Is anyone here socially right? [Archive]

Junius

9th November 2008, 12:39

I get what you're saying, but usually people who're socially right (in the manner OP described) aren't going to be politically left. Politics is simply a reflection of the society, of social values etc. So a guy who feels this way about gays isn't really going to be crazy about a progressive ideology. It will be too contradictory for his social values.

I also think that right-wing social values are reflective of reactionary politics in general. For example, numerous non-Western leftist organizations, particularly of the Leninist variety, are socially conservative. I think this is surprising to most Western leftists which has a trend in libertarianism and 'natural rights.' Most liberation fronts have reactionary social values. But then you would agree with me, that the socially reactionary values are not the reason they are reactionary. They have socially right values because they are reactionary. More to the point, I have read posts on here (mainly by anarchists) which seem to argue that religious workers are by definition unrevolutionary. I think this misses the point that the struggle against capital is not a struggle against religion (let's not forget that those whom most fiercely condemned religion were the rising bourgeoisie). Where I work, for example, is mainly with Pakistani Muslims. Their religion, or nationality, has never come up in any of the disputes with the bosses. And this suits me just fine, since we want to unite workers because of their class not on a religious or national basis. Hence, anarchists or Marxists whom put broad restrictions on whom is to be included in this revolutionary strata play into the hands of the bourgeoisie in dividing us.

This has gotten off topic, I thought I would raise these points nonetheless, since I think they are somewhat related.

ZeroNowhere

9th November 2008, 13:59

You could be a socialist, you're certainly not a libertarian socialist.

apathy maybe

9th November 2008, 15:07

have to laugh at the posturing - oblisk never clarified what was mean by "socially right" but there was no shortage of fatuous folks proudly denouncing a subjective interpretation

oblisk - what DID you mean?
Yeah. It's crazy that someone would assume a person's position when that person used terms which are commonly defined.

I already specified that my "social conservatism" has nothing to do with a desire for continued or increased patriarchal oppression. (Although I will say that, if by "work", you mean "be exploited by the wage system", I don't think women should work, or men or children for that matter. I also find your insinuation that housework isn't "work", in the sense of being laborous, or in the sense of being a part of the capitalist matrix of economic exploitation, disturbing. I suggest you read Leopoldina Fortunati's "Arcane of Reproduction: Housework, Prostitution, Labor and Capital")

Yeah, I sure as hell didn't mean to "insinuate" anything about housework. You're relatively new, but I'm sure I've written about the subject before, or at least expressed the opinion that those who don't consider housework "work" are wrong.

In this context, "work" means "earning a wage", which many "social conservatives" don't think women should do.

It means many things. Where do you want me to start?
How about you detail all your views on social issues that you consider to be conservative type views.

I don't think we have old conservative like that before that are for that.Most if any conservative talk I hear on the news are appose to gays and lesbians , abortion and stem cell research ,separation of church and state ,drugs and promiscuous.

They are tough on crime ,pro-police and prisons and do not believe in crime prevention or what will lead to crime.They are pro-guns and believe people are evile not the system leading to crime.
They anti-divorce ,anti-sex out of the wedlock ,common law lining.
Yeah, being against queer people is not socialist, wishing to impose your own morals relating to drugs and sex upon others is not socialist, opposing the separation of church and state is not socialist, being "tough on crime", "pro-police and prisons" is not socialist, believing that people are naturally evil is just fucking stupid, being anti-divorce is anti-women at a minimum, and sure as fuck isn't socialist. Etc.

Here are some views:

That children should be obedient towards their parents, and that parents need to be more stern (especially North American parents) towards their children.
Children are not the property of their parents. End of story.

Corporal punishment should be legal.
Women require the same equality rights as men.
I don't believe in punishment personally. But hey. And most "social conservatives" are of the opinion, women are "equal but different", are you like that?

Abortion should be taken into consideration only during a health issue and not a social issue.
Gay marriage should be outlawed.
Whilst I don't think that opposing abortion should get you restricted around here, I don't think that opposing abortion is wrong. Looks like you are getting restricted when an admin notices this.

As for marriage, I am opposed to marriage fullstop. Relationships are no business of anyone but the person's involved. But, opposing gay marriage while support "hetero marriage" is saying that queer ("gay") folks shouldn't have as many rights as "normal" people. Fuck off with that shit. (Did I mention "not socialist" yet? Because it sure reads that way.)

Note that people will jump in and say that I am a queer hating child beating evil reactionary. But my beliefs stem from my Confucian and/or religious beliefs.

Marx too, had anti-homosexual tendencies, which was quite common in his era.
Yeah, I was raised with some backward social views too, and I got over them. Either get over them, or get out.

Hilarious accusation. You have so far failed to prove that upholding marriage as a definition between a man and a women is un-socialist. You have also ignored the entire economic and other social values.
It has to do with saying that some people aren't as good as others. You are saying that a relationship between two men, or two women is not as good as a relationship between a man and a women (or a man and two, three or four women in Islam and some other religions).

As to economic values, what economic values? More weddings are bad for the economy as folks waste money on flashy showy shit? Yeah, lets ban all marriage then! Social values? OH NOES! a tiny percentage of the population that wasn't previously allow to marry but wants to will be able to! The most generous estimates I've seen for the number of gay and lesbian folks in society is about 10% of the general population, most estimates tend towards then 5%. How many of them want to marry? Let's say about half. So we have between 2.5% and 5% of the population that wasn't previously able to marry, and wants to, being able to marry.

WHAT FUCKING SOCIAL VALUES?

Did I mention not socialist yet?

Catbus

9th November 2008, 15:56

Social values? OH NOES! a tiny percentage of the population that wasn't previously allow to marry but wants to will be able to! The most generous estimates I've seen for the number of gay and lesbian folks in society is about 10% of the general population, most estimates tend towards then 5%.

Gotta remember man, it's what's best for our children.

All lunacy aside, I'm curious to see how you defend your pseudo-right (and I say pseudo-right because I haven't lost complete faith in humanity yet) views and how you can consider yourself a revolutionary.

Why should children be obedient to their parents? In all the cases I've seen, that just causes them to have horrible psychological problems and/or makes them do many things they will come to regret. Parents should help their kids learn how become productive members of society (I realize that sounds lame, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at).

I don't see how you could defend banning same-sex marriage, and quite frankly I don't care. But God help you if you mention anything about "it's for our children."

And finally, I don't find any of the accusations made to be "hilarious." Truth hurts.

oblisk

9th November 2008, 15:59

Yeah. It's crazy that someone would assume a person's position when that person used terms which are commonly defined.

Yeah, I sure as hell didn't mean to "insinuate" anything about housework. You're relatively new, but I'm sure I've written about the subject before, or at least expressed the opinion that those who don't consider housework "work" are wrong.

In this context, "work" means "earning a wage", which many "social conservatives" don't think women should do.

How about you detail all your views on social issues that you consider to be conservative type views.

Yeah, being against queer people is not socialist, wishing to impose your own morals relating to drugs and sex upon others is not socialist, opposing the separation of church and state is not socialist, being "tough on crime", "pro-police and prisons" is not socialist, believing that people are naturally evil is just fucking stupid, being anti-divorce is anti-women at a minimum, and sure as fuck isn't socialist. Etc.

Children are not the property of their parents. End of story.

I don't believe in punishment personally. But hey. And most "social conservatives" are of the opinion, women are "equal but different", are you like that?

Whilst I don't think that opposing abortion should get you restricted around here, I don't think that opposing abortion is wrong. Looks like you are getting restricted when an admin notices this.

As for marriage, I am opposed to marriage fullstop. Relationships are no business of anyone but the person's involved. But, opposing gay marriage while support "hetero marriage" is saying that queer ("gay") folks shouldn't have as many rights as "normal" people. Fuck off with that shit. (Did I mention "not socialist" yet? Because it sure reads that way.)

Yeah, I was raised with some backward social views too, and I got over them. Either get over them, or get out.

It has to do with saying that some people aren't as good as others. You are saying that a relationship between two men, or two women is not as good as a relationship between a man and a women (or a man and two, three or four women in Islam and some other religions).

As to economic values, what economic values? More weddings are bad for the economy as folks waste money on flashy showy shit? Yeah, lets ban all marriage then! Social values? OH NOES! a tiny percentage of the population that wasn't previously allow to marry but wants to will be able to! The most generous estimates I've seen for the number of gay and lesbian folks in society is about 10% of the general population, most estimates tend towards then 5%. How many of them want to marry? Let's say about half. So we have between 2.5% and 5% of the population that wasn't previously able to marry, and wants to, being able to marry.

WHAT FUCKING SOCIAL VALUES?

Did I mention not socialist yet?

Since you seem to adhere to the modern Western left-ism, I take into view that you are not a Marxist-Leninist, but a typical Western liberal with anti-capitalistic ideals. You have so far failed to prove how traditionalism and culture-based society is a backwards, non-progressive reactionary act.

I tend to agree with Marx and Engels' view on homosexuality;

In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels on two occassions refers to homosexuality as "morally deteriorated," "adbominable," "loathsome," and "degrading" (in discussing the homosexuality of the Ancient Greeks).

My view on the subject is also close to that of Maoists;
NEPAL'S hardline Maoist guerillas, on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism".

Emerging from a decade of fighting government forces, the insurgents have launched a clean-up drive against polygamy, polyandry, infidelity, drunkenness and homosexuality -- even though many gays were previously aligned with the Maoists against the autocratic rule of the widely despised King Gyanendra.

Maoist cadres, seen regularly on the streets of Kathmandu as they move towards taking over key roles in the Government under a peace accord worked out with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, have warned home owners not to let out rooms to gays and lesbians.

They have also announced "a zero-tolerance policy towards homosexuality" and a crackdown on pornographic films.

A Maoist commander allegedly told a group of gay men: "We are against any aberrant activity that could have a negative and vitiating effect on society."

And when members of the gay rights group Blue Diamond Society met Maoist leader Dev Gurung, he reportedly said homosexuality was a by-product of capitalism. "Under Soviet rule and when China was still very much a communist state, there were no homosexuals in the Soviet Union or China," Mr Gurung is reported to have said.

"Now they are moving towards capitalism, homosexuals may have arisen there as well. So homosexuality is a product of capitalism. Under socialism this kind of problem does not exist."

According to India's IANS news service, when the Blue Diamond Society members met other Maoist leaders to complain that homosexuals were under attack from Maoist cadres, the reaction was "disheartening".

Amrita Thapa, general secretary of the Maoist women's association, told a conference recently that homosexuals were unnatural and were "polluting" society.

Under King Gyanendra's rule, homosexuals were a pet target of his personal security apparatus.

Why should children be obedient to their parents? In all the cases I've seen, that just causes them to have horrible psychological problems and/or makes them do many things they will come to regret. Parents should help their kids learn how become productive members of society (I realize that sounds lame, but I hope you see what I'm trying to get at).

My "argument" is the Western pop culture of today. These so called "individuality" of rebel youth identity are exploited by companies, and are displayed everywhere. And if it were not popular among the "90%", it would have never existed in the first place. That Western youths are greatly affected by modern pop culture, which promotes retardedness towards the establishment ("Fuck da police" gangsta sub-culture etc), rebelling against parents, and general tomfoolery. The only language most teenagers understand is agonizing pain, and parents must dish out corporal punishment to discourage them from being influenced by anti social-establishment standards. Of course, this should only apply to those stubborn enough to not listen to his or her own parents. If you wish to see the effectiveness of a stern parental guidance, take a look at the young-adult society of Eastern Asian countries. The truth is, they will be a lot more disciplined and upright than Western adults.

Catbus

9th November 2008, 16:28

Since you seem to adhere to the modern Western left-ism, I take into view that you are not a Marxist-Leninist, but a typical Western liberal with anti-capitalistic ideals. You have so far failed to prove how traditionalism and culture-based society is a backwards, non-progressive reactionary act.

That wasn't even directed at me, but what the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you saying he fails because he's not a Marxist-Leninst?

In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels on two occassions refers to homosexuality as "morally deteriorated," "adbominable," "loathsome," and "degrading"

I don't understand, how is homosexuality "morally deteriorated," "abominable," "loathsome," and "degrading."

Honestly I don't care if Marx and Engels said on homosexuality. Blindly following what 19th century revolutionaries said, while not adding into the equation current circumstances is completely moronic.

My view on the subject is also close to that of Maoists;
NEPAL'S hardline Maoist guerillas, on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism".

Though, wait. There we go. Though I don't agree with Maoists, I'm pretty sure (at least I would hope) that most Maoists aren't prejudiced like that.

And how do you say that homosexuals are a by-product of capitalism. Sounds like some pretty prejudiced rhetoric to me.

You're really good at copying and pasting what other "revolutionaries" think about social currents, but why don't you start actually trying to back these claims instead of just copying more and more views by more and more "revolutionaries."

My "argument" is the Western pop culture of today. These so called "individuality" of rebel youth identity are exploited by companies, and are displayed everywhere. And if it were not popular among the "90%", it would have never existed in the first place. That Western youths are greatly affected by modern pop culture, which promotes retardedness towards the establishment ("Fuck da police" gangsta sub-culture etc), rebelling against parents, and general tomfoolery.

This is what I was looking for, actual backing of your views. I think we can both agree that capitalism is the root cause of the gangsta sub-culture (even though the vast majority of "gangstas" are all talk and no walk). I too find the gangsta sub-culture kind of silly (like most sub-cultures), however, the root of that problem still is capitalism. There would be no need for stealing, dealing drugs, and murdering if there weren't the conditions that cause it. Stern parents may partially prevent this "gangstaness" (lol, fresh), but it can only combat a small portion of it. With you being for socialism, you should realize that socialism would destroy the need to commit crimes for money, so stern parenting wouldn't be needed at all.

The only language most teenagers understand is agonizing pain, and parents must dish out corporal punishment to discourage them from being influenced by anti social-establishment standards.

So we should get our kids to listen to us by beating the living shit out of them? That sounds like fascist-era Italy to me.

Of course, this should only apply to those stubborn enough to not listen to his or her own parents. If you wish to see the effectiveness of a stern parental guidance, take a look at the young-adult society of Eastern Asian countries. The truth is, they will be a lot more disciplined and upright than Western adults.

I for one, do not want to live my life as a drone, which would be the by-product of such parenting. Besides, if you don't have small encounters with mischeif during your teenage ages (which your kids apparently wont) then it will become all to easy to become out of hand when your an adult (i.e. alcoholism). Your parents only control you for so long, who does it when they're dead?

ZeroNowhere

9th November 2008, 16:32

"Engels is primarily concerned with the ways in which Greek society divided relations between men and men and men and women such that the latter were subordinated to the former, and the ways in which sexual relations between men and men tended to parallel sexual — and social — relations between men and women with a strict line of division between older and dominant adult males and younger and subordinant youthful males. Engels is, after all, primarily concerned with investigating sexual difference as a basis for class stratification through sexual division of social labor. The fact that homosexuality is not explicitly addressed elsewhere in Engels’ work also belies the contention that Engels was in any way manifestly opposed to — or “disgusted with” — homosexuality. In any event, what is at least clear is that Marx and Engels did not themselves even begin to develop a marxist theory of homosexuality."
Engels had already criticized patriarchy severely, so oppression by homosexuals was fair game as well.
Also, how do you come to the conclusion that Marx was homophobic? Why does it matter in the first place?
Anyways, not being a Leninist and not being against homosexuality means that one is a reformist? :(

oblisk

9th November 2008, 16:33

With you being for socialism, you should realize that socialism would destroy the need to commit crimes for money, so stern parenting wouldn't be needed at all.
I was strictly speaking within a capitalistic Western country. Corporal punishment, for the most part have no stay in a socialist nation.

I for one, do not want to live my life as a drone, which would be the by-product of such parenting. Besides, if you don't have small encounters with mischeif during your teenage ages (which your kids apparently wont) then it will become all to easy to become out of hand when your an adult (i.e. alcoholism). Your parents only control you for so long, who does it when they're dead?
I have never said that they should control you for ever. The responsibilities of your parents should be relinquished once you reach adulthood. Of course, they will still love and support you. But it is their duty to raise their children out of harm's way, and sometimes even using force. If the child in question reaches adulthood and is still a fool, that is his choice. The parents have done their part of the work, and it is up to the now-grown adult to live as whatever he wishes. Although, this could be the result of not enough parenting.

Catbus

9th November 2008, 16:44

Anyways, not being a Leninist and not being against homosexuality means that one is a reformist? :(

Are you directing that at me? Because smashing the state is totally reformist... Don't look at making a social change and automatically write it off as reformist. Better, don't use reformist as a pejorative. Calling someone reformist (again, as a pejorative) because they're not a Leninist and because they support homosexual rights is pretty fucking stupid no matter who you're directing it at.

Junius

9th November 2008, 16:50

In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels on two occassions refers to homosexuality as "morally deteriorated," "adbominable," "loathsome," and "degrading" (in discussing the homosexuality of the Ancient Greeks).

Quote it.

Catbus

9th November 2008, 16:52

I was strictly speaking within a capitalistic Western country. Corporal punishment, for the most part have no stay in a socialist nation.

Okay, that clears it up a bit. But I think our main goal should be pwning capitalism, not strict parenting.

I have never said that they should control you for ever. The responsibilities of your parents should be relinquished once you reach adulthood.

That still leaves a small window for the intended results.

Of course, they will still love and support you.

Nothing says love like an iron fist :)

But it is their duty to raise their children out of harm's way, and sometimes even using force. If the child in question reaches adulthood and is still a fool, that is his choice. The parents have done their part of the work, and it is up to the now-grown adult to live as whatever he wishes. Although, this could be the result of not enough parenting.

Equally, it could be the result of too much parenting. This kid that has never even been near a glass of beer, let alone surrounded by it (college), could very easily develop addictions because of the sheltering that his parents did. If kid B, whose parents taught him how to be productive, but didn't shelter him, goes to college and has prior experiences with what the real world offers, he'll most likely be much better off. The real world isn't as rigid as your form of parenting.

ZeroNowhere

9th November 2008, 17:00

No, I was responding to oblisk, and you hadn't posted yet while I was typing.
I'm not a Leninist, and nor am I against homosexuals.

Catbus

9th November 2008, 17:05

No, I was responding to oblisk, and you hadn't posted yet while I was typing.
I'm not a Leninist, and nor am I against homosexuals.

Ah, cool cool. Sorry if I came off as a bit harsh, I haven't eaten yet.

apathy maybe

9th November 2008, 17:09

oblisk, for your information I am an anarchist. (If you couldn't tell from my the little picture to the left of my name, and my title.)

I also happen to be from a "western" country, and have a slight "liberal" (i.e. classical liberal, freedom orientated, JS Mill type) bias.

However, I also happen to have a pretty good idea of what is, and isn't acceptable around here. And homophobia, even if cloaked in Marxist or Maoist rhetoric, isn't acceptable. Encouraging child abuse (even if because children are too rowdy or some such crap excuse), is acceptable to some people, and won't get you restricted. But it does put off most of the intelligent people on the site. (And actually encouraging the beating of teenagers by their parents will probably be off putting even to those people who don't have a problem with a little gentle smacking.)

Now,

You have so far failed to prove how traditionalism and culture-based society is a backwards, non-progressive reactionary act.
I don't have to prove anything. The fact is that encouraging child (and young adult) abuse, homophobia, patriarchy and similar are all reactionary, non-progressive and not at all socialist. It has nothing to do with traditionalism or culture based society. So don't bring that bullshit into it. (Incidentally, I'm a little bit of a cultural relativeist, but I'm an anarchist first and for most, and that means condemning oppression and hierarchy no matter what the culture.) If your culture is backward, if your tradition is backward, that's why it's getting condemned. Not because it is a tradition or a culture.

I look forward to you soon being caged with the other reactionaries in OI.

(The "justifications" you use are/were also used by racists and similar scum. Lack of intellectualism is part of the problem I think.)

Pirate turtle the 11th

9th November 2008, 17:10

I tend to agree with Marx and Engels' view on homosexuality;

In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels on two occassions refers to homosexuality as "morally deteriorated," "adbominable," "loathsome," and "degrading" (in discussing the homosexuality of the Ancient Greeks).

Well he got it wrong. Deeply wrong. Engles was wrong because engeles is not some kind of real life infalable god.

My view on the subject is also close to that of Maoists;
NEPAL'S hardline Maoist guerillas, on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism".

What a wanker.

I can find cases of homosexuality in feudalism aswell.

Maoist cadres, seen regularly on the streets of Kathmandu as they move towards taking over key roles in the Government under a peace accord worked out with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, have warned home owners not to let out rooms to gays and lesbians.

They have also announced "a zero-tolerance policy towards homosexuality" and a crackdown on pornographic films.

A Maoist commander allegedly told a group of gay men: "We are against any aberrant activity that could have a negative and vitiating effect on society."

Fucking neo-puritan wank stains.

And when members of the gay rights group Blue Diamond Society met Maoist leader Dev Gurung, he reportedly said homosexuality was a by-product of capitalism. "Under Soviet rule and when China was still very much a communist state, there were no homosexuals in the Soviet Union or China," Mr Gurung is reported to have said.

Mr Gurung is also a retard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia#1950s_-_1960s

Fucking neo-puritan wank stains.

Amrita Thapa, general secretary of the Maoist women's association, told a conference recently that homosexuals were unnatural and were "polluting" society.

What a prick i hope his roof falls onto him.

Under King Gyanendra's rule, homosexuals were a pet target of his personal security apparatus.

I hope he gets executed.

My "argument" is the Western pop culture of today. These so called "individuality" of rebel youth identity are exploited by companies, and are displayed everywhere. And if it were not popular among the "90%", it would have never existed in the first place.

If it was not pushed by the culture sourdending popular music it would not be so popular.

Also most happy slappers i know were beaten as children.

That Western youths are greatly affected by modern pop culture, which promotes retardedness towards the establishment ("Fuck da police" gangsta sub-culture etc),

Cuz fuck rebeling against the goverment?

Why bother when we should all know our place?

rebelling against parents,

how dare they do that!

how dare they defy some disgusting piece of shit who wont let there son or daughter mix with black people , how dare they defy some puritan wanker who wont let there son or daughter mix with members of the oppersite sex.

How dare they defy there parents when bullying fucktards such as yourself beat them?

. The only language most teenagers understand is agonizing pain,

I hope you get beaten to death with a stick. This is bullshit many revleft members are teenagers and so many kids dont want to do somthing for a good reason and hitting them does not make it any less of a good reason.

Also most teenage males could take there parents in a fight

and parents must dish out corporal punishment to discourage them from being influenced by anti social-establishment standards. Of course, this should only apply to those stubborn enough to not listen to his or her own parents.

Sorry beatening your kid will make him or her a sadistic bellend. A bully and a coward.

If you wish to see the effectiveness of a stern parental guidance, take a look at the young-adult society of Eastern Asian countries. The truth is, they will be a lot more disciplined and upright than Western adults.

Discipline - shuting the fuck up and doing as somone says - not very revolutionary certainly not very communist.

Plagueround

9th November 2008, 18:42

I find it offensive that anyone would call themselves a socialist or communist, yet want to retain such a harsh level of control over people in areas that are almost entirely personal. How do you expect to promote classlessness while worrying so much over which fun parts people prefer to touch, what a woman decides to do with her body, or tying down children to be obedient robots who must stay constrained to their biological family?

The only thing that makes stances like this more intolerable than when some republican right winger comes in here spouting this tired anti-human rhetoric is when it comes from a supposed Marxist, who, much like a bible thumper, uses the tiniest or most irrelevant bits of something Marx or Engels (or Lenin, whom some seem to think if you don't follow him it contradicts a man who was dead before Lenin was prominent) said to justify backward, old views. One of the things you may have missed while reading Marx was this idea that people's views and attitudes are largely a reflection of the times they live in. This means that Marx and Engels were not above this, and using whatever personal thoughts they had back in the day does not automatically mean they are acceptable now. If anything, they would be ashamed they've been promoted (or rather demoted) to the ranks of infallible religious figures who inspire the very backward and right wing forms of control they wished to abolish.

On a personal note, I have nothing but utter contempt for anyone that suggests that a parent who brings a child in this world, someone who has a chance to influence and inspire another human being on a level greater than any other, someone who is given the responsibility of nurturing, caring for, and helping develop that person into a functional and thoughtful human being...would ever approach that task by hitting them and treating them like a prisoner, thinking they can mold them into an obedient structured drone.

bcbm

9th November 2008, 20:29

My view on the subject is also close to that of MaoistsSo you think gay people should be denied basic human rights like housing and be stamped out as "unnatural?" Go fuck yourself.

The only language most teenagers understand is agonizing pain, and parents must dish out corporal punishment to discourage them from being influenced by anti social-establishment standards.

Actually most teenagers speak the same language as their parents and is typically what they use to communicate. But maybe you're right, my best friend in high school was regularly beaten by his parents and it obviously molded him into a disciplined adult, what with him now being on recovery for heroin addiction after going to rehab.

Pogue

9th November 2008, 20:31

Comrade Joe just won the motherfucking day.

Pirate turtle the 11th

9th November 2008, 20:41

Comrade Joe just won the motherfucking day.

:thumbup1:

Decolonize The Left

9th November 2008, 21:35

I believe that it's important to assess the different tools used to divide human beings along arbitrary lines.

The most pervasive tool used throughout history has been that of gender. The idea that since males and females are biologically different (nevermind the fact that all individuals are biologically different) that they are then 'better suited' for different activites/roles in society is perhaps the oldest form of division.

We also find race to be a common tool for dividing peoples. The notion that a difference in melanin count relates to a difference in 'social worth' is equally as reactionary.

Furthermore, we find that sexual preference is used as well. The idea that the choice of who an individual wishes to be intimate with is an issue of importance to larger society is similarly reactionary.

What we see is that we have a group of human beings, who reside together in a society, attempt to cut this society into segments. We must ask why? Why do we try and divide ourselves over arbitrary lines? Such questions have been asked, and answered numerous times.

The point of this post is to note how these divisive issues are silly, not only due to their complete and utter lack of justification and coherence, but also due to the overwhelming divide which has yet to be addressed - class. Class goes beyond these divides because the working class is filled with different genders, races, sexual preferences, etc... but it is united by the simple fact of labor. This is not to say that these issues are not important, for they are of great importance, but it is to say that the issue of class supersedes these issues in it's ability to unify. What this means is that within class all differences previously used to divide are synthesized and yet maintained. Synthesized in the sense that they lose their divisiveness, and maintained in the sense that they still exist yet they are no longer potent.

For with gender, race, and sexual preference (and there are others such as nationality), we must 'overcome our differences.' But with the issue of class, the differences are already overcome. It is an issue of identity. We must always identity as we see fit (on the lines of gender, etc...) for this provides us with a history, and with a place. But we must further identify with our class, for this provides us with the strongest relationship to the world - a relationship based upon our labor.

- August

Dimentio

9th November 2008, 21:43

I used to have opinions such as these.

When I was 13 years old.

danyboy27

9th November 2008, 22:05

i dont see what really wrong in your belief, except for the punishment.

you can be against gay marriage but you can be infavor of some kind of union, like what happening here in canada and at some place in the us.

that wedding thing is mostly for religious peoples, otherwise i dont see what wrong about having 2 people from the same sex living together and having some sort of couple relation.

Pogue

9th November 2008, 22:11

No really, if you're actively opposed to homosexuality and you support the abuse of children, you're an arsehole and are contradicting socialist believes. But then again if you're an avid supporter of North Korea then you're insane anyway and not a socialist.

Pogue

9th November 2008, 22:14

By the way why is oblisk not restricted yet? I swear being homophobic warrants restriction.

danyboy27

9th November 2008, 22:16

By the way why is oblisk not restricted yet? I swear being homophobic warrants restriction.

he got differents values, and he posted it in opposing ideologies, he should not be bothered.

Module

9th November 2008, 22:20

he got differents values, and he posted it in opposing ideologies, he should not be bothered.
No, he posted it in Learning and it was moved to OI.
Either way, yes he should be bothered. This forum is a place for revolutionary leftists, he belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

Pirate Utopian

9th November 2008, 22:20

This was first in learning.

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

9th November 2008, 22:20

I'm "right" on guns and video game censorship, in the American sense. :laugh:

danyboy27

9th November 2008, 22:47

No, he posted it in Learning and it was moved to OI.
Either way, yes he should be bothered. This forum is a place for revolutionary leftists, he belongs in Opposing Ideologies.

then explain why i am not restricted yet?

Plagueround

9th November 2008, 22:55

then explain why i am not restricted yet?

At the time the issue came up you were showing some fairly leftist tendencies. You're generally considered to be confused and unsure both in the presentation of your arguments and the beliefs you do hold. If you consider yourself to be an opposing ideology and you'd like me to raise the issue again we can certainly do so.

Pirate Utopian

9th November 2008, 23:04

I'm "right" on guns and video game censorship, in the American sense. :laugh:
You wanna censor videogames?

danyboy27

9th November 2008, 23:13

At the time the issue came up you were showing some fairly leftist tendencies. You're generally considered to be confused and unsure both in the presentation of your arguments and the beliefs you do hold. If you consider yourself to be an opposing ideology and you'd like me to raise the issue again we can certainly do so.

yea well, i still consider myself leftist, i think the fact that i am angry toward other left mentality or leftist organization dosnt mean i am a right winger.

well, i am happy that i am not restricted, that okay.
But if one day you decide to restrict me i wont makd e abig deal out of it, most of my friends are in that part of the forum.

Decolonize The Left

9th November 2008, 23:16

yea well, i still consider myself leftist, i think the fact that i am angry toward other left mentality or leftist organization dosnt mean i am a right winger.

well, i am happy that i am not restricted, that okay.
But if one day you decide to restrict me i wont makd e abig deal out of it, most of my friends are in that part of the forum.

It's important to remember that restrictions aren't a form of punishment. They exist to allow for a space of open discussion of leftist ideas. That is all.

- August

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

9th November 2008, 23:32

You wanna censor videogames?

No. Liberals are associated with video game censorship, for the most part.

synthesis

9th November 2008, 23:34

The paucity of attempts at rapprochement in this thread is alternately hilarious and disturbing. I see a tendency to rigidly define socialism as "whatever I believe".

People's beliefs are a product of their culture as much as anything; our individualistic, Western-privilege interpretation of what it means to be a "leftist" is only meaningful within our own societies. Material reality doesn't disappear in the face of theory; the opposite is true, and that's why radical leftism is on life support right now.

Patchd

9th November 2008, 23:35

I consider myself a socialist, and I am left when it comes to social care and economics.

But I am socially right when it comes to non-economic (social) issues. My beliefs stem from the Confucian beliefs that I grew up with.

Does anyone have similar beliefs such as mine?
Excuse my crudeness, but I think Confucianist philosophy is crap. You could say I was brought up in a "Confucian" style, my mum's Chinese Thai so that wouldn't be surprising.

Taught to respect and do your duty to your parents and family elders. Although I have nothing against the idea of respecting one's parents, I think that they only deserve respect when they earn it.

In that sense, I wouldn't advocate respect for say, a father who beats his children when he gets home drunk from the pub.

In addition, I was brought up in the "listen but do not speak" style, which I also think is ridiculous. As leftists, we (or at least in our opinion) are progressive, the restriction of critique is a hindrance to progress, and the family being the smaller representation of society at large should represent a "good" society; criticism, learning, and advancement. My mum used to always shout me down for arguing back at her, and fair enough, I can understand how she can be pissed off sometimes, but at other times I remember when I was clearly right (and shown to be afterwards), and my mum would restrict my wish to criticise her.

What I also found was that my mum tended to give criticism of my actions as opposed to optimist appraisal, which has left me with somewhat of a lack of ability to praise others, although I do try. The idea of duty and submission to elders or "authoritative" figures is not a good idea in my opinion.

EDIT: Oh, and I've just realised you want gay marriage to be outlawed.

I say a clear FUCK YOU to that. Scum.
Although I don't place any sanctity in the institution of marriage as I don't believe I require the state or some religious institution to verify my love for someone, I believe that while heterosexual marriage exists, then gay marriage should too. If not, then it is clearly a homophobic idea to restrict LGBTQ people from marrying one another merely because of their sexual preference.

What ever happened to "proletarians of the world unite"...regardless of gender, sexual orientation, "colour", disability, occupation or otherwise? To have an egalitarian economic system, yet discriminate on the grounds of social groups.

And fuck you you homophobic dickhead, whats so "morally wrong" and socially decadent about homosexuality eh? You wanna explain that to one? Well here's your chance dickhead, and don't just come out with that shit that "oh well Engels stated that homosexuality was, therefore, it is", because thats simply bullshit. Marxism is a materialist subject, there is no holy book(s) from which we have to abide by, and there are no prophets either, however much you would like to think that there is. Oh, and bringing up Prachanda's opposition to homosexuality doesn't do it for me either.

oblisk

10th November 2008, 04:31

And fuck you you homophobic dickhead, whats so "morally wrong" and socially decadent about homosexuality eh? You wanna explain that to one? Well here's your chance dickhead, and don't just come out with that shit that "oh well Engels stated that homosexuality was, therefore, it is", because thats simply bullshit. Marxism is a materialist subject, there is no holy book(s) from which we have to abide by, and there are no prophets either, however much you would like to think that there is. Oh, and bringing up Prachanda's opposition to homosexuality doesn't do it for me either.

I have abandoned my belief in outlawing gay marriage. Gay couples require the equal treatment as any other straight couples.

Black Dagger

10th November 2008, 05:19

Sorry bub, too late for death-bed conversions - the horse = bolted.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 05:33

I take it that the intended message here is that if someone holds a belief that you consider irrational and ignorant, then you should consider them irrational and ignorant as a person, and never attempt to reach their rational side with the belief that your truths are self-evident.

Black Dagger

10th November 2008, 05:39

No, the intended message here is that RL does not tolerate homophobes - this is made clear in the RL guidelines so it really should not come as a surprise to you or anyone. The same goes with racists, misogynists etc. This is a site for revolutionary leftists - we do have an OI (for capitalists) but this is no home for bigots, sorry:

Since you seem to adhere to the modern Western left-ism, I take into view that you are not a Marxist-Leninist, but a typical Western liberal with anti-capitalistic ideals. You have so far failed to prove how traditionalism and culture-based society is a backwards, non-progressive reactionary act.

I tend to agree with Marx and Engels' view on homosexuality [sic];

In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Engels on two occassions refers to homosexuality as "morally deteriorated," "adbominable," "loathsome," and "degrading" (in discussing the homosexuality of the Ancient Greeks).

My view on the subject is also close to that of Maoists;
NEPAL'S hardline Maoist guerillas, on the brink of achieving effective government power in the Himalayan kingdom, have turned their attention to so-called "social pollutants" and denounced homosexuals as "a by-product of capitalism".

Emerging from a decade of fighting government forces, the insurgents have launched a clean-up drive against polygamy, polyandry, infidelity, drunkenness and homosexuality -- even though many gays were previously aligned with the Maoists against the autocratic rule of the widely despised King Gyanendra.

Maoist cadres, seen regularly on the streets of Kathmandu as they move towards taking over key roles in the Government under a peace accord worked out with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, have warned home owners not to let out rooms to gays and lesbians.

They have also announced "a zero-tolerance policy towards homosexuality" and a crackdown on pornographic films.

A Maoist commander allegedly told a group of gay men: "We are against any aberrant activity that could have a negative and vitiating effect on society."

And when members of the gay rights group Blue Diamond Society met Maoist leader Dev Gurung, he reportedly said homosexuality was a by-product of capitalism. "Under Soviet rule and when China was still very much a communist state, there were no homosexuals in the Soviet Union or China," Mr Gurung is reported to have said.

"Now they are moving towards capitalism, homosexuals may have arisen there as well. So homosexuality is a product of capitalism. Under socialism this kind of problem does not exist."

According to India's IANS news service, when the Blue Diamond Society members met other Maoist leaders to complain that homosexuals were under attack from Maoist cadres, the reaction was "disheartening".

Amrita Thapa, general secretary of the Maoist women's association, told a conference recently that homosexuals were unnatural and were "polluting" society.

Under King Gyanendra's rule, homosexuals were a pet target of his personal security apparatus.

Sankofa

10th November 2008, 05:40

Shame. I enjoyed Oblisk's posts and insight in his DPRK threads from the viewpoint of a Korean socialist, but he really did himself in with this and the other thread.

Any person with these type of views (regardless of what country or ideology they support) isn't a socialist and deserves banning.

Junius

10th November 2008, 05:42

So, suppose I express support for the Taliban...?

Black Dagger

10th November 2008, 05:45

O lawd, let me guess - you think oblisk was unfairly banned? If not, what of it? I'm not really interested in hypothetical reactionaries.

Sankofa

10th November 2008, 05:51

O lawd, let me guess - you think oblisk was unfairly banned? If not, what of it? I'm not really interested in hypothetical reactionaries.

Is this aimed at me? If so, I can't imagine why you would think that...I agreed that he should've been banned.

I simply mentioned that I thought he was insightful before he showed his true colors, is all.

Junius

10th November 2008, 05:53

Originally posted by Black Dagger
O lawd, let me guess - you think oblisk was unfairly banned? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gifMerely inquiring into what extent you can give support to socially reactionary organizations whilst not being banned or restricted. What's the difference between supporting an organization which is totally socially reactionary, whilst disagreeing with that aspect, and like this banned individual having socially reactionary values per se. If anything, the former is actually supporting an organization which acts on those beliefs, versus the likes of Oblisk. Thanks for the hostility, though.

Originally posted by Black Dagger:
If not, what of it? I'm not really interested in hypothetical reactionaries.They aren't hypothetical.

Incidentally, if I wanted to ban people whom I perceived as reactionary, this site would have very few people since I consider most leftist currents anti-working class. But I'm happy to debate with whomever describes themselves as a socialist, since I recognize that criticism and debate are useful things in themselves and conductive to learning.

Sankofa

10th November 2008, 05:56

Is this aimed at me?

Whoops! My mistake, then. :mellow:

Black Dagger

10th November 2008, 06:40

Yes Yonkers, i was talking to LeftCommunist.

Merely inquiring into what extent you can give support to socially reactionary organizations whilst not being banned or restricted. What's the difference between supporting an organization which is totally socially reactionary, whilst disagreeing with that aspect, and like this banned individual having socially reactionary values per se. If anything, the former is actually supporting an organization which acts on those beliefs, versus the likes of Oblisk.

We judge most restrictions/bannings on a case-by-case basis. There is no rule against 'taliban worship' in the RL guidelines - that said people who support reactionary organisations like the taliban have been restricted/banned in the past.

Thanks for the hostility, though.

I apologise for being hostile but i'd just responded to another user who questioned the validity of oblisks ban (despite the fact he was explicitly homophobic) and your post seemed to be continuing down this line (it was a bit vague - though it seemed like you were questioning our policies also?). If that is not the case, i apologise - i just have little time for the apologists of homophobia. Nevermind about the negative rep (a bit of overreaction IMO) - it doesn't have an effect unless you have some rep already (which you don't). So to that end, here's some rep for you!

They aren't hypothetical.

Well of course i'm sure you could name and shame a few users on this site, but you chose not to - and as i said i don't really see the point in talking abstractly. If you have concerns with specific members raise them so that they can be discussed, otherwise i don't see the point (unless it is designed as a more general discussion about 'the left' and its 'allies', the 'anti-imperialist' policies of many marxist currents etc).

Incidentally, if I wanted to ban people whom I perceived as reactionary, this site would have very few people since I consider most leftist currents anti-working class.

Yeah, i hear that a lot from ICCers - can't please everyone i guess.

But I'm happy to debate with whomever describes themselves as a socialist, since I recognize that criticism and debate are useful things in themselves and conductive to learning.

This is true, but it is also true that RL is not designed to cater to that kind of debate (something more like politicsforum.org). This forum is designed specifically for discussion amongst revleftists - self-identifying as a 'socialist' is not sufficient, as we also have guidelines in place which take a strong stance against social prejudice. Because of these guidelines 'revolutionary left' in the context of this forum implies socially progressive politics - so as long as you're a revolutionary leftist (so anti-capitalist) and not a total bigot you're welcome here. To be sure, there is plenty of learning and debate around social issues between non-restricted users - just check out the discrimination forum for example. I think a lot of people do learn here, it's just we draw the line on participation when it comes to blatant bigots - i think that is fair, marx knows it keeps this place a little more sane than 'soviet empire', 'the phora' and some of these other politics site that are swamped with third positionists, racialists and other political bile.

Junius

10th November 2008, 07:14

Originally posted by Black Dagger
(unless it is designed as a more general discussion about 'the left' and its 'allies', the 'anti-imperialist' policies of many marxist tendencies etc).Yes, this was the point. Is supporting a group which is socially reactionary 'okay' if the group is 'anti-imperialist?' Generally, it seems this site says yes. I just found this interesting from a site which, as you said, has such a strong stance on social issues.

Originally posted by Black Dagger
If you have concerns with specific members raise them so that they can be discussed, otherwise i don't see the pointNope, I don't have 'concerns' with any members, nor would I raise them if I did. Nor do I want any guidelines deleted or modified. I'm not interested in any of that. I don't think that Oblisk was reactionary because of his views on homosexuals, I think he was reactionary because of his support for a ruling class and his nationalism. His social views followed from that.

Originally posted by Black Dagger
but it is also true that RL is not designed to cater to that kind of debate (something more like politicsforum.org).I don't see many leftist trends too different from conservative/right wing trends, especially when leftists give support to those organization in support of national liberation.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 07:21

Great... a bunch of Westerners (mostly white) get to make an authoritative definition of what makes you eligible to be considered a "revolutionary leftist."

Consider this phrase:

"Everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others."

Seems self-evident, right?

That's because you have internalized the individualist Western culture in which you were raised; the individualism has permeated even the most radical people within the society.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing or that I disagree with it, but other cultures do not perceive the world in this way. In another line of thinking, the community has invested resources in the individual and therefore has a certain stake in how that individual manages those resources.

That's the basic truth of the matter. More specifically, cultures which look down on homosexuality and the disintegration of the family are generally cultures which are preoccupied with their own survival or perceive some sort of threat to their existence.

This does not justify social conservatism; it is only intended as a reminder (or seemingly a first-time lesson for many here) that these issues fracture the global leftist movement and distract our focus from economic democracy.

black magick hustla

10th November 2008, 07:29

:shrugs:, I do not think communists are cultural relativists. I mean, we are to the extent that we realize culture is a superstructural manifestation of the economic bases, but other than that, we think the principles of human emancipation we share are beyond that. Anyway, I disagree with the policies here on restricting social reactionaries, but just because certain cultures are more nationalistic than others, to give an example, I wont tone down my internationalism. This is in relation with other communists though. I think we should engage reactionary workers as workers, not as muslims, christians, anti-abortionists, or w/e-

Black Dagger

10th November 2008, 07:42

Is supporting a group which is socially reactionary 'okay' if the group is 'anti-imperialist?'

IMO, no. And as i've said, members who have done have been restricted/banned in the past.

Generally, it seems this site says yes.

What gives you that impression?

I don't think that Oblisk was reactionary because of his views on homosexuals, I think he was reactionary because of his support for a ruling class and his nationalism. His social views followed from that.

Ok?

I don't see many leftist trends too different from conservative/right wing trends, especially when leftists give support to those organization in support of national liberation.

Ok? I'm not an advocate of 'national liberation' struggles, so i'm not really sure what i can say in response? :confused:

bcbm

10th November 2008, 07:54

Misuse of "cultural relativism." Ugh.

Junius

10th November 2008, 07:54

Originally posted by Black Dagger
What gives you that impression?Just the fact that various members defend various groups which are socially reactionary and are not restricted or banned because of it. Not that I think they should be.

Originally posted by Black Dagger
Ok? I'm not an advocate of 'national liberation' struggles, so i'm not really sure what i can say in response?I believe the correct phrase is: I agree. :D

black magick hustla

10th November 2008, 07:58

Misuse of "cultural relativism." Ugh.

Actually you are right. I wikipediua'd it right now, and it means it doesnt necessitates an ethical standpoint. Perhaps what I meant is that we are not moral relativists?

Black Dagger

10th November 2008, 08:01

Just the fact that various members defend various groups which are socially reactionary and are not restricted or banned because of it. Not that I think they should be.

Yeah, it's annoying i know. People usually justify or qualify it by saying they 'critically support so-and-so' - it's a bit of a rhetorical trick - i mean, we all oppose US imperialism - so this kind of stuff is snuck under this guise as long as you're 'critical' - it's also more acceptable because it is common. To the sites credit though, as i said before - people who uncritically support these sorts of movements are sometimes banned/restricted; depending on how reactionary the group is. Like i can remember a user who was restricted/banned for supporting Irans 'anti-imperialism', who made excuses over irans execution of gay men etc.

I believe the correct phrase is: I agree. :D

Indeed! 'I agree' ;)

Junius

10th November 2008, 08:16

Misuse of "cultural relativism." Ugh.

Well, I think people apply it differently.

Someone may employ the term in the sense that all cultures are equal and hence we should not condemn someone's culture because ours is no better. This can be used to be uncritical of backward social ideas, be it patriarchy or whatever. From the viewpoint of historical materialism, this is clearly incorrect - some cultures are more 'advanced' than others. This does, of course, not justify wantingly destroying their culture. But sometimes this viewpoint is, in my mind, horribly nationalistic in that workers should die for their culture or that we shouldn't advocate for change since their 'culture' will be damaged. We should recognize the benefits of globalization rather than drool over the parochial nature of the world of the past centuries.

Then I think there is the sort of cultural relativism which I kind of support which really doesn't give a fuck about culture; like Marmot I want workers to unite on a class basis, and avoid nationalistic or religious traps. I am against the culture defense whenever it serves a ruling class. So in this regards, I really don't care about culture; someone digs American country music, someone likes traditional Indian music. Doesn't make a difference to me.

Black Dagger: I agree with your points, so I have nothing to add.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 08:28

So the choice is "backwards social ideas" can be either "condemned unequivocally" or "accepted uncritically"; there is no middle ground.

What's this called, kids?

A false dichotomy.

I think a better approach is to assume rationality and good faith on the part of people who believe differently than yourself, and have a little faith that the truth of your convictions will become self-evident through a mature discussion of the issue.

Anything less is an incredible underestimation of your intellect and/or your ability to express it in the face of an opposing point of view.

black magick hustla

10th November 2008, 08:29

Well, I think people apply it differently.

Someone may employ the term in the sense that all cultures are equal and hence we should not condemn someone's culture because ours is no better. This can be used to be uncritical of backward social ideas, be it patriarchy or whatever. From the viewpoint of historical materialism, this is clearly incorrect - some cultures are more 'advanced' than others. This does, of course, not justify wantingly destroying their culture. But sometimes this viewpoint is, in my mind, horribly nationalistic in that workers should die for their culture or that we shouldn't advocate for change since their 'culture' will be damaged. We should recognize the benefits of glottalization rather than drool over the parochial nature of the world of the past centuries.

I think Marx was wrong on his fetish with "progressiveness". I think we can, as historical materialists, say some cultures promote more certain modes of production, etc. But "advanced" as a qualifyier for culture, or atleast how it is use as a way to denote something positive of a certain culture, is devoid of any meaning for me. I am not saying I am a multiculturalist in the sense that I use "diversity" as a bastion for my beliefs, I just want the whole shit to go down, including our understanding of "culture" in relation to our identity.

Maybe that is the little situationist that is in me. (I am not a situationist, I am just saying I have read them and have probably been influenced a little by them)

black magick hustla

10th November 2008, 08:36

For example, we only need to talk about diversity simply because people latch to their cultural identities, and therefore we need to create artificial political positions concerning "diversity".

synthesis

10th November 2008, 08:47

We should recognize the benefits of glottalization

Er... Glottalization is a term in linguistics meaning a sound that occurs with the closure of the glottis. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just honestly curious what you meant.

Junius

10th November 2008, 08:48

So the choice is "backwards social ideas" can be either "condemned unequivocally" or "accepted uncritically"; there is no middle ground.
What's this called, kids?

A false dichotomy.

And what is this called? A strawman.

Its certainly possible to accept different parts of a culture and reject other parts. Personally, I think its important to understand why people hold such views, since only then can we begin to change them.

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ
I think a better approach is to assume rationality and good faith on the part of people who believe differently than yourself, and have a little faith that the truth of your convictions will become self-evident through a mature discussion of the issue.And I assume calling everyone apart from yourself 'kids' is an example of mature discussion and not a self-righteous, condescending view? :huh:

Incidentally, I mentioned in my first post that the socially reactionary values held by some non-Westerners (particularly Stalinists etc) would seem outlandish to most Westerners on this site. But I think they are explainable in their context and the politics such groups typically hold.

Originally posted by Marmot:
I think Marx was wrong on his fetish with "progressiveness". I'm not sure I take your meaning. I think it was possible for Marx to promote capitalism (in certain circumstances), whilst at the same time be opposed to it. I don't think we have that option today; it is either decay or revolution.

Originally posted by Marmot:
I think we can, as historical materialists, say some cultures promote more certain modes of production, etc.I think its the other way around.

Originally posted by Marmot:
But "advanced" as a qualifyier for culture, or atleast how it is use as a way to denote something positive of a certain culture, is devoid of any meaning for me.I disagree; the culture of England circa 1500 is a lot different to the culture of England today. Would you agree, therefore, that England's culture is more advanced? I sort of get what you are saying in that what we define as advanced is a normative statement (or maybe I have misinterpreted), but then we could extend that argument to the idea that communism is advanced is a normative statement too. But we would argue that it isn't: that it is a step in the ladder of history.

Originally posted by Marmot:
I am not saying I am a multiculturalist in the sense that I use "diversity" as a bastion for my beliefs, I just want the whole shit to go down, including our understanding of "culture" in relation to our identityI agree with this.

Originally posted by Marmot:
Maybe that is the little situationist that is in me. (I am not a situationist, I am just saying I have read them and have probably been influenced a little by them)I haven't read anything by them.

Junius

10th November 2008, 08:49

Er... Glottalization is a term in linguistics meaning a sound that occurs with the closure of the glottis. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just honestly curious what you meant.

Yup I had seen it and corrected it. That's spell-checker for you. ;)

black magick hustla

10th November 2008, 08:55

I disagree; the culture of England circa 1500 is a lot different to the culture of England today. Would you agree, therefore, that England's culture is more advanced? I sort of get what you are saying in that what we define as advanced is a normative statement (or maybe I have misinterpreted), but then we could extend that argument to the idea that communism is advanced is a normative statement. But we would argue that it isn't: that it is a step in the ladder of history.

Well, I am a communist because I believe in the dictum of socialism or barbarism and in our emancipation. But I also see communism as a new way of seeing ourselves in relation to cultures, and in that sense I don't think it is comparable to the idea of advanced as used to qualify cultures.

I see the question of seeing the "culture of england today" and applying a qualifyier to it in relation to the past is like seeing a bourgeois liberal politician of the 21th century and compare it to an early 20th century one and then choose which one is better. I think the comparison is politically meaningless to me.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 09:07

And what is this called? A strawman.Who said I was talking about you specifically?

The choice presented here - seemingly, not by you personally- is that if ideas are not condemned (and their proponents made to be quiet) that is tantamount to actually being a proponent of the idea itself.

I argue otherwise.

And I assume calling everyone apart from yourself 'kids' is an example of mature discussion and not a self-righteous, condescending view?Again, if the statement doesn't apply to you, then don't worry about it.

(I was about to add that it was not my intention to be self-righteous or condescending, but that sounded too much like an apology.)

I mentioned in my first post that the socially reactionary values held by some non-Westerners (particularly Stalinists etc) would seem outlandish to most Westerners on this site. But I think they are explainable in their context and the politics such groups typically hold.Yup. It's always about context.

Junius

10th November 2008, 09:12

Well, I am a communist because I believe in the dictum of socialism or barbarism and in our emancipation.

Right, so do I. But I still can see one society as more culturally advanced than another without falling into wish-washy identity politics. But I always argue for a class perspective since I see that those whom emphasize cultural divisions between us do so for their own benefit, and more often than not, the cultural differences are not deep at all; particularly today. But I kind of see your point...how is a society which condemns millions to death for their nation culturally advanced? Well, shoot.

Originally posted by Marmot
But I also see communism as a new way of seeing ourselves in relation to cultures, and in that sense I don't think it is comparable to the idea of advanced as used to qualify cultures.Okay, I think I understand what you are saying; that communism is a complete break with nation states and other social relations, so its not really an advancement of culture per se...? Well yes, I somewhat agree with this. But look, wouldn't you view a society in which there was no division between sexes, races, no classes as more socially advanced - more culturally advanced? Or is there a difference between culture and society or something? Like you said in your first post; you see culture as a reflection of economic relations. Since we see communism as a higher economic relation, then it naturally follows that the culture will be so too (whatever form it takes).

Originally posted by Marmot
I see the question of seeing the "culture of england today" and applying a qualifyier to it in relation to the past is like seeing a bourgeois liberal politician of the 21th century and compare it to a 19th century one.Well maybe we would agree on this, since as (left) communists we look at things from a class perspective and one capitalist is no different from another regardless of their social values. But even so, their social values may be quite different. Once again, I would still argue for a class perspective since I don't see it as my job to perfect bourgeoisie social values but to advocate revolution.

black magick hustla

10th November 2008, 09:28

. But look, wouldn't you view a society in which there was no division between sexes, races, no classes as more socially advanced - more culturally advanced?

Perhaps. But as I said, I see communism as a break with the history of class society. I.e., I have no political or ideological motivations to describe some cultures right now more "advanced" than others.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 09:29

Yup I had seen it and corrected it. That's spell-checker for you. ;)

For sure. I thought you might have meant it as an analogy (like "ossified" or "vestigial") and was intrigued by the possibility of someone likening politics to glottal stops. Alas...

Junius

10th November 2008, 09:31

Perhaps. But as I said, I see communism as a break with the history of class society. I.e., I have no political or ideological motivations to describe some cultures right now more "advanced" than others.

By and large, neither do I, since I see the world as capitalist and that's all that matters, really.

Post-Something

10th November 2008, 10:31

Albeit making a total mockery of himself in this thread, he did know quite a bit about N Korea. Do you reckon he'll be back? Because I'd like to see him debate at some stage.

EDIT: Oh, wait, has he been banned?? It says that on his profile...

bcbm

10th November 2008, 10:45

Well, I think people apply it differently.

That's fine and dandy, except that it is a term with a specific definition that comes from Anthropology and so while there may be different ways to apply it, there are certainly correct and incorrect uses of the term.

Someone may employ the term in the sense that all cultures are equal and hence we should not condemn someone's culture because ours is no better. This can be used to be uncritical of backward social ideas, be it patriarchy or whatever.

Someone may employ it that way, but that would be an incorrect application of the term. Cultural relativism does not suggest that all cultures are equal and that therefore any fucked-up social practice is okay. What cultural relativism suggests is that all social practices within a society occupy a certain position within that society that justifies their existence and, in the case of fucked up practices like genital mutilation, sexual or ethnic segregation or so on, one must determine what that position is so that it can be properly combated.

We should recognize the benefits of globalization rather than drool over the parochial nature of the world of the past centuries.

Globalization has generally been about the destruction of economic barriers and the exploitation of less-organized and combatant populations for the benefit of capitalism, not the destruction of reactionary culture.

Then I think there is the sort of cultural relativism which I kind of support which really doesn't give a fuck about culture; like Marmot I want workers to unite on a class basis, and avoid nationalistic or religious traps.

Again, this is not what cultural relativisim is about as it seems to reject culture altogether and ignore the cultural and social roles being filled by reactionary practices. Cultural relativism does not simply accept or reject those practices, it seeks to understand them in order to better combat that.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 12:46

What cultural relativism suggests is that all social practices within a society occupy a certain position within that society that justifies their existence and, in the case of fucked up practices like genital mutilation, sexual or ethnic segregation or so on, one must determine what that position is so that it can be properly combated.

Well put. Context is everything.

Demogorgon

10th November 2008, 13:34

It has to be said that there is a hint of double standards at play here. While I agree that Oblisk deserved restriction if not banning, I find RevLeft to be surprisingly tolerant of Social Conservatism a lot of the time.

True, there are some forms of Social Conservatism that will have people restricted before they even have the chance to explain themselves. Failing to uphold the holy sacrament of abortion being primary amongst them. But at the same time Conservative "Law and Order" positions are considered perfectly acceptable up to an including support of the Death Penalty in a ridiculous number of cases.

Moreover anti-Democratic feeling seems to be encouraged in many quarters and there is even a strong trend of political authoritarianism even amongst certain anarchists. And of course for all the condemnation of views calling for the respect of authority, a lot of people engage in exactly that sort of worship of Stalin/Mao/Hoxha.

And then of course there is prejudice against certain minorities. True homophobia and racism is of course condemned, but prejudice against transgendered people is rife. I was once accused of not being a communist at all because I defended transgendered people.

In short, I believe that trying to square Social Conservatism with Left Wing Economics is a hopeless position bound to fall flat on its backside, but it is time that this board learns to apply that thinking to all socially conservative outlooks and not just the ones that most members here do not hold.

benhur

10th November 2008, 13:47

LeftCommunist:

I think there's a difference between a revleft member supporting reactionaries, and a revleft member supporting homophobia. Why? Because the former at least is subject to debate, it's impossible to be 100% conclusive on these matters; and therefore, even progressive members of revleft may come to different conclusions on the same matter.

Homophobia, on the other hand, isn't subject to such confusion at all. It's wrong, period. So the comparison is unfair.

Patchd

10th November 2008, 14:23

Homophobia should be debated by the fist.

Demogorgon

10th November 2008, 14:24

Homophobia should be debated by the fist.

That's going to convince people!

synthesis

10th November 2008, 14:36

Homophobia is wrong in the same sense that domestic violence and "lookism" are wrong, but not in the same sense that wage slavery and imperialism are wrong.

This is because the former category has to do with individual systems of belief and localized interactions, while the latter two are legitimized, institutionalized and directly related to class conflict.

I think we can set standards as to what is "wrong" while recognizing that greater evils are at work and that if we are serious about abolishing them, then we should focus on expanding our base of support even if it means we have to temporarily deny our natural urge to get offended over someone else's ignorance.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 14:41

Homophobia should be debated by the fist.

If you really believe this, you're inherently arguing that it would be legitimate if people decided that, in turn, anti-homophobes ought to be "debated by the fist."

Homophobia should be defeated by intelligence and rational debate.

Patchd

10th November 2008, 14:44

That's going to convince people!
It could, and it would tell em to shut up. Its worked the times I did it, luckily for me, the punters at the pub I used to work in also backed me up, cos it was a gay pub.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 15:12

It could, and it would tell em to shut up. Its worked the times I did it, luckily for me, the punters at the pub I used to work in also backed me up, cos it was a gay pub.

Those assholes probably went out and beat up the first effeminate-looking man they saw in order to feel vindicated. If your intention was to create conflict, good job. If your intention was to combat homophobia, you could have found something more productive.

Killfacer

10th November 2008, 15:20

That bloke was a fucking freak.

Patchd

10th November 2008, 15:22

Those assholes probably went out and beat up the first effeminate-looking man they saw in order to feel vindicated. If your intention was to create conflict, good job. If your intention was to combat homophobia, you could have found something more productive.
Really, and you can say that how? There were effeminate guys backing me up, after all, I did work in a gay pub.

Now, I guess I was being rash when I said that, I do think its useful to argue verbally on the subject, but just like with fascism in general, a lot of homophobes simply do not listen...especially when they're religious fundamentalists.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 15:42

Really, and you can say that how? There were effeminate guys backing me up, after all, I did work in a gay pub.

I meant more that the next time the douche-bag in question sees a skinny white guy wearing make-up and walking by himself, he'll probably stomp the shit out of him in order to feel vindicated and try to salvage what he has left of his ego.

Patchd

10th November 2008, 15:48

I meant more that the next time the douche-bag in question sees a skinny white guy wearing make-up and walking by himself, he'll probably stomp the shit out of him in order to feel vindicated and try to salvage what he has left of his ego.
And he would do that regardless, what makes you think that someone who starts on you for being gay will not continue to do so to others simply because I haven't physically hurt him/her? Perhaps we need more people who are willing to defend and stand up to homophobes to teach them that their mindset and actions will not be tolerated in any way.

synthesis

10th November 2008, 16:07

And he would do that regardless

I think you ought to reconsider the extent of your knowledge about the mindset of male machismo.

what makes you think that someone who starts on you for being gay will not continue to do so to others simply because I haven't physically hurt him/her?

Refraining from violence will not engender pacifism among homophobes. Engaging in violence against homophobes will most likely provoke violence in return, even if you're not the one receiving the brunt of it.

Patchd

10th November 2008, 16:14

I think you ought to reconsider the extent of your knowledge about the mindset of male machismo.
Why? What is wrong about what I've said?

Refraining from violence will not engender pacifism among homophobes. Engaging in violence against homophobes will most likely provoke violence in return, even if you're not the one receiving the brunt of it.
And you say that with what basis?
As I've said already, if they're willing to start on one person because of their sexual preference, then they are likely to start on another person for the same reason, regardless of whether they've been "taught a lesson" before, or not.

RGacky3

10th November 2008, 16:39

I considermy self somewhat socially conservative, not in the political sense, but in a more social sense.

For example, I think that older people deserve respect, parents deserve respect, marriage (if you believe in it) should be taken seriously (if you don't then thats your business, but don't pretend), I feel its the parents responsibility to raise the children (not the state or whatever).

Then again I'm against enforcing any of these ideas, for me its just a matter of dignity and respect, although I don't know if thats considered socially conservative, but I definatately don't like that attitude that some people have of "Blow me" to everything, not showing respect to anyone, not taking other people into consideration just saying "I'll do what I want" and generally being a selfish disrespectful dickhead, which I personally think is somewhat opposed to the concept of Socialism, which includes mutual respect.

To me seeing some young punks taunting an old man going to church is just as discusting as seeing some skinheads taunting a gay man, both groups might need some smacking in my book.

Mindtoaster

10th November 2008, 17:12

I'm not sure Revleft should be banning (restricting yes) homophobes. Its a phenomenon especially prevalent in the working class and alot of workers will be carrying that around when they grab an interest in socialism. In modern times many homophobic tendencies are spawned by religion, religion being a result of poor material condiitions.

Homophobia can be pretty easily overcome if you sit them down, explain why they're wrong, why people are gay, why they hold that negative view of homosexuals, and why we all need to work together as equals.

Of cource when we start talking about people such as the Westboro Baptist Church (The God Hates Fags folk) it may become a different story, and they really might need some slapping around.

Patchd

10th November 2008, 17:24

I'm not sure Revleft should be banning (restricting yes) homophobes. Its a phenomenon especially prevalent in the working class and alot of workers will be carrying that around when they grab an interest in socialism. In modern times many homophobic tendencies are spawned by religion, religion being a result of poor material condiitions.
This.

I don't think homophobia should be banned unless the person in question is entirely unwilling to give up their beliefs regarding sexual orientation. As it is a message board, the only way to deal with homophobia would be through debate, and so that should be allowed in the OI.

Outside however.

careyprice31

10th November 2008, 17:47

I am left wing. But I do think that in some cases a capitalist or a conservative's opinion might hold some element of truth in it. But its rarely that I will agree with one of those. so yea someone will say something sometimes and that person 'll be a capitalist or a conservative and I'll say 'um....I can't entirely disagree with that' I don't disagree with conservatives/capitalists 100% on everything they say. Just most of the time ;)

well except when one of my friends on the official Detroit Red Wings boards, who's a conservative, said how he doesn't feel any sympathy for gays, lesbians, minorities, etc and thinks instead of having 'gay pride' parades they should just go out and contribute to society like everyone else....I can't agree with that. and how he said 'nobody is really 'oppressed' anymore' well I can't agree with that. There's just one of many many times I will disagree with the other side. And I will disagree with the other side most of the time you will find me on the left with the rest of the leftists.

that's my two cents on 'what' i am.

Qwerty Dvorak

10th November 2008, 17:55

I'm always right.

Demogorgon

10th November 2008, 18:25

Really, and you can say that how? There were effeminate guys backing me up, after all, I did work in a gay pub.

Now, I guess I was being rash when I said that, I do think its useful to argue verbally on the subject, but just like with fascism in general, a lot of homophobes simply do not listen...especially when they're religious fundamentalists.Hitting them isn't going to change their minds either.

I hate to say it but sometimes we need to be more grown up about these things.

RGacky3

10th November 2008, 19:33

It depends what you mean by homophobia, if someones unconfortable around gay people, or he finds if kind of gross, thats just him, his trip, and theres nothing wrong with that (not restrictable in my book, although I'm restricted.)

I have no problem with gay people and it does'nt bother me, but if I was with someone who was uncomfortable with it, I would'nt attack him because of it, nor would I accuse him of anything, its just an irrational fear of his.

Now if theres some one that thinks homosexuals should have less rights, people should'nt have the right to be homosexual, thats a differents story.

That being said, there are people, unrestricted, that believe in taking away freedom of speach.

Sky

10th November 2008, 21:10

being against queer people is not socialist

Where did Marx or Lenin ever say that? This hostile attitude towards people with a certain position on homosexuality does not have have any theoretical basis. More than anything it is a demonstration of petit-bourgeois, anarchistic, young white males from western society subjectively defining socialism. The level of discourse in this thread is at best juvenile and shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the anarchistic tendencies in this forum.

apathy maybe

10th November 2008, 21:24

Where did Marx or Lenin ever say that? This hostile attitude towards people with a certain position on homosexuality does not have have any theoretical basis. More than anything it is an instance of petit-bourgeois, anarchistic, young white males from western society subjectively defining socialism. The level of discourse in this thread is at best juvenile.

Being a Marxist or a Leninst (or some combination of both) is not socialist either you fucking ****.

Fuck off, get a hair cut, get a job and stop bothering your betters with your drivel.

Just because your holy prophets Marx and Lenin didn't say something, doesn't mean jack shit.

Socialism is about equality and freedom for everybody, that doesn't mean just the 90% (statistic is bullshit, number probably greater) of folks who don't identify as "queer" ("not normal", "not heterosexual", whatever the fuck you want to define it as). It means fucking everybody!

There certainly is a theoretical basis for hostility to homophobes, just like there is a theoretical basis for hostility towards racists, sexists and other such scum. Would you accept someone as a socialist if they supported keeping women in the home? What about if they wanted to get rid of all of [insert minority population here, pick from, among others, Jews, Romani, "blacks", Slavs and more]? What about if they wanted to kill of all disabled people?

Basically, the same sort of irrational, stupid, un-socialist thinking is at the basis for all this hostility and prejudice.

It isn't socialist, and if you are homophobic, then you are not socialist to that extent at least (and more likely, not socialist at all).

But yes, I do agree that you are juvenile, and so are your opinions (except that, when I was young, I was not racist, homophobic or sexist, maybe I'm just special).

Sky

10th November 2008, 21:46

The accusation of being "unsocialist" from a self-identifying anarchist is comical.

Socialism is about equality and freedom for everybody

That is not at all what socialism is. Socialism abolishes private ownership of the means of productions. It is a social system characterized by public ownership of the means of production, the absence of exploitation of man by man and social production planned on a nation-wide scale.

Would you accept someone as a socialist if they supported keeping women in the home?

Women as a group are not comparable to homosexuals. Women have been subject to legal restrictions by virtue of their gender. Even in an atmosphere of legal restrictions, a homosexual would be able to lead a successful life if his sexual tendencies were not known.

Killfacer

10th November 2008, 21:50

Being a Marxist or a Leninst (or some combination of both) is not socialist either you fucking ****.

Fuck off, get a hair cut, get a job and stop bothering your betters with your drivel.

Just because your holy prophets Marx and Lenin didn't say something, doesn't mean jack shit.

Socialism is about equality and freedom for everybody, that doesn't mean just the 90% (statistic is bullshit, number probably greater) of folks who don't identify as "queer" ("not normal", "not heterosexual", whatever the fuck you want to define it as). It means fucking everybody!

There certainly is a theoretical basis for hostility to homophobes, just like there is a theoretical basis for hostility towards racists, sexists and other such scum. Would you accept someone as a socialist if they supported keeping women in the home? What about if they wanted to get rid of all of [insert minority population here, pick from, among others, Jews, Romani, "blacks", Slavs and more]? What about if they wanted to kill of all disabled people?

Basically, the same sort of irrational, stupid, un-socialist thinking is at the basis for all this hostility and prejudice.

It isn't socialist, and if you are homophobic, then you are not socialist to that extent at least (and more likely, not socialist at all).

But yes, I do agree that you are juvenile, and so are your opinions (except that, when I was young, I was not racist, homophobic or sexist, maybe I'm just special).

This.

apathy maybe

10th November 2008, 21:59

The accusation of being "unsocialist" from a self-identifying anarchist is comical.

Indeed. It isn't at all like all (true) anarchists are also socialists. Wait, am I using words in a manner to which you aren't accustomed?

Socialist has more than one meaning.

I like to use the notion of "broad" and "narrow" (and have done so for a long time: e.g. http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-socialism-t48676/index.html?t=48676 ).

Anarchism is socialism in the broad sense of the word.

Demogorgon

10th November 2008, 22:11

I considermy self somewhat socially conservative, not in the political sense, but in a more social sense.
Going back to read your comments (missed them earlier) you make some interesting points that I feel deserve some comment

For example, I think that older people deserve respect, parents deserve respect, marriage (if you believe in it) should be taken seriously (if you don't then thats your business, but don't pretend), I feel its the parents responsibility to raise the children (not the state or whatever).
Okay, but what do you mean about the last statement? Sure parents should look after their children, but raising children is an expensive business. Are you saying the state shouldn't provide the means to raise children properly. That isn't taking responsibility away from parents but it is not unreasonable to claim that the state should make sure that all children are well provided for.

Also just because parents should look after their children, it does not necessarily follow that they will. There needs to be proper provisions in place for when parents fail.

Then again I'm against enforcing any of these ideas, for me its just a matter of dignity and respect, although I don't know if thats considered socially conservative, but I definatately don't like that attitude that some people have of "Blow me" to everything, not showing respect to anyone, not taking other people into consideration just saying "I'll do what I want" and generally being a selfish disrespectful dickhead, which I personally think is somewhat opposed to the concept of Socialism, which includes mutual respect.I don't like those things either, but aren't those things just called being a teenager?

I totally agree with that.
[QUOTE=RGacky3;1281447]It depends what you mean by homophobia, if someones unconfortable around gay people, or he finds if kind of gross, thats just him, his trip, and theres nothing wrong with that (not restrictable in my book, although I'm restricted.)

I have no problem with gay people and it does'nt bother me, but if I was with someone who was uncomfortable with it, I would'nt attack him because of it, nor would I accuse him of anything, its just an irrational fear of his.

Now if theres some one that thinks homosexuals should have less rights, people should'nt have the right to be homosexual, thats a differents story.That's true, you still aren't going to get far with such people by hitting them though.

That being said, there are people, unrestricted, that believe in taking away freedom of speach.
Totally and that is something that really annoys me. The irony is that it isn't even exclusive to one particular faction here either. You might think the Stalinists would be prone to it, and they are, but some anarchists are just as bad. Whether you see certain idiots telling us about how the "people's leadership will democratically decide to restrict certain speech" or anarchists with an attitude of "you can say and do what you like so long as I agree with it" it really irritates me and it is something we need less of on this board.

Demogorgon

10th November 2008, 22:12

Women as a group are not comparable to homosexuals. Women have been subject to legal restrictions by virtue of their gender. Even in an atmosphere of legal restrictions, a homosexual would be able to lead a successful life if his sexual tendencies were not known.
Why should there be a need to keep certain things secret?

synthesis

10th November 2008, 22:50

The point is that women and people who aren't white can never know what it means to have white male privilege. A gay white man can make the choice to "not express who he is" and go on to fully enjoy white privilege.

I happen to think that there are, unfortunately, greater evils out there than "people not being able to express who they are." It's a problem, I agree with that, but I don't think the issue is nearly as cut-and-dry, "you're-not-a-socialist-because-you-hold-one-ignorant-opinion" as it is assumed to be. I don't think it's an issue worth dividing the global left - at least, not now.

Jazzratt

10th November 2008, 23:05

That is not at all what socialism is. Socialism abolishes private ownership of the means of productions. It is a social system characterized by public ownership of the means of production, the absence of exploitation of man by man and social production planned on a nation-wide scale.

For a "socialist" you seem to know vast amounts of absolutely fuck all about your chosen ideology. While the removal of public ownership of the means of production is the goal of socialism that, alone, is not what defines it. What you, my slow witted friend, have forgotten in your haste to jump on the "homophobia is a-ok" bandwagon is that this goal is only achievable by class struggle. Class struggle, as you would know were you able to reflect on anything for five seconds rather than parroting endless pamphlets, requires a unity and solidarity between all of the proletariat buying into stupid divisions along the lines of race, sexuality and gender is a complete non-starter.

Women as a group are not comparable to homosexuals. Women have been subject to legal restrictions by virtue of their gender. Even in an atmosphere of legal restrictions, a homosexual would be able to lead a successful life if his sexual tendencies were not known.

Women used to disguise themselves as men in order to circumvent societies restrictions on them, as long as their gender wasn't known they could get by. Requiring someone pretend to be someone they're not before they can lead a normal life is oppressive, you fucking pillock.

Labor Shall Rule

10th November 2008, 23:24

"That is really a very odd 'Urning' you just sent me. Those are just unveilings being extremely against nature. The pederasts begin counting themselves and find that they are forming a power within the state. Only an organisation was missing, but according to this it seems to be already existing in the secret. And as they are counting so important men within all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rösing to Schweitzer, their victory is inevitable. 'Guerre aux cons, paix aux trous de cul' it will go now. It is only a luck that we personally are too old to have to fear, this party gaining victory, to have to pay bodily tribute to the victors. But the young generation! By the way, only possible in Germany that a guy like that appears, translates the dirt into a theory and invites: introite, and so on. Unfortunately he was not yet as courageous as to confess openly being 'That', and still has to operate coram publico 'from the front' even though not ,from the front into as he once says by mistake. But first wait until the new North-German penal law has acknowledged the droits de cul then it will turn out quite differently. As for poor people from the front like us, with our childish favour for women, things will be going badly enough. If one could make use of that Schweitzer, it was to elicit from this strange man of honour the personal details of the high and the highest ranging pederasts, what surely would not be difficult for him as a congenial person...."

Engels sent the works of German homosexual activist, Karl Heinz Ulrichs, to Marx in 1869. Ulrichs was unable to find any allies whatsoever, at a moment in which gay liberation seemed to be an abomination from the viewpoint of the 'left' and right. As Marx said, they are "against nature", and his gay rights proclamations was turning "dirt into a theory".

synthesis

10th November 2008, 23:36

Requiring someone pretend to be someone they're not before they can lead a normal life is oppressive, you fucking pillock.Sure, but I would argue that arresting people because they are black, or acquitting a rapist on the basis of what the woman was wearing, or carpet-bombing the capital of a country in order to press its leaders into compliance - those are far worse forms of oppression than "requiring someone to pretend to be someone they're not."

Other oppressed minorities and the victims of imperialism - not to mention proletarians - they can't pretend. They don't have that option.

If a black man "pretends to be white," he will still be black in the face of racism.

If a woman "pretends to be a man," she will still be a woman in the face of misogyny.

If the latest Iraqi casualty "pretends to be alive," she'll still be a dead 8-year-old.

If a gay white man "pretends to be straight," he has the whole wide world of white privilege waiting for him.

It's a fucked up dichotomy, but our priorities have become the priorities of Western privilege and individualism. These priorities need to be re-examined in lieu of current global conditions.

eyedrop

10th November 2008, 23:40

Then again I'm against enforcing any of these ideas, for me its just a matter of dignity and respect, although I don't know if thats considered socially conservative, but I definatately don't like that attitude that some people have of "Blow me" to everything, not showing respect to anyone, not taking other people into consideration just saying "I'll do what I want" and generally being a selfish disrespectful dickhead, which I personally think is somewhat opposed to the concept of Socialism, which includes mutual respect. I don't like those things either, but aren't those things just called being a teenager?

Can you guys stop with your ageist crap? I usually like the posts of both of you.

I know when I was a teenager I was always met with disrespect, and a complete disregard of my opinions by the local bureaucracy, when working on a youth-house, roof over our hockey rink and a skate-park. The beauracrats went their way completely disregarding the opinions of the userbase, which lead to failure.

All teenagers aren't selfish disrespectful dickheads, but most are treated as such.

Plagueround

10th November 2008, 23:45

Engels sent the works of German homosexual activist, Karl Heinz Ulrichs, to Marx in 1869. Ulrichs was unable to find any allies whatsoever, at a moment in which gay liberation seemed to be an abomination from the viewpoint of the 'left' and right. As Marx said, they are "against nature", and his gay rights proclamations was turning "dirt into a theory".

A man from the late 1800s had backward and now disproved views about homosexuality being "against nature" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

#FF0000

11th November 2008, 00:39

The level of discourse in this thread is at best juvenile and shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the anarchistic tendencies in this forum.

Only a very small minority of the anarchist members of this forum posted in this thread, Sky.

bcbm

11th November 2008, 00:51

More than anything it is an instance of petit-bourgeois, anarchistic, young white males from western society subjectively defining socialism. The level of discourse in this thread is at best juvenile.

Forgive me if somebody thinking myself and my friends are against nature and wanting us to be "stamped out" rubs me the wrong way. :rolleyes:

those are far worse forms of oppression than "requiring someone to pretend to be someone they're not."

Now we're basing the validity of your struggle on how oppressed you are? Everyone in your example is more oppressed than the carpet bombed child, so all of their struggles must not be as important. And really it is probably better to be carpet bombed to death than work in a diamond mine all day, every day with no hope of escape so perhaps that is the only struggle we should be really paying attention to?

Or perhaps all of these struggles are related and not exclusionary. The struggle for liberation and a classless society is a struggle against all of the oppressions that have come to dominate our lives and they cannot and should not be separated.

Labor Shall Rule

11th November 2008, 01:04

A man from the late 1800s had backward and now disproved views about homosexuality being "against nature" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

I was responding to Left Communist's confidence in Marx's allegedly "socially liberal" viewpoints. I definitely agree with how we shouldn't judge a eighteenth century author with the moral verdicts of today.

Forward Union

11th November 2008, 01:08

I'm completely socially libertarian. My only limit on what people should be allowed to do is if it infringes on the independance and soverignty of another individual.

That varies of course. Some level of infringement is enevitable, and happens daily. Like playing music too loud or stepping on someones shoes. Whatever, these can be settled simply. More serious violations liek rape and murder can be settled in appropriate ways, with imprisonment etc.

Plagueround

11th November 2008, 01:09

I was responding to Left Communist's confidence in Marx's allegedly "socially liberal" viewpoints. I definitely agree with how we shouldn't judge a eighteenth century author with the moral verdicts of today.

It wasn't really directed at you and was meant to be more of a general comment, but reading back at the post it looks that way. My apologies.

Junius

11th November 2008, 01:20

I was responding to Left Communist's confidence in Marx's allegedly "socially liberal" viewpoints. I definitely agree with how we shouldn't judge a eighteenth century author with the moral verdicts of today.

:confused: I said Marx was socially advanced for his time. Nevertheless, you need to provide a link of where Marx said such. That's all I requested.

Demogorgon

11th November 2008, 02:26

Can you guys stop with your ageist crap? I usually like the posts of both of you.

I know when I was a teenager I was always met with disrespect, and a complete disregard of my opinions by the local bureaucracy, when working on a youth-house, roof over our hockey rink and a skate-park. The beauracrats went their way completely disregarding the opinions of the userbase, which lead to failure.

All teenagers aren't selfish disrespectful dickheads, but most are treated as such.
I agree that teenagers are often treated unfairly and I am obviously against that, but at the same time a phase of rebellion and doing things generally regarded as bad behaviour is a natural and indeed healthy part of growing up. It just irritates me when the behaviour is redirected into something manifesting to be some kind of political statement.

Incidentally some teenagers do go off the deep end a bit with the misanthropy and selfishness hence the fact that some end up spouting off Ayn Rand crap, or if they are a little more lettered, Murray Rothbard and the like. That is to be expected. What troubles me more is you sometimes see members here spouting misanthropic crap that could just as easily come from Rand or Rothbard and actually think such views are compatible with leftism. That is obviously coming from the kind of behaviour we are talking about.

Now of course I was wrong to say that all teenagers are like that, because they are not, but like I say it is pretty natural and I am told it is in fact psychologically beneficial to go through it so there is no shame in it. It is just that it was embarrassing enough going through it myself without having to watch other people doing it.

Labor Shall Rule

11th November 2008, 02:43

:confused: I said Marx was socially advanced for his time. Nevertheless, you need to provide a link of where Marx said such. That's all I requested.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm

Junius

11th November 2008, 03:02

Did you even read the heading of the letter?!

Engels To Marx In London

Marx did not say that, Engels did.

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule
Engels sent the works of German homosexual activist, Karl Heinz Ulrichs, to Marx in 1869. Ulrichs was unable to find any allies whatsoever, at a moment in which gay liberation seemed to be an abomination from the viewpoint of the 'left' and right. As Marx said, they are "against nature", and his gay rights proclamations was turning "dirt into a theory".Again, it was Marx whom sent it to Engels (i.e. the Urning), and Engels whom made those comments, not Marx - unless you have information that I do not. This is not surprising for Engels, he wrote a lot of useless garbage, particularly regarding dialectics.

synthesis

11th November 2008, 03:28

Now we're basing the validity of your struggle on how oppressed you are?

That was not my intended argument. The difference is qualitative, not quantitative.

Or perhaps all of these struggles are related and not exclusionary.

Or perhaps they have become exclusionary and you simply do not perceive it.

bcbm

11th November 2008, 05:31

Or perhaps they have become exclusionary and you simply do not perceive it.

There are those who focus singularly on any of these struggles and so therefore it becomes important to "connect the dots," not discount a struggle because you think some are making it exclusionary.

synthesis

11th November 2008, 06:03

I'm not discounting it because it's exclusionary; I'm not discounting it at all. I'm arguing for a re-examination of our priorities.

bcbm

11th November 2008, 07:23

What do you imagine our priorities to be and what do you think they should be? My priority is to fight for equality on all fronts. This primarily means within my class, but I do not limit it there.

eyedrop

11th November 2008, 08:48

I agree that teenagers are often treated unfairly and I am obviously against that, but at the same time a phase of rebellion and doing things generally regarded as bad behaviour is a natural and indeed healthy part of growing up. It just irritates me when the behaviour is redirected into something manifesting to be some kind of political statement.

Incidentally some teenagers do go off the deep end a bit with the misanthropy and selfishness hence the fact that some end up spouting off Ayn Rand crap, or if they are a little more lettered, Murray Rothbard and the like. That is to be expected. What troubles me more is you sometimes see members here spouting misanthropic crap that could just as easily come from Rand or Rothbard and actually think such views are compatible with leftism. That is obviously coming from the kind of behaviour we are talking about.

Now of course I was wrong to say that all teenagers are like that, because they are not, but like I say it is pretty natural and I am told it is in fact psychologically beneficial to go through it so there is no shame in it. It is just that it was embarrassing enough going through it myself without having to watch other people doing it.
Agreed. Although it was a bit of a cheap-shot joke. (Was somewhat funny though)

A lot of the bad behaviour is sparked from how youngsters are treated by the grown community.

Qwerty Dvorak

11th November 2008, 14:32

Only a very small minority of the anarchist members of this forum posted in this thread, Sky.
Yeah but the thread was doing fine until aparty maybe started spitting angry swear words in one of his signature temper tantrums.

Demogorgon

11th November 2008, 15:31

Agreed. Although it was a bit of a cheap-shot joke. (Was somewhat funny though)

A lot of the bad behaviour is sparked from how youngsters are treated by the grown community.

There is truth to that, though again part of growing up is to find your own place in the world and that often means casting off your parents' values, at least temporarily, and that manifests itself as rebellion. You can't eliminate that simply by treating young people as adults, and nor should we want to, though young people do deserve to be treated with respect for other reasons. This society demonises teenagers far too much.

On another note, in reference to the other discussion going here, all struggles against prejudice are tied in with one another and are in turn tied into the broader socialist trouble. But at the same time it is good that some people do focus particularly on certain issues as single issue campaigns tend to be more successful as they are able to maintain focus. Just so long as at least some of us concentrate on the broader issues.

eyedrop

11th November 2008, 16:46

There is truth to that, though again part of growing up is to find your own place in the world and that often means casting off your parents' values, at least temporarily, and that manifests itself as rebellion. You can't eliminate that simply by treating young people as adults, and nor should we want to, though young people do deserve to be treated with respect for other reasons. This society demonises teenagers far too much.

On another note, in reference to the other discussion going here, all struggles against prejudice are tied in with one another and are in turn tied into the broader socialist trouble. But at the same time it is good that some people do focus particularly on certain issues as single issue campaigns tend to be more successful as they are able to maintain focus. Just so long as at least some of us concentrate on the broader issues.

100% agree.

RGacky3

11th November 2008, 16:48

Okay, but what do you mean about the last statement? Sure parents should look after their children, but raising children is an expensive business. Are you saying the state shouldn't provide the means to raise children properly. That isn't taking responsibility away from parents but it is not unreasonable to claim that the state should make sure that all children are well provided for.

Also just because parents should look after their children, it does not necessarily follow that they will. There needs to be proper provisions in place for when parents fail.

Thats not what I mean, of coarse every child should be well provided for, what I'm talking about is those parents who don't raise their kids. Who leave it to their older children or Nanies or whatever, drop them off at day cares and the such to chase money or party. I also think its the primary responsibility of the parent to teach their kids about life and the such, not schools.

To apply that for example, when parents complain about sex ed in schools my answer would be "why don't you talk to your kids, and stop relying on the schools."

But of coarse like I said its not a political standpoint, I of caosre think that society should step in if the parents don't.

I don't like those things either, but aren't those things just called being a teenager?

Sometimes people continue being teenagers for a long time :P, but yeah your right.

That's true, you still aren't going to get far with such people by hitting them though.

Yeah your right, thats why I generally don't do it :P.

Totally and that is something that really annoys me. The irony is that it isn't even exclusive to one particular faction here either. You might think the Stalinists would be prone to it, and they are, but some anarchists are just as bad. Whether you see certain idiots telling us about how the "people's leadership will democratically decide to restrict certain speech" or anarchists with an attitude of "you can say and do what you like so long as I agree with it" it really irritates me and it is something we need less of on this board.

I think people sometimes just get way too caught up in their own beliefs and make it personal. To where they have literal hatred of people for their political beliefs, which is rediculous.

Sky

11th November 2008, 17:34

Why should there be a need to keep certain things secret?

That was not my point. I was disputing the comparison of homosexuals to women and racial minorities by pointing out that homosexuals have not endured discrimination on the basis of morphological features. Homosexuals did not face discrimination with respect to voting and employment the way women and racial minorities did. The very concept of a homosexual identity that is perpetuated by this forum's membership has no basis in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

bcbm

11th November 2008, 19:05

in the teachings of Marx and Lenin

Well if our infallible gods didn't say it...

Patchd

11th November 2008, 19:22

That was not my point. I was disputing the comparison of homosexuals to women and racial minorities by pointing out that homosexuals have not endured discrimination on the basis of morphological features. Homosexuals did not face discrimination with respect to voting and employment the way women and racial minorities did. The very concept of a homosexual identity that is perpetuated by this forum's membership has no basis in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.
Well lets take Britain for example, where homosexuality was indeed a discriminatory factor for both voting rights and work. As homosexuality was punishable by imprisonment, by law, prisoners have no right to vote, and in turn, homosexuals then were also denied that right.

Although people can much more easily hide the fact that they are LGBTQ, it does not remove the fact that any out LGBTQ people were still discriminated against to the same degree as women, or ethnic minorities. Not only that, but homosexuals also face the same level, if not more in some respects of violent abuse that women and ethnic minorities have to endure.

And the Marx and Lenin thing again? Give it a break, they're not infallible Gods, and in fact, remember that Lenin and the Bolsheviks actually legalised homosexuality and gave them the same rights as other citizens, in a time when homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness and degenerative to society. Lenin still gave attention to this very issue.

Sky

11th November 2008, 19:37

, and in fact, remember that Lenin and the Bolsheviks actually legalised homosexuality
Whether homosexuality was legalized is questionable. It seems not to have been legalized so much as it was neglected in the 1922 criminal code.

Nor is it relevant whether or not homosexuality was in the criminal code. Even though homosexuality was not in the criminal code, people were still tried for homosexual activity. For example, there was a trial for alleged sodomites in 1922.

And the Marx and Lenin thing again? Give it a break, they're not infallible Gods

You cannot attempt to justify homosexuality by referring to the soviets' alleged policies towards gays while at the same time accusing those of dogmatism for referring to Marx and Engels's negative attitude towards homosexuality.

And I do not advocate a policy of hostility towards homosexuals. Homosexuality is such a peripheral and inconsequential issue that serves only to distract the working class from more serious problems. To accuse those that disapprove of homosexuality with something equivalent to racism is just slanderous. It smacks of the same kind of narrow-minded dogmatism that you have accused me of for referring to Marx and Engels.

And I still await a convincing explanation as to how opposition to homosexuality renders one anti-socialist or counter-revolutionary.

RGacky3

11th November 2008, 20:34

And I still await a convincing explanation as to how opposition to homosexuality renders one anti-socialist or counter-revolutionary.

If you don't advocate a policy of hostility toward homosexuals, then wahts your opposition?

Plagueround

11th November 2008, 20:39

That was not my point. I was disputing the comparison of homosexuals to women and racial minorities by pointing out that homosexuals have not endured discrimination on the basis of morphological features. Homosexuals did not face discrimination with respect to voting and employment the way women and racial minorities did. The very concept of a homosexual identity that is perpetuated by this forum's membership has no basis in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

You know, I think the primary reason I found Marxist-Leninism so unappealing when I came to this site wanting to learn about communism wasn't so much the political philosophy, but the number of boring, cookie cutter Marxist-Leninists who can't think for themselves and simply sound like they're copy pasting pamphlets all day. You people need a serious overhaul of your image...hearing the same tirade from multiple posters time and time again, I can almost feel the dust on your posts. Who's going to be attracted to a political philosophy where most of the adherents chain themselves to the words of a few men, and anything deviating is seen as "intellectual bankruptcy"? You might as well replace Marx and Lenin with Jesus and Paul the way you prattle on about them...you do a lot of damage to the serious MLs who can actually think for themselves.

Getting back to the topic at hand, you have not at all addressed the multiple times people have asked you: How do you reconcile a socialist society, with the goal of moving toward a classless, stateless society, while upholding discriminatory practices toward a group of people based on personal distaste for their sexual preferences? You have not offered any convincing arguments or attempted to defend this beyond "Holy Marx and his prophet Lenin didn't say it".

synthesis

11th November 2008, 20:51

If you don't advocate a policy of hostility toward homosexuals, then wahts your opposition?

Perhaps it is that the gay rights movement and liberation from wage slavery are distinctly different in both form and substance. They can be compatible - and they should be - but our focus on the former can alienate the latter.

Many (if not most) wage slaves, worldwide, are homophobic in some way. Liberation from wage slavery and imperialism ought to be our primary focus, unless in reality we are dedicated to having as small an impact as possible on the way things really work - which I suspect might be the case.

Principles are great, but they have to be combined with efficacy or they are meaningless.

JimmyJazz

11th November 2008, 21:26

You know, I think the primary reason I found Marxist-Leninism so unappealing when I came to this site wanting to learn about communism wasn't so much the political philosophy, but the number of boring, cookie cutter Marxist-Leninists who can't think for themselves and simply sound like they're copy pasting pamphlets all day. You people need a serious overhaul of your image...hearing the same tirade from multiple posters time and time again, I can almost feel the dust on your posts. Who's going to be attracted to a political philosophy where most of the adherents chain themselves to the words of a few men, and anything deviating is seen as "intellectual bankruptcy"? You might as well replace Marx and Lenin with Jesus and Paul the way you prattle on about them...you do a lot of damage to the serious MLs who can actually think for themselves.

But it has proven itself to be the Only Successful Formula (O.S.F.) for worldwide Proletarian Revolution! Reactionary cowards everywhere recoil in fear of it's unbending and iron-fisted tactics to end all human Oppression.

pre-empting Poe's Law: this is a parody

Sky

11th November 2008, 21:42

Getting back to the topic at hand, you have not at all addressed the multiple times people have asked you I said that homosexuality is such an inconsequential and trivial issue that it is not of concern to the working class. It is best left ignored. The issue is not homosexuality as much as it is this forum's exaggeration of the importance of homosexual issues. In particular, accusing those that have reservations about homosexuality with counter-revolutionism is preposterous.

Demogorgon

11th November 2008, 21:48

RGacky3

11th November 2008, 23:26

In particular, accusing those that have reservations about homosexuality with counter-revolutionism is preposterous.

Thats my question, whats you're reservation? Is your reservation that your uncomfortable around gay people? Is it about peoples right to be gay? What is it?

Black Dagger

12th November 2008, 00:25

That was not my point. I was disputing the comparison of homosexuals to women and racial minorities by pointing out that homosexuals have not endured discrimination on the basis of morphological features. Homosexuals did not face discrimination with respect to voting and employment the way women and racial minorities did. The very concept of a homosexual identity that is perpetuated by this forum's membership has no basis in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.

Yeah bro, voting is not really a prime concern for people who have been treated like criminals with a mental defect eh? You know that homosexuality was criminalised in most places in the world until very recently yeah? I mean, that's not too bad i guess - i mean given a choice between being locked up in an asylum or beaten to death because of my sexual preferences i'd probably go the former? Though in some countries i wouldn't really have a 'choice' - seeing as gay folks are just executed. Or alternatively i could just pretend to be a heterosexual my whole life - what a fun time it was for queer folks over the past two centuries! Fucking whingers! And like, i even heard that being openly gay (or 'discovered' by co-workers) actually improved your chances of holding down a job, even getting a promotion!

JimmyJazz

12th November 2008, 01:44

I said that homosexuality is such an inconsequential and trivial issue that it is not of concern to the working class. It is best left ignored. The issue is not homosexuality as much as it is this forum's exaggeration of the importance of homosexual issues. In particular, accusing those that have reservations about homosexuality with counter-revolutionism is preposterous.

How about people who have "reservations" about black skin? Same deal?

Any "reservations" about a whole section of the working class are, in Marxist terms at least, counter-revolutionary. That's just obvious.

Patchd

12th November 2008, 01:46

You cannot attempt to justify homosexuality by referring to the soviets' alleged policies towards gays while at the same time accusing those of dogmatism for referring to Marx and Engels's negative attitude towards homosexuality.
You're right, I can't, however thats the point, I was attempting to highlight your contradiction. Anyways, I'll respond more if I remember to, and can be arsed, when I have time.

Jazzratt

12th November 2008, 10:46

I said that homosexuality is such an inconsequential and trivial issue that it is not of concern to the working class. It is best left ignored. The issue is not homosexuality as much as it is this forum's exaggeration of the importance of homosexual issues. In particular, accusing those that have reservations about homosexuality with counter-revolutionism is preposterous.

What the fuck does "[having] reservations about homosexuality" mean?

Just because in your entire sheletered life you've never met a homosexual person doesn't mean their population is small or issues that apply to them are "trivial". As I explained to you earlier you're not going to get anywhere with this divisive bollocks hanging around the neck of the class struggle like a millstone.

Sky

12th November 2008, 20:12

What the fuck does "[having] reservations about homosexuality" mean?
It's self-explanatory. Most people in the world do not approve of homosexuality.

Just because in your entire sheletered life you've never met a homosexual person doesn't mean their population is small or issues that apply to them are "trivial". As I explained to you earlier you're not going to get anywhere with this divisive bollocks hanging around the neck of the class struggle like a millstone.
I maintain a neutral stance towards homosexuality, believing that it is best left ignored. But this should not be about me. Rather, the issue at hand is that this anti-homophobia stance has been artificially elevated to a sort of inviolable dogma. Yet, those that challenge this dogma by referring to Marxist-Leninist classics have been hyperbolically and hypocritically charged with dogmatism.

synthesis

12th November 2008, 20:25

Rather, the issue at hand is that this anti-homophobia stance has been artificially elevated to a sort of inviolable dogma. Yet, those that challenge this dogma by referring to Marxist-Leninist classics have been hyperbolically and hypocritically charged with dogmatism.

Agreed. Homophobia is divisive, but anti-homophobia has come to be more divisive. People here simply do not recognize this.

JimmyJazz

12th November 2008, 23:21

Homophobia is divisive, but anti-homophobia has come to be more divisive. People here simply do not recognize this.

Good thing nobody listened to the people saying stuff like this in the 60s about race ("Racism is divisive, but civil rights has come to be more divisive"). And certain people did say that, although probably not very many radicals, since it's a profoundly conservative position.

RGacky3

12th November 2008, 23:27

I maintain a neutral stance towards homosexuality, believing that it is best left ignored.

Sure, the same way with heterosexuality, what happens in someone elses sex life is none of anyones business. So I think everyone here is neutral towards homosexuality.

Rather, the issue at hand is that this anti-homophobia stance has been artificially elevated to a sort of inviolable dogma. Yet, those that challenge this dogma by referring to Marxist-Leninist classics have been hyperbolically and hypocritically charged with dogmatism.

Its not a dogma, there is good rational reason behind anti-homophobia, homophobia (by that I mean people who actively target and discriminate against gay people, not juts people that think its gross or just don't like it or whatever) is something that should be fought as if it were any other type of discrimination.

As far as people just not liking the idea of gayness, or them thinking its wierd or whatever, thats their deal, I really don't care, the same way I would'nt care if they ahd any other irrational phobia, nor would that get in the way of my helping them organize as working people or organizing with them.

synthesis

12th November 2008, 23:55

Good thing nobody listened to the people saying stuff like this in the 60s about race ("Racism is divisive, but civil rights has come to be more divisive"). And certain people did say that, although probably not very many radicals, since it's a profoundly conservative position.It probably happened, although I'd be interested to hear who said what and when.

Regardless, your analogy isn't sound - that was a profoundly different struggle at a very different point in time. For one thing, racism is tied far more directly to class conflict - gay people have never been deliberately pushed into an isolated underclass for the purpose of ensuring a steady supply of cheap labor.

Relative to the history of the entire labor struggle, gay rights is an extremely new addition, and much of the global left has not "caught up" yet. To say that the only "real" socialists are the ones who unconditionally support gay rights is ultimately only indicative of your Western privilege and libertarian individualism, and not your dedication to socialism.

I support gay rights, but I don't believe for a second that gives me the right to tell other people that they aren't "real socialists". Honestly, in real life I know a lot of left-leaning black people who find comparisons between gay rights and civil rights deeply offensive. As much as it sucks to "pretend to be someone you're not," gay people are the only minority who have the luxury of doing so - no one else has an "opt-out."

Agrippa

13th November 2008, 02:04

Yeah, I sure as hell didn't mean to "insinuate" anything about housework. You're relatively new, but I'm sure I've written about the subject before, or at least expressed the opinion that those who don't consider housework "work" are wrong.

Sorry, I was probably being too being nitpicky.

How about you detail all your views on social issues that you consider to be conservative type views. For starters, my ancestors are Anabaptists, and while I am not a Christian, (at least by most orthodox definitions of Christianity) and am strongly opposed to the pacifist doctrines of almost all modern Anabaptist churches, I strongly identify with Anabaptist/Pennsylvania Dutch cultural traditions. (In particular I strongly identify with the Zwickau prophets, members of the Müntzer Rebellion, and other radical Anabaptists of the Middle Ages who attempted to violently overthrow and/or declare their autonomy from the established religious, political, and economic order. While Christians, many of these peoples' theological positions included sexual liberation, rejection of biblical inerrancy, etc.)

I personally find no gratification in the punk rock/"hipster" mentality of expressing one's "individuality" with superficially gaudy and ostentatious clothing. The idea of dressing plainly appeals to me and I am not repulsed by the notion of having a shared ethnic garb. (This does not mean I want to force my personal attitude on others as I think others should be allowed to make personal choices such as how they dress, what they eat, etc. without the molestation of nosy people oppressive social orders. I am merely speaking of my personal outlook.)

I'm also entirely uninterested in having sex with people I have no emotional connection with and am repulsed by many aspects of modern sexuality. (pornography, for example) I feel like socially liberal advocates of queer rights make the mistake of framing the issue in terms of "loosening" traditional sexual restrictions, which, among other things, groups homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered/intersexed people in with BDSM enthusiasts and members of other "kinks", and allows for pedophilia-advocates such as NAMBLA to appropriate the same rhetoric and hijack the issue.

On a personal level I've found the Ayurvedic/Taoist notion of withholding male sexual fluids being of benefit to the physical health of the male species be true. Once agian, this isn't something I have any interest in forcing on others, merely something I hold to be true.

Unlike Marxists and most other "scientific" socialists I don't view the transition from feudalism to capitalism (or the transition from primitive communism to feudalism) as "progressive" or a necessary step towards a socialist/communist society, whatever that may mean. On the contrary, this period of history in Europe saw mass-annexation of "the commons", collectively owned (or rather, "un-owned") land (the origin of the term "communist") from the masses by the capitalist class, for use in industrial development. To me, communism means the abolition of the social mores and social structures imposed on humanity during the phase of primitive accumulation.

More specifically, this means the rejection of Newtonian and Cartesian philosophy, specifically in regards to the mechanistic view of the universe, celestial bodies, and the bodies of human beings and other organisms which, most importantly, shaped modern attitudes towards plant life and non-human animals, and also justified the "disciplining" of the human body away from naturally imposed restrictions (the sleep cycle, etc.) in order to facilitate capitalist exploitation of labor. It also has major ramifications in regards to how medicine is practiced, such as modern medicine's dangerous obsession with making substances as refined and isolated as possible.

Unlike Marxists and most anarchists, I don't envision a communist society as being a continuation of the trends in industrial-scale production, mass-transit, mass-communication, etc. created by capitalism. Rather I view a transition to a communist lifestyle as repairing one's alienation from the land-base as a source of food production, a gradual transition from mass-society towards small, clan-like, tightly-knit, localized social structures, which in my mind is the instinctual organizational structure of human beings.

Also unlike Marxists and most anarchists, I am not an atheist, but rather an adherent of the religious values that existed in most of Europe before Christianization, which I understand to share a lot in common with the religious traditions of American Indians, sub-Saharan Africans, Polynesians, etc. as well as many strains of "Eastern" philosophy (Bonpo, Taoism, Shaktism, etc.)

While many "traditions" are oppressive and unnecessary, I find the notion of any truly "libertarian" society (or any society, for that matter) existing without traditions to be absurd. I think traditions are necessary to maintain the stability of the landbase, maintain harmony with the motions of the planet and other celestial bodies, etc.

While not a "primitivist" in the sense of being "anti-technology", I perceive many products of industrial society, such as artificial lighting, as being artificially created needs imposed on us by the ruling class. Given that almost all ecological devastation is caused by the excessive energy consumption of both the industrial system of production and distribution and the lifestyles of the wealthiest and most privileged members of capitalist society, I have no choice but to label myself as "anti-industrial". Industrialism has produced many interesting things, (phonographs, photography, motion pictures, bicycles, typewriters, etc.) but in my mind humans have no choice to revert back to traditional methods of food-production, craft-making, food-storage, heating manmade lighting, etc.

Before anyone accuses me of being a third positionist, I should note that my beliefs have nothing to do with racialism, mercantilism, reactionary nostalgia for past patriarchal civilizations, etc.

synthesis

13th November 2008, 03:34

I'm also entirely uninterested in having sex with people I have no emotional connection with and am repulsed by many aspects of modern sexuality. (pornography, for example) I feel like socially liberal advocates of queer rights make the mistake of framing the issue in terms of "loosening" traditional sexual restrictions, which, among other things, groups homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered/intersexed people in with BDSM enthusiasts and members of other "kinks", and allows for pedophilia-advocates such as NAMBLA to appropriate the same rhetoric and hijack the issue.I'm not sure I entirely understood what you were getting at, but you can't blame the gay rights movement when NAMBLA jacks their rhetoric. If that were true, you'd have to blame the left for the right's hijacking of our rhetoric - it seems like they throw around accusations of "elitism" and "racism" (against whites) more often than we do.

Agrippa

13th November 2008, 03:43

I'm not sure I entirely understood what you were getting at, but you can't blame the gay rights movement when NAMBLA jacks their rhetoric. If that were true, you'd have to blame the left for the right's hijacking of our rhetoric - it seems like they throw around accusations of "elitism" and "racism" (against whites) more often than we do.

I was unsatisfied with how I worded that.

A lot of mainstream gay rights advocates work under the paradigm of our society "progressing" and becoming more "enlightened" as it modernizes. First women and blacks and now gays receiving more civil liberties is part of a natural progression as popular attitudes naturally become more "tolerant" and "accepting". In addition to both clashing with my above-outlined anti-modernism and being a crude analysis of why capitalist regimes grant oppressed minorities more civil liberties, it also invites any bizarre group (Scientologists, NAMBLA, furries, whatever) claim that they're the next oppressed minority destined for eventual social acceptance.

From my perspective, tolerant/embracing/celebratory attitudes towards homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, etc. were the norm in pre-capitalist, pre-Christian/Islamic/Vedic/Buddhist/Confucianist/etc. societies and thus the rejection of homophobic/transphobic values is the traditional/conservative position

synthesis

13th November 2008, 04:55

it also invites any bizarre group (Scientologists, NAMBLA, furries, whatever) claim that they're the next oppressed minority destined for eventual social acceptance.Yeah, but those claims have to be evaluated individually. What you're really against is cultism/pedophilia/bestiality, not a "loosening of taboos."

I think I agree with some of what you have to say. There is a strong tendency to disregard, ridicule, or condemn all tradition just because a fraction of it is oppressive or reactionary, regardless of the actual worth of the rest of it.

RGacky3

13th November 2008, 05:13

There is a strong tendency to disregard, ridicule, or condemn all tradition just because a fraction of it is oppressive or reactionary, regardless of the actual worth of the rest of it.

I have no problem with tradition, it becomes a problem however when the traditions hurts people.

The difference between homosexuality and these other things (pedophilia and bestiality) is homosexuality does'nt victimize anyone, that being said there is no evidence that homosexuality is less or more natural than pedophilia. But I opposed pedophilia because it victomizes children, its harmful. Homosexuality there is no victim.

All of this being said, even though I am against homophobia, that does'nt mean that someone cannot be homophobic and a socialist, socialism is theory about controling resources and industry, and property and the such, its a socio-economic theory.

black magick hustla

13th November 2008, 05:15

More specifically, this means the rejection of Newtonian and Cartesian philosophy, specifically in regards to the mechanistic view of the universe, celestial bodies, and the bodies of human beings and other organisms which, most importantly, shaped modern attitudes towards plant life and non-human animals, and also justified the "disciplining" of the human body away from naturally imposed restrictions (the sleep cycle, etc.) in order to facilitate capitalist exploitation of labor. It also has major ramifications in regards to how medicine is practiced, such as modern medicine's dangerous obsession with making substances as refined and isolated as possible.

While many "traditions" are oppressive and unnecessary, I find the notion of any truly "libertarian" society (or any society, for that matter) existing without traditions to be absurd. I think traditions are necessary to maintain the stability of the landbase, maintain harmony with the motions of the planet and other celestial bodies, etc.

All of this is silly new age idealism. The notion that we can be in "harmony" with the motions of the planet is absurd because harmony is a completely human concept and beyond us superimposing that category to the universe so that we can grasp it better, the universe is not a sentient being aware of itself and without humans there wouldn't be anyone talk about "harmony" in the first place. So any attempt at "being in harmony" with the universe is just a human invention and has no scientific basis.

What the hell is "newtonian" philosophy? Beyond the equations he derived for gravitation and force and his contributions to mathematics, whatever else is left probably has very little do with the form of scientific inquiry today.-

apathy maybe

13th November 2008, 10:05

@Agrippa

I don't agree with the vast majority of what you wrote. However, so long as you don't wish to enforce your opinions on other people, and so long as you don't fit into the "Christian" (also Islamic, Jewish, Hindu and other religions, depending on where you are from, in your case the USA, and thus Christian) conservatism of being appalled by gay sex and wanting to ban it, thinking that women should be in the kitchen, thinking that children are the property of their parents and so on, that that's probably fine.

I personally think that to use the word "conservative" in relation to what you are advocating is slightly misleading. Give a 100 years, and conservatism has completely changed in a given context. Conservationism isn't about wanting to go back to some distant mythical utopia, but instead about valuing traditions (which means recent (within 100 years)) and not wishing to move forward rapidly against these traditions.

synthesis

14th November 2008, 07:29

Give a 100 years, and conservatism has completely changed in a given context. Conservationism isn't about wanting to go back to some distant mythical utopia, but instead about valuing traditions (which means recent (within 100 years)) and not wishing to move forward rapidly against these traditions.

Sometimes... There's also "Merry England" and the romanticizing of the "Wild West" in America, which I'd argue constitutes a "mythical utopia" relative to the realities of those eras.

Agrippa

14th November 2008, 21:02

All of this is silly new age idealism.

"Silly", in your opinion, perhaps, but I am not "new age", nor am I an "idealist".

New Agers want to un-scientifically and haphazardly appropriate and amalgamate "non-Western" cultural traditions in order to placate the ennui they suffer under as members of post-modern capitalist society, while still continuing to operate in and benefit from post-modern capitalist society in every way.

As far as "idealism" goes, F. Nietzsche basically summed it up in Beyond Good and Evil much more eloquantly than I ever will:

"But let us reflect; it is high time to do so. 'How are synthetic judgements a priori possible?' Kant asked himself-and what really is his answer? 'By virtue of a faculty' - but unfortunately not in five words,...The honeymoon of German philosophy arrived. All the young theologians of the Tübingen seminary went into the bushes all looking for 'faculties.'...'By virtue of a faculty' - he had said, or at least meant. But is that an answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather merely a repetition of the question? How does opium induce sleep? 'By virtue of a faculty,' namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor in Moliére." [...] There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for example, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer put it, "I will"; as though knowledge here got hold of its objects purely and nakedly as "the thing in itself," without any falsification on the part of either the subject or the object. But that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involved a contradictio in adjecto, (contradiction between the noun and the adjective) I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!
the universe is not a sentient being aware of itself

Verifying or falsifying this statement is beyond the grasp of yourself or any other individual human being, nor is it pertinent to the discussion at hand. (Nor is it a subject I feel will be fruitful to discuss further within this context)

What is scientifically verifiable is the sensitivity of human physiology and psychology to the rotations and movements of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, other planets in the solar system, etc. which, from my understanding, is the primary purpose of the "holiday" rituals and calender-systems of most cultures.

and without humans there wouldn't be anyone talk about "harmony" in the first place.Are you a solipist? Without humans, there wouldn't be "anyone [sic] talk about" water, (at least in any human language) either, but there would still be water.

What the hell is "newtonian" philosophy?Perhaps you should take the time to educate yourself on the subject before we discuss it further. Wikipedia, for all it's problems, (and there are many) is always a good starting point:

Newton was also highly religious (though unorthodox), producing more work on Biblical hermeneutics than the natural science he is remembered for today.

[...]

Newton and Robert Boyle’s mechanical philosophy was promoted by rationalist pamphleteers as a viable alternative to the pantheists and enthusiasts, and was accepted hesitantly by orthodox preachers as well as dissident preachers like the latitudinarians. Thus, the clarity and simplicity of science was seen as a way to combat the emotional and metaphysical superlatives of both superstitious enthusiasm and the threat of atheism [...] The attacks made against pre-Enlightenment "magical thinking," and the mystical elements of Christianity, were given their foundation with Boyle’s mechanical conception of the universe. Newton gave Boyle’s ideas their completion through mathematical proofs and, perhaps more importantly, was very successful in popularising them. Newton refashioned the world governed by an interventionist God into a world crafted by a God that designs along rational and universal principles.

Enlightenment philosophers chose a short history of scientific predecessors—Galileo, Boyle, and Newton principally—as the guides and guarantors of their applications of the singular concept of Nature and Natural Law to every physical and social field of the day. In this respect, the lessons of history and the social structures built upon it could be discarded.

[...]

It was Newton’s conception of the universe based upon Natural and rationally understandable laws that became the seed for Enlightenment ideology. Locke and Voltaire applied concepts of Natural Law to political systems advocating intrinsic rights; the physiocrats and Adam Smith applied Natural conceptions of psychology and self-interest to economic systems and the sociologists criticised the current social order for trying to fit history into Natural models of progress.Keep in mind Newton did not consider himself a "scientist" but a "natural philosopher" and his "natural philosophy" is essentially the foundation of modern Christianity - A single male god, separate from, and governing over a dead, mechanical universe. This is in contrast to the natural philosophy of, for example, Giordano Bruno

And there behold the Loom of Locke whose Woof rages dire
Washd by the Water-wheels of Newton. black the cloth
In heavy wreathes folds over every Nation; cruel Works
Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other: not as those in Eden: which
Wheel within Wheel in freedom revolve in harmony & peace

William Blake, Jerusalem

http://www.nimbi.com/copyright/william_blake_newton.jpg

"The romantic poet and naturalist, William Blake, depicted Newton as a misguided hero whose gaze was directed only at sterile geometrical diagrams drawn on the ground."

synthesis

14th November 2008, 21:41

What is scientifically verifiable is the sensitivity of human physiology and psychology to the rotations and movements of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, other planets in the solar system, etc. which, from my understanding, is the primary purpose of the "holiday" rituals and calender-systems of most cultures.

Are you saying that this is scientifically verifiable or that it has been verified? I don't know if I could ever read a sentence like that and not assume "pseudoscience," but I'm open to being proven wrong.

black magick hustla

14th November 2008, 21:51

As far as "idealism" goes, F. Nietzsche basically summed it up in Beyond Good and Evil much more eloquantly than I ever will:

You are an idealist because you start from the apriori assumption that it is meant to be for humanity to be in "harmony" with the celestial bodies, without even defining what you mean by "harmony" or why "harmony" is desireable. It reeks of platonic idealism. Reminds me when some Larouche kid was complaining to me about how netwon was "wrong" because he stopped looking for "what is" and rather engaged with appearances.

He also tried to patronize me about physics when I am an astrophysics major.

Verifying or falsifying this statement is beyond the grasp of yourself or any other individual human being, nor is it pertinent to the discussion at hand. (Nor is it a subject I feel will be fruitful to discuss further within this context)

It is completely pertinent of the discussion because you are treating the universe as a mind that works in a similar fashion as our minds do. You are trying to derive a moral imperative from the workings of the universe, in the same way some darwinists tried to derive a moral imperative from evolution. hence why you imply the universe is self-aware, because you are treating it under moral categories that only apply to human societies.

Under strictly precise scientific definitions, self-awareness implies a very developed nervous system and only applies to organisms. The universe is not a very developed nervous system, and in fact, it is not an organism at all. Trying to disprove that there are invisible pink unicorns, or that we are brains in a vat may be beyond my "grasp", but such questions are meaningless and unable to be answered with logic or reason for they are not based on a pictoral representation of reality.

What is scientifically verifiable is the sensitivity of human physiology and psychology to the rotations and movements of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, other planets in the solar system, etc. which, from my understanding, is the primary purpose of the "holiday" rituals and calender-systems of most cultures.

Beyond the physiological effects that may or not be verifiable to the rotations and movements of the earth (I do not know about this) there is nothing that implies that these things result in moral imperatives. We were originally all naked and had a lifespan of about 20-30 years. We also lacked medicine and computers. Whether we are affected physiologically or not by the movement of celestial bodies does not translate to tradition becoming a moral imperative for "maintaining stability of the landbase or harmony with the celestial bodies".

Celestial bodies are awe-inspiring things. I could understand why cultures would find them fascinating enough to base their holidays and cultures from them. Beyond that, I do not see how this "proves" how this is mantaining "harmony" with the celestial bodies.

Are you a solipist? Without humans, there wouldn't be "anyone [sic] talk about" water, (at least in any human language) either, but there would still be water.

I am not a solipsist. However I do understand that such things like "harmony" and "beauty" depend greatly on the context and as such, are generally thrown around as human judgements. Water is not a human judgement and water will always be water regardless of one's judgement. We cannot say the same thing of notions like "harmony" and "beeaty". And even if we discussed under mathematical definitions what is "harmony", like "harmonic" series, and harmony in music, these are extremely idealized notions that are only used as a tool to analyze reality, but do not represent reality itself. For example, there is no such thing as a perfect circle beyond one's mind. But even "if" the mathematical notions of harmony where perfect representations of reality, to imply we can act in this "harmonic way" in relation to the celestial bodies is irrelevant to that mathematical meaning of harmony, and it is only lazy use of language.

Keep in mind Newton did not consider himself a "scientist" but a "natural philosopher" and his "natural philosophy" is essentially the foundation of modern Christianity - A single male god, separate from, and governing over a dead, mechanical universe. This is in contrast to the natural philosophy of, for example, Giordano Bruno

The question of whether the universe is "dead or mechanical" at all is meaningless because the universe is neither a machine or a dead organism. These assumptions of the universe being "dead" just because a sober analysis of it might not satisfy your aesthetic judgements are not scientific, but literary at best.

Agrippa

14th November 2008, 22:06

Are you saying that this is scientifically verifiable or that it has been verified? I don't know if I could ever read a sentence like that and not assume "pseudoscience," but I'm open to being proven wrong.

What, what are you challenging the scientific veracity of? The sensitivity of human physiology and psychology to the rotations and movements of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun? I can try to provide you with verification, if you wish, but the idea that anyone would actually need that notion to be verified is in of itself perplexing.

Agrippa

14th November 2008, 22:56

Now, in regards to Marmot, with all due respect, I am both uninterested in and unimpressed by what your college major happens to be.

Nor am I interested in defending the position of other people, with possibly entirely unrelated political positions, that you've debated in the past and are no longer present to defend their positions themselves, regardless of how much my position may "remind" you of theirs. For example, I did not claim that "netwon was 'wrong' because he stopped looking for 'what is' and rather engaged with appearances", therefore I am not going to defend this claim. (Which is good because I can barely decipher its meaning. Whether this is the fault of the "Larouche kid" in question in making the original point or yourself in reiterating it remains ambiguous) Furthermore, attacking a point on the grounds that it was made by a "Larouche kid", or that it "reminds" you of an argument once made by a "Larouche kid", is not sound logic, Mr. College Boy.

The sum of your argument seems to accusing me of "trying to derive a moral imperative from the workings of the universe" - which is the polar opposite of my intentions. Keeping in mind that "morality" is merely Latin for "behavior", I'm in fact trying to make the argument that the "morality" of certain cultures was derived from their understanding of the workings of the universe.

You go on to accuse me of "treating it [the universe] under moral categories that only apply to human societies". Once more, you've succeded in creating a polar reversal of my position. Human societies create "mores" because they succeed in fulfilling certain wants and needs - these wants and needs are obviously bound and defined by the nature of the universe. Thus much of what constitutes "human morality" is a reflection of how the universe operates, not the other way around.

Your own position seems confused and uncertain. On the one hand you say that "water will always be water regardless of one's judgement" and on the other you say that "there is no such thing as a perfect circle beyond one's mind". One minute characteristics percieved by the human mind (the nature of water) exist regardless of human percpetion, the next minute principles of natural science are non-existent "beyond one's mind". I myself have no interest in drawing out a pointless Internet debate on the subject of eschatology, because it's irrelevant to the subject at hand (the motivations of my social conservatism)

I can only briefly touch on your continued insistance on broaching the subject of the universe as "alive" or "self-aware". Firstly, we would have have an agreed definition of "the universe" (an excessively vague term) to continue this topic of conversation.

Secondly you state that "[u]nder strictly precise scientific definitions, self-awareness implies a very developed nervous system and only applies to organisms". This sentence raises multiple questions
1) Is "very" (as in "very devloped") a "strictly percise scientific definition"
2) If you scoff at the idea of human concepts such as "beauty" and "harmony" having any meaning outside of human judgement, why don't you apply the same standards to concepts such as "scientific definition"?
3) Who, exactly, has agreed upon this "scientific definition", and how does their agreeing upon it make it correct?
4) How do you define "nervous system" and "organism"?

Your attempt to appeal to ridicule by comparing my ideas to belief in "invisible pink unicorns" is trite and unoriginal, so it doesn't deserve much recognition at all. Considering I've already identified myself as an "adherent of the religious values that existed in most of Europe before Christianization", it makes me wonder why you would think using a unicorn, a symbol of pre-Christian religious values, would be an effective appeal to ridicule when against me. (And what's to be gained by making the unicorn "pink"? Is it because pink is an effimine color?)

Your other comments are non-sequtiors, but I'll adress them out of amusement and boredom? "We were originally all naked". Huh? "We" were originally nothing, because the material our bodies are made out of has always existed in some form. If you mean to say our ancestors were originally naked, obviously, because they have fur. We don't have fur, and thus we wear clothes.

"We", (by which I assume you mean our ancestors) "had a lifespan of about 20-30 years." Perhaps, although I'd enjoy a citation. It's not as if someone living in, say, the Bronze age, would keel over at age 20, rather "lifespan" statistics of such nature reflect the greater risks that existed in their lifestyles as opposed to ours. If your intention is to demonstrate how this is a negative thing, you've failed to do so. (Would you rather die in a hospital bed, your dried feces caked onto your body because your collostomy bag exploded and your nurse hasn't notice?) "We also lacked medicine", (I can't think of any human society that was documented as having no form of medical practice and the human practice of medicine mimics similar behaviors in other species of animals) "and computers". Given the general intelligence of your comments, I fail to see how the latter would be so disastrous. ;)

synthesis

15th November 2008, 00:07

What, what are you challenging the scientific veracity of? The sensitivity of human physiology and psychology to the rotations and movements of the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun? I can try to provide you with verification, if you wish, but the idea that anyone would actually need that notion to be verified is in of itself perplexing.

I believe you also included "planets and other celestial bodies." Human psychology is affected by the amount of sunlight we get, which is influenced by seasons, true; that's about all I've seen to be definitively proven.

I also find it curious that you emphatically argue for the verifiability of these effects and then question why anyone would want to verify them.

You believe in astrology, don't you? I mean, I'm superstitious too; I knock on wood, but I would never argue that its effects can be proven scientifically.

synthesis

15th November 2008, 00:09

"adherent of the religious values that existed in most of Europe before Christianization"

Also, this claim seems meaningless in the context you present it. Do you mean you're a polytheist? That would be the most accurate interpretation of your statement.

black magick hustla

15th November 2008, 00:12

Nor am I interested in defending the position of other people, with possibly entirely unrelated political positions, that you've debated in the past and are no longer present to defend their positions themselves, regardless of how much my position may "remind" you of theirs. For example, I did not claim that "netwon was 'wrong' because he stopped looking for 'what is' and rather engaged antwith appearances", therefore I am not going to defend this claim. (Which is good because I can barely decipher its meaning. Whether this is the fault of the "Larouche kid" in question in making the original point or yourself in reiterating it remains ambiguous)

It is not whether you want to defend "idealism" or not, it is the fact that you are an idealist. Whatever I said relating to the Larouche kid was more of anecdote than an argument (including the college major thing), however.

The sum of your argument seems to accusing me of "trying to derive a moral imperative from the workings of the universe" - which is the polar opposite of my intentions. Keeping in mind that "morality" is merely Latin for "behavior", I'm in fact trying to make the argument that the "morality" of certain cultures was derived from their understanding of the workings of the universe.

Actually, if you had defined your opinion as merely an observation of how societies had tried to derive their moral behavior as what they perceived certain natural phenomena your opinion would be fine. However you explicitly said: "I think traditions are necessary to maintain the stability of the landbase, maintain harmony with the motions of the planet and other celestial bodies". This opinion is reactionary because it justifies social conservatism through some hazy notion of "harmony" which has more to do with your personal use of the word "harmony" and with your inability to look at the universe without implying it is self-aware.

You go on to accuse me of "treating it [the universe] under moral categories that only apply to human societies". Once more, you've succeded in creating a polar reversal of my position. Human societies create "mores" because they succeed in fulfilling certain wants and needs - these wants and needs are obviously bound and defined by the nature of the universe. Thus much of what constitutes "human morality" is a reflection of how the universe operates, not the other way around.

It is true that morality is a reflection of the base. However this is very different from arguing for that "tradition is important to mantain harrmony with the celestial bodies" because here you are superimposing your own apriorism to the universe and treating it as having some sort of moral meaning. Whether carbon was formed in the stars, or that the universe is still expanding are just things that happen and beyond that, any other category applied to it is aprioristic and idealistic. After all, how can you even "consciously try" to be in harmony with this things? You cannot consciously try to behave "naturally" because that is implying that human beings are not animal species subject to the same physical constraints as any other organism.

Your own position seems confused and uncertain. On the one hand you say that "water will always be water regardless of one's judgement" and on the other you say that "there is no such thing as a perfect circle beyond one's mind". One minute characteristics percieved by the human mind (the nature of water) exist regardless of human percpetion, the next minute principles of natural science are non-existent "beyond one's mind".
I do not think I have to explain the difference between pure mathematics and water. However, have you ever seen a perfect circle? Or a perfect line? This is because these are intellectual tools to analyze reality, they do not constitute themselves a perfect representation of reality. It is like saying a computational model of the universe constitutes the universe itself, which is not true for it is merely a tool.

I can only briefly touch on your continued insistance on broaching the subject of the universe as "alive" or "self-aware". Firstly, we would have have an agreed definition of "the universe" (an excessively vague term) to continue this topic of conversation.

:shrugs: The universe is the totality of objects and phenomena that exist. I do not think there is an argument beyond this one that does not touch metaphysics and meaningless mystiicism.

1) Is "very" (as in "very devloped") a "strictly percise scientific definition"

I am not a biologist but generally self-awareness in the most rigorous terms is treated in a similar fashion.

If you scoff at the idea of human concepts such as "beauty" and "harmony" having any meaning outside of human judgement, why don't you apply the same standards to concepts such as "scientific definition"?

It is true that scientific definitions have a human element and as such could sometimes be flawed. However, I generally do trust more "science" because it atleast attempts to clarify by having rigorous definitions of concepts than any other of the methodologies to understand reality. Furthermore, I do know that science has a predictive quality beyond most other fields, so it seems reasonable to me to use this definitions. Science attempts to study things that might be actually argued to be true or false.There is no "true or false" in beautiful because a debate on what is beauty is beyond a pictoral representation of reality. There cannot be concensus on what is "beauty" and "harmonic" (unless the latter is used under mathematics).

After all, how can can you be right or wrong on "beauty"?

3) Who, exactly, has agreed upon this "scientific definition", and how does their agreeing upon it make it correct?
I do not have time or the motivation to exchange citations in this one. However, I am pretty certain this is a scientific concensus. Just ask someone who does research in biology and I doubt they will give you a different answer. It is like if you argued that life requires carbon molecules and then I asked you who agrees with this.

Regardless if "agreeing upon it" makes it correct or not, the concepts biologists try to explain can either be true or false. THe ideas you put forward, like the idea of the universe being "dead or alive" through some hazy use of language are meaningless because they cannot be agreed or disagreed because they lie beyond a pictoral representation of reality. They are rather, failed attempts of describing "private objects" of yours. I.e. they might say something about your emotional state but they are meaningless and cannot be argued for or against.

Howdo you define "nervous system" and "organism"?

See my post above.

Your attempt to appeal to ridicule by comparing my ideas to belief in "invisible pink unicorns" is trite and unoriginal, so it doesn't deserve much recognition at all. Considering I've already identified myself as an "adherent of the religious values that existed in most of Europe before Christianization", it makes me wonder why you would think using a unicorn, a symbol of pre-Christian religious values, would be an effective appeal to ridicule when against me. (And what's to be gained by making the unicorn "pink"? Is it because pink is an effimine color?)

its a reference to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_unicorn

This is why it is "unoriginal".

Your other comments are non-sequtiors, but I'll adress them out of amusement and boredom? "We were originally all naked". Huh? "We" were originally nothing, because the material our bodies are made out of has always existed in some form. If you mean to say our ancestors were originally naked, obviously, because they have fur. We don't have fur, and thus we wear clothes.

:rolleyes:. I know sometimes human communication can be a *****.

"We", (by which I assume you mean our ancestors) "had a lifespan of about 20-30 years." Perhaps, although I'd enjoy a citation.
Who cares. The point is that average lifespan was dramatically shorter thousands of years ago.

It's not as if someone living in, say, the Bronze age, would keel over at age 20, rather "lifespan" statistics of such nature reflect the greater risks that existed in their lifestyles as opposed to ours. If your intention is to demonstrate how this is a negative thing, you've failed to do so.
I am trying to demonstrate that your idea of "natural behavior" is silly at best. How can you say something is "natural behavior" for humans and something else is not?

(Would you rather die in a hospital bed, your dried feces caked onto your body because your collostomy bag exploded and your nurse hasn't notice?)

I'd rather live a longer life, is that what you mean.

"We also lacked medicine", (I can't think of any human society that was documented as having no form of medical practice and the human practice of medicine mimics similar behaviors in other species of animals) "and computers". Given the general intelligence of your comments, I fail to see how the latter would be so disastrous. ;)

This is just silly.

Lenin's Law

19th November 2008, 04:46

I consider myself a socialist, and I am left when it comes to social care and economics.

But I am socially right when it comes to non-economic (social) issues. My beliefs stem from the Confucian beliefs that I grew up with.

Which you should learn to challenge..vigorously.

I grew up with reactionary beliefs as well; as did many others. Whether they come from a Christian, Jewish, Islamic or Confucian background it really doesn't matter. I'm taking a wild guess here that maybe your parents weren't revolutionary socialists either? Hmm..seems there's a lot your parents were wrong about eh?

Also you and some others are misinterpreting what Engels was saying in Private Property and the State. As someone else pointed out already, he was referring to the exploitative nature in the way that in ancient Greek society full grown men were able to sexually take advantage of young boys. Nowhere does he even say "homosexuality" demonstrating the issue was not that but the exploitation involved. Most importantly, neither Marx nor Engels ever tried to rally public opinion to support homophobic beliefs; what is often used by historians is usually taken out of context from their personal correspondence; which really has nothing to do with their political arguments and can be compared to two old friends having a joke behind closed doors. Virtually anyone can look bad if we take what is meant for private consumption into the public world.

Finally, even if Marx/Engels had homophobic views it really doesn't matter. If you're a socialist or Marxist reading them, you read them not as a guide to personal social/moral beliefs (which Marx/Engels of course never intended to be whatsoever) nor as some kind of religous scripture where every word, (including private correspondence) will be believed verbatim, without taking into consideration the context of the 19th century and all the common cultural and social mores that went along with it that we now (thankfully) have progressed from.