so far...


The new woman forgives an affront to the "wifie" in her, but she never forgets the least inattentiveness vis-a-vis her personality.EDIT4: WHAT HAVE I BEEN SAYING??


"I curse my female body; because of it you do not notice that there is still something else in me – something more valuable" – that is the cry that is heard through the whole novel of Nadjescha Sanschar (Anna's Notes). And heroines of all nationalities repeat this protest in this or that form. Even the simple soul of Gorki's Tatiana protests against an attitude that brands her as a single instrument of pleasure.

I like this Alexandra woman:


The sharper the personality of the woman is stamped, the more consciously does she feel herself as a "human being," the more sharply does she understand the offense that lies in the fact that the man, with a psychology blunted in the course of centuries, was not able to see in the desired woman the awakening human being, the personality.

[RHIZOMES]

Minor in terms of the world, friend.

Forced conversion and war? Then why is Islam still the fastest growing religion in the US and the world? We aren't invading America and putting guns to their heads, are we? In fact, it is just the opposite.

Also, during the expansion of the Muslim empire, people were not forced to convert or die. It was mostly government policy that convinced many to convert: Muslims were favored for jobs, government positions, and payed less taxes. If anything, it was an economic decision.

I am aware of those facts, I once worshipped the same invisible sky god that you did.

Islam FIRST became a prominent religion due to the large amount of land that it attained through WAR. The discrimination that dhimmis faced FORCED a lot of people to convert to islam. Also there's the whole "If someone converts from Islam, kill him" decree that peace-lovin' Muhammad said. Do you seriously think Islam would be so large today if it wasn't for it's early violent history?

Same with Christianity. The REASON it's such a prominent religion today and not just a very minor and short-lived messianic cult that it should've been, is because it was made the only legal religion in the Roman Empire and pagans got killed or were forcefully converted. And the Roman Empire - surprisingly! - had shitloads of land. Hm. :rolleyes:

As I said, it isn't much of a suprise a religion with draconian views on sex would also have draconian views on other things, which is why the two largest religions are so repressive to natural human sexuality.

[Peacekeeper]

Finished New Woman... starting Communism and the Family.

EDIT: Finished it. Man, this is good stuff:


Instead of the conjugal slavery of the past, communist society offers women and men a free union which is strong in the comradeship which inspired it. Once the conditions of labour have been transformed and the material security of the working women has increased, and once marriage such as the church used to perform it – this so-called indissoluble marriage which was at bottom merely a fraud – has given place to the free and honest union of men and women who are lovers and comrades, prostitution will disappear. This evil, which is a stain on humanity and the scourge of hungry working women, has its roots in commodity production and the institution of private property. Once these economic forms are superseded, the trade in women will automatically disappear. The women of the working class, therefore, need not worry over the fact that the family is doomed to disappear. They should, on the contrary, welcome the dawn of a new society which will liberate women from domestic servitude, lighten the burden of motherhood and finally put an end to the terrible curse of prostitution.

[bcbm]

Yes, and look who wrote Canterbury Tales. Geoffrey Chaucer, one of the elite. Throughout history, the libertines have been the upper class.

Not really. Like I said, look at a list of fines given out during the middle ages and see how often fornication pops up. Beyond that, you could look to the folk tales and songs of the lower classes which were hardly anti-sex. People enjoy pleasure, get over it.


And that is the first time I have heard the nation that invented foot-binding referred to as sexually liberated.

Foot binding was in China. :rolleyes:

[Dros]

I am overwhelmed.

Drosera, you may claim victory, for that post left me speechless.

It appears that it I most definitely have not studied enough theory or history to know what the hell I'm talking about. :(

Surrender excepted.:)

[yes, I'm aware that you were being sarcastic]

[Peacekeeper]

Surrender excepted.:)

[yes, I'm aware that you were being sarcastic]

I wasn't (and I think it's "accepted").

[Dimentio]

Wonderful trollin' :D

You are a perfect caricature of a western socialist embracing Islam. But I think this farce has gone too far.

And how is it now again they see sodomy within Islam?

[Dros]

I wasn't (and I think it's "accepted").

You are correct! I stand corrected.

And if you are actually sincere, then I apologize but your post was pretty sarcastic sounding so that's why...

[Dean]

Finished New Woman... starting Communism and the Family.

EDIT: Finished it. Man, this is good stuff:

I'm proud of you peacekeeper. Just don't let them turn you into an orthodox :p

[Peacekeeper]

And if you are actually sincere, then I apologize but your post was pretty sarcastic sounding so that's why...

My apologies for managing to sound sarcastic, then. ;)


I'm proud of you peacekeeper. Just don't let them turn you into an orthodoxThanks. But which orthodox are we referring to?;)

[Comrade B]

Excuse me, but I personally don't give a rat's ass about someone's views on masturbation, or picking apart his wording to see a deep hidden sexist meaning. This is fucking ridiculous. The man has views that differ from you in some senses. He is a cultural traditionalist (conservative if you wish, but this term is quite flexible. Russian communists are conservatives). He still demands human beings be treated equally. He is a communist and I will defend him. Perhaps if communists were to rule the country and Peacekeeper ran for a position in government, I would vote against him, but here, I accept him. I came to revleft to see other peoples views and expand my political knowledge. If we are reasonable people, we should always be learning things and adjusting our positions. I say remove the restriction.

I also feel I should say here, to the early comment, there is an advertisement at the bottom of my screen "Meet Islam Women" silly automated advertising

[Peacekeeper]

Thank you for your comments, Comrade B. It is people like you that keep me from losing faith in RevLeft.
:)

[Dros]

Excuse me, but I personally don't give a rat's ass about someone's views on masturbation, or picking apart his wording to see a deep hidden sexist meaning.

So you're okay with soft sexism?:confused:


This is fucking ridiculous. The man has views that differ from you in some senses.

His views are a fundamental negation of Marxism.


He is a cultural traditionalist (conservative if you wish,

Yes he is. He supports the cultural status quo, a system defined by and created out of the capitalist (and other propertied) mode(s) of production.


Russian communists are conservatives

I don't know who you're talking about but the conservatives you're talking about aren't "Communists" or the Communists you're talking about aren't conservatives.


He still demands human beings be treated equally.

In his interesting way.


He is a communist and I will defend him.

Good for you.:lol:


Perhaps if communists were to rule the country and Peacekeeper ran for a position in government, I would vote against him, but here, I accept him.

So?


I came to revleft to see other peoples views and expand my political knowledge. If we are reasonable people, we should always be learning things and adjusting our positions.

Very true.


I say remove the restriction.

Not happening.

[Comrade B]

Soft on sexism? You sound like a republican talking about "terrorism." Either I must fight what you call sexism relentlessly, or I am clearly a sexist myself. I am saying that I do not see that his purpose to forward sexist beliefs. I believe that it is misguided to believe that men will be attracted to women unless they wear head scarves, which is his belief, but I can see where he might get the idea of this. As to conservatives being against communism, look on the "do you smoke pot" post, there are plenty of other conservative thoughts there. Not everything about communism must be completely new. The manifesto was written in the 1800s, might I add.

You cannot end a negative view by ignoring it.

[Dean]

My impression is that he supports some vague, sometimes conservative concepts of the sexualization of women. I think it is imortant to recognize that skimpy clothes are indeed a part of the commodification of women, but the Hijab is clearly overkill against this (and often serves the same purpose in a twisted sense). When it comes to peacekeeper, he may have said some outright sexist things, I don't know, but all I have seen is support for archaic concepts founded on humanist intentions, even if they are very misled.

[Dros]

Soft on sexism? You sound like a republican talking about "terrorism."

I said "soft sexism". That's a term that means sexism that is not overt like the kind Peacekeeper spews. I did not say "soft on sexism" as if you had some kind of policy influence.


Either I must fight what you call sexism relentlessly, or I am clearly a sexist myself.

What you said was that, in practice, we should not look into people's statements and analyze their position on gender issues.


I personally don't give a rat's ass about someone's views on masturbation, or picking apart his wording to see a deep hidden sexist meaning.

That is, you don't seem to care if "comrades" say sexist things as long as they aren't explicitly hateful of or marginalizing of women, something that is very rare today.


I am saying that I do not see his purpose to forward sexist beliefs.

Errr... What?


I believe that it is misguided to believe that men will be attracted to women unless they wear head scarves, which is his belief, but I can see where he might get the idea of this.

It's not merely misguided. It's objectively sexist.


As to conservatives being against communism, look on the "do you smoke pot" post, there are plenty of other conservative thoughts there.

Taking the line that revolutionaries should not smoke or get high is not necessarily conservative or not conservative. That's simply not what that conversation is about.


Not everything about communism must be completely new.

non sequitur


The manifesto was written in the 1800s, might I add.

Okay.....
:confused:

[Comrade B]

I corrected one sentence I made before that confused you.

I am saying that I do not see that his purpose to forward sexist beliefs

Any sexism in Peacemaker's statements was not intended to be sexist, though at times it seems so. Simply sending him away from sight does not solve this problem.

[Dros]

Any sexism in Peacemaker's statements was not intended to be sexist, though at times it seems so. Simply sending him away from sight does not solve this problem.

There are very few people in the world who are consciously and actively sexist. Of course he doesn't mean to have offensive and reactionary opinions, of course he doesn't mean to be offensive.

The fact is, they are sexist views.

[Mirage]

I understand that as a forum, it is much better not to have to deal with capitalist and far right views while discussing the actual topic matter, but I really don't see why peacekeeper was restricted. He defended himself quite well, I don't think anyone was able to bring anything legitimate as to why he should be restricted. Unless you guys just restrict people you don't like, which is somewhat disgraceful.

[Dros]

I understand that as a forum, it is much better not to have to deal with capitalist and far right views while discussing the actual topic matter, but I really don't see why peacekeeper was restricted. He defended himself quite well, I don't think anyone was able to bring anything legitimate as to why he should be restricted. Unless you guys just restrict people you don't like, which is somewhat disgraceful.

He was restricted for being a soft racist and a soft sexist. Tolerating that would be disgraceful.

[Comrade B]

Racist? I have heard nothing of that.

[Raúl Duke]

This was mentioned in some part of the whole thread:


You do realise all sodomy laws in the US were invalidated by a supreme court judgement in 2003, right?


The laws are still in the books, buddy.Even if there still in the "books" ,by being invalidated (by the federal supreme court, which is "law of the land" and thus has "final say" over state courts) these laws have no force. Thus sodomy is not illegal. I fail to see how the last quote is a sound rebuttal of anything. The only way it could be illegal is if the supreme court revokes it's ruling/etc.


Racist? I have heard nothing of that.

Has something to do when he mention something about Serbians (I think) during the conflict between the former Yugoslavian territories.

[cenv]

Well, Peacekeeper, I don't really agree with your views, but reading your posts gave me a lot of insight into the way people who practice Islam see the world. So thanks for bringing a different perspective to RevLeft.

[Peacekeeper]

Has something to do when he mention something about Serbians (I think) during the conflict between the former Yugoslavian territories.

That was after my restriction though, and I clarified my position on that, and was commended by a RevLefter. :cool:
That' the only thing that could be construed as racist that I remember.

Oh wait - There was my reference to the jew-eating rabbit on that kids show on al-Manar... I think that was it. But they are talking about Israelis, not jews in general, even though they say "yehudi." If that was why I was banned, that's hysterical, because three of my best friends are Jewish (only one practices though) and my favorite teacher is Jewish (her parents joined the Communist resistance against the fascists in Greece during WWII)!


Well, Peacekeeper, I don't really agree with your views, but reading your posts gave me a lot of insight into the way people who practice Islam see the world. So thanks for bringing a different perspective to RevLeft.

I'm just your friendly neighborhood Muslim. :D

[Red Romeo]

Peace Keeper out of curiosity what form of hijab do you refer to? Are you speaking of a headscarf or a full on jilbab?

[Peacekeeper]

It doesn't really matter, it's the same concept. But in my humble opinion, you can wear non-revealing "Western" clothing as well as a headscarf and I would still consider it hijab.