incest between adults--your opinion on that. [Archive]

Module

14th November 2008, 21:59

What 'ethics' does it concern, to you?
What two consenting adults do in their private life is totally up to them.
I would imagine that the thing that prevents two siblings from finding eachother attractive is the life time spent together, from children to adult hood, knowing everything about eachother and being totally used to eachother.
I agree with you that the thought of incest is pretty off-putting, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with it. The thought of sexual relations with a lot of people seems off-putting to me, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for other people. I hope you realise that your personal opinions about it are just a product of how you have grown to see your siblings, instead of there actually being something 'ethically' wrong with such relationships?

Kun Fana, it's not unfair to any kids they might have, why would it be?
You mean it's unfair that they would have to deal with parents who are siblings?
Or the potential physical effects of being a child of siblings?

Algernon

14th November 2008, 22:11

So communism allows for incest?

Algernon

14th November 2008, 22:13

I agree with you that the thought of incest is pretty off-putting, but that does not mean that there is anything wrong with it.

Isn't this contradictory? If you find it off-putting then there must be a reason as to why you think it's off-putting. ie. there's something with wrong with incest that turns you off of it.

Module

14th November 2008, 22:20

No, like I said afterwards, the thought of sex with a lot of different people is off putting.
Like, for example, Michael Moore. I think the thought of sex with Michael Moore off putting. Does that mean there's something ethically wrong with his wife finding him attractive?

So communism allows for incest?Yes, it 'allows' for incest, and whatever the hell people want in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Bud Struggle

14th November 2008, 22:21

There is a little bit about Communistic ethics that I find a bit creepy. Maybe I'm getting old, so please excuse my doderance. :cool:

Jazzratt

14th November 2008, 22:22

Isn't this contradictory? If you find it off-putting then there must be a reason as to why you think it's off-putting. ie. there's something with wrong with incest that turns you off of it.

Homosexuals find the idea of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex off putting. This doesn't mean that heterosexuality therefore has "something wrong" with it.

Algernon

14th November 2008, 22:26

There is a little bit about Communistic ethics that I find a bit creepy. Maybe I'm getting old, so please excuse my doderance. :cool:

Agreed.

Would I be correct in saying that communist ethics is essentially extreme moral relativism?

Bud Struggle

14th November 2008, 22:27

Homosexuals find the idea of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex off putting. This doesn't mean that heterosexuality therefore has "something wrong" with it.

And NAMBLA will find sleeping with young boys just fine. You have a problem with child molestation?

14th November 2008, 22:35

And NAMBLA will find sleeping with young boys just fine. You have a problem with child molestation?

molestation-consensual sex, hmmmm do you see the difference?

Fuserg9:star:

Module

14th November 2008, 22:37

Agreed.

Would I be correct in saying that communist ethics is essentially extreme moral relativism?
Wait, so you're not even going to respond to my post?
But yes, moral relativism. Don't know what you mean by 'extreme' moral relativism .. it's not a matter of degree.

Sankofa

14th November 2008, 22:37

And NAMBLA will find sleeping with young boys just fine. You have a problem with child molestation?

Are you really trying to say two consenting adults, who happen to be siblings, voluntarily having a sexual relationship is on the same level as child molestation?

I would disagree. I think the same as comrades earlier in the post; what an adult does in the privacy in their own bed room is certainly none of my nor anyone else's business.

Laws towards incest (USA) vary depending on state; I believe in mine own it's illegal. I figure, if you're not hurting anyone, what does it matter?

Sentinel

14th November 2008, 22:38

Agreed.

Would I be correct in saying that communist ethics is essentially extreme moral relativism?I notice that you are an unrestricted member, but mostly post in OI, seem rash to condemn communism, and have a weird avatar. What's your ideology?

Dimentio

14th November 2008, 22:42

Are you really trying to say two consenting adults, who happen to be siblings, voluntarily having a sexual relationship is on the same level as child molestation?

I would disagree. I think the same as comrades earlier in the post; what an adult does in the privacy in their own bed room is certainly none of my nor anyone else's business.

Laws towards incest (USA) vary depending on state; I believe in mine own it's illegal. I figure, if you're not hurting anyone, what does it matter?

Just use protection.

Holden Caulfield

14th November 2008, 22:52

i find it wrong, the capitalist media has warped my mind, i cannot justifty it but im not gonna pretend, people can fuck who they want consensually but its weird in my eyes.

Holden Caulfield voice of ignorance

Jazzratt

14th November 2008, 22:59

And NAMBLA will find sleeping with young boys just fine. You have a problem with child molestation?

That's one hell of a complicated (and unrelated) question. The point is that simply finding something off putting is not grounds enough to condemn it. Objections that I have with people having sex with children is based on questions of harm caused and questions of whether or not a child can consent. Much the same with consensual incest - it causes no harm to people involved, no harm to me and it's consensual there is no reasonable argument for condemning it.

Bud Struggle

14th November 2008, 23:31

molestation-consensual sex, hmmmm do you see the difference?

Fuserg9:star:

Fine, what's the age of concent to you--14?

Are you really trying to say two consenting adults, who happen to be siblings, voluntarily having a sexual relationship is on the same level as child molestation?

I would disagree. I think the same as comrades earlier in the post; what an adult does in the privacy in their own bed room is certainly none of my nor anyone else's business.

Laws towards incest (USA) vary depending on state; I believe in mine own it's illegal. I figure, if you're not hurting anyone, what does it matter?

You make it seem so harsh! If a guy really loves his daughter and she loves him--what's the harm? Nothing forced--just love.

That's one hell of a complicated (and unrelated) question. The point is that simply finding something off putting is not grounds enough to condemn it. Objections that I have with people having sex with children is based on questions of harm caused and questions of whether or not a child can consent. Much the same with consensual incest - it causes no harm to people involved, no harm to me and it's consensual there is no reasonable argument for condemning it.

Very related--what defines the moral limits of sexual relations. Does sex cause harm to children? You seem to think so--maybe not. If it doesn't, is it all right with you?

Robert

15th November 2008, 00:11

Ancient taboo in most cultures. Who knows the origins? I doubt it's purely because some mythical authoritarian god said "no incest!" to some neurotic prophet and that that ended the debate and all the fun.

My guess: 1) an observation among the ancients that marriages outside the family tended to result in more robust offspring, and 2) a sense that marriage outside the family but within the tribe makes the tribe more cohesive. I think those are good reasons.

Dr Mindbender

15th November 2008, 00:13

i certainly think it's hypocritical of any christian to bemoan incest.

If the adam and eve story holds any merit, if it werent for incest none of us would be here.

Jazzratt

15th November 2008, 00:15

Very related--what defines the moral limits of sexual relations.

Harm; physical, mental or emotional.

Does sex cause harm to children? You seem to think so--maybe not.

Depends on your definition of "child" really. An experience that may scar one 12 year old for life could, conceivably, be extremely pleasing to another. I, therefore, am not really sure about whether or not it does in the broadest sense "cause harm to children". I'm that below a certain age all but the most freakishly anomalous children will find the experience unpleasent and distressing and that at some young ages there are risks of physical damage but I'm not entirely sure where these points "cut off" so to speak. I do know it's ridiculous to say that having sex would harm most 14 or 15 year olds.

If it doesn't, is it all right with you?

Yes would be the short answer. It's obviously a little more than that but if the child can give meaningful consent and the sex results in no harm then I cannot actually comprehend it being anything but all right with me.

synthesis

15th November 2008, 00:19

Kun Fana, it's not unfair to any kids they might have, why would it be?
You mean it's unfair that they would have to deal with parents who are siblings?
Or the potential physical effects of being a child of siblings?

I meant the effects of inbreeding. A brother and sister fucking each other is strange to me personally, but that's ultimately their choice as individuals. However, if they had children, those children would not have consented to being the product of such a union and having to suffer those effects.

But that's where it gets tricky. I honestly don't know what differentiates this from eugenics - you could say the same thing about parents whose children would be strongly predisposed towards hemophilia or Down's Syndrome.

Any argument you could make against incest would have to use the same logic used to justify eugenics or the banning of, say homosexuality - you know, the whole "we weren't made for that" line.

To me, incest is a lot like crack in the sense that the logic used to ban it would have other implications that I don't agree with - yet I'm still not totally comfortable with taking a "moral relativist" stance on either of them.

Bud Struggle

15th November 2008, 00:21

Harm; physical, mental or emotional.

Depends on your definition of "child" really. An experience that may scar one 12 year old for life could, conceivably, be extremely pleasing to another. I, therefore, am not really sure about whether or not it does in the broadest sense "cause harm to children". I'm that below a certain age all but the most freakishly anomalous children will find the experience unpleasent and distressing and that at some young ages there are risks of physical damage but I'm not entirely sure where these points "cut off" so to speak. I do know it's ridiculous to say that having sex would harm most 14 or 15 year olds.

Yes would be the short answer. It's obviously a little more than that but if the child can give meaningful consent and the sex results in no harm then I cannot actually comprehend it being anything but all right with me.

Excellent answer. I don't agree, but your stance is consistant with everything else I understand about Communism.

Anti Freedom

15th November 2008, 00:37

"Is the incest more dangerous? No, hardly; it spreads the links of the families and returns consequently more active the love of the citizens for the fatherland; it is dictated to us by the primary laws of Nature, our feelings vouch for it, and nothing is more enjoyable than an object we have coveted over the years. The first institutions favor incest; one finds it in society's origins; it is consecrated in all the religions; all the laws favored it. If we traverse the world, we will find the established incest everywhere. The blacks of the Ivory Coast and of Gabon prostitute their women to their own children; the oldest child of the sons, to the kingdom of Juda, must marry the woman of his father; the peoples of Chiles lying indifferently with their sisters, their girls, and marry often at once the mother and the girl. I dare to assure, in a word, that the incest should be the law of all governments of which fraternity is the basis." - Marquis de Sade, Philosophy in the Bedroom(bad translation, btw)

I mean, heck, look at the argument against incest by Thomas Aquinas:

"SINCE in marriage there is a union of different persons, those persons who ought to reckon themselves as one because of their being of one stock, are properly excluded from intermarrying, that they may love one another more ardently on the mere ground of their common origin. 2. Since the intercourse of man and wife carries with it a certain natural shame, those persons should be prevented from such intercourse who owe one another a mutual reverence on account of the tie of blood. And this is the reason touched on in Leviticus xviii.
3. Excessive indulgence in sexual pleasures makes for the corruption of good manners: for such pleasures of all others most absorb the mind and hinder the right exercise of reason. But such excessive indulgence would ensue, if the intercourse of the sexes were allowed among persons who must necessarily dwell under the same roof, where the occasion of such intercourse could not be withdrawn."

Incest would increase sexual activity! Now really, why would we want to attack something that would increase the amount of sex received, AND that is the foundation of a society based upon fraternity?? That seems utterly absurd! Therefore I must ardently push for more incest!

In all seriousness though, here is what I'd say about incest:

1) The genetic argument does not work, unless you would be willing to say that there is a eugenic role in reproduction. Such that people with major genetic deficiencies would be excluded from the human gene pool.

2) The moral argument does not work simply because there is no common grounding for it to work.

3) The issue of brother-sister incest, and father-daughter incest lacks a perfect connection because in the case of the latter, there is a concern about the age of consent, and about power differentials, such that coercion is a major issue.

Thus, I find incest between adults is hard to attack on freedom preserving grounds.

Robert

15th November 2008, 00:38

If the adam and eve story holds any merit, if it werent for incest none of us would be here.

But it doesn't.

Thunder

15th November 2008, 00:40

I find nothing wrong with consenting adults fucking. Though, if they should be allowed to have children.......I don't know.

danyboy27

15th November 2008, 01:05

seriously, i think it could do some psychological damage to boths of the people implicated in this, and i can guarantee you that most of psychiatrist would think the same.

of course there is exeptions, but that pretty much it.

if a dad fuck his daughter, even if she 18, its bad, particulary if the parent still hold some authority over the children.

Anti Freedom

15th November 2008, 01:27

seriously, i think it could do some psychological damage to boths of the people implicated in this, and i can guarantee you that most of psychiatrist would think the same.

Well, all relations can do some psychological damage to both people involved. I really don't think that there has been a lot of psychological work in consensual incest though, so I think that the ideas of most psychiatrists would not be based upon research or solid reasoning so much as societal tradition.

Algernon

15th November 2008, 05:27

Wait, so you're not even going to respond to my post?

You made your point and answered my question. Not much more for me to say there.

But yes, moral relativism. Don't know what you mean by 'extreme' moral relativism .. it's not a matter of degree.

Moral relativism carries degrees to the extent that some people are willing to put limits on just how "relative" they allow people to get with ethical questions. Some would argue that people are free to determine for themselves what is right/wrong but only insofar as no one is harmed. Others (and I guess this is what I would label as "extreme") see no such limits, regardless of any amount of harm caused.

Algernon

15th November 2008, 05:37

I notice that you are an unrestricted member, but mostly post in OI

To be honest I'm not sure why I'm not restricted. Based on the guidelines I definitely should be. It doesn't matter to me anyways since I'm only interested in this part of the board.

seem rash to condemn communism

I'm not sure if "condemn" is the right word. I disagree with a lot of the theory (class analysis, revolution etc.) but I think communists have a lot of good ideas that I would love to see implemented in the world (for example: universal health care, education etc.) and I admire your sincerity in fighting for these ideals. That being said I do try to keep an open mind and I consider myself to be in a "learning" phase. I have already learned a lot from posting and my years of lurking here. I guess you can say I'm here for discussion and not conversion.

and have a weird avatar

What's so weird about it? I googled "gentleman" and that's what came up. I'm a history buff, and I find 19th century culture to be fascinating. Yes, I am also a nerd.

What's your ideology?

Can't say I have one. I'm honestly not much of an ideologue. As I said in another thread, a good idea is a good idea regardless of who it comes from. TomK said somewhere that it's time everyone, capitalist, communist whateverist, come together (as koombaya as this sounds) and work for real solutions to solve the problems our socities face. I guess that makes me a TomK-ist?:laugh:

synthesis

15th November 2008, 08:23

I find nothing wrong with consenting adults fucking. Though, if they should be allowed to have children.......I don't know.

That's just the thing, though. If they are prohibited from having children based on the idea that the children will be predisposed to what is considered to be "inferiority," why would it also not follow that people with serious genetic conditions should be prohibited from having children?

That's not a rhetorical question - I don't know. I don't think they are equivocal but I can't quite articulate why.

Module

15th November 2008, 08:35

You made your point and answered my question. Not much more for me to say there.
Yes, but you apparently disagree with it, so since I went to the effort of making a response to you, specifically, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Moral relativism carries degrees to the extent that some people are willing to put limits on just how "relative" they allow people to get with ethical questions. Some would argue that people are free to determine for themselves what is right/wrong but only insofar as no one is harmed. Others (and I guess this is what I would label as "extreme") see no such limits, regardless of any amount of harm caused.Well then how on earth could this be considered "extreme", by your standards, when our argument is specifically that people should be free to have incestuous relationships because no one is harmed?

Dr. Rosenpenis

15th November 2008, 22:44

Kids have sex all the time. Consensually. With other children. Most common and natural thing in the world. Read a book on child psychology. The problem is when adults coerce children into having sex with them. I think 14 is a suitable age at which people can make up their minds regarding sex with adults. 0 is a suitable age at which children can make up their minds regarding sex with peers, regardless of family relations.

Sentinel

16th November 2008, 06:41

To be honest I'm not sure why I'm not restricted. Based on the guidelines I definitely should be.

Okay, thanks for a straight-forward reply. You are now restricted.

What's so weird about it? I googled "gentleman" and that's what came up.

Well the guy in it looks like a stereotypical capitalist, high hat and all. :lol:

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

16th November 2008, 07:23

I am not obligated to stop two people from having consensual sex. A lot of idiots in this world pop out children, but I don't intervene.

Elliot_R

16th November 2008, 07:30

SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat

16th November 2008, 07:35

How exactly do you stop it, pray tell? Force DNA tests?

Gleb

16th November 2008, 07:43

incest harms their children. when people are potentially harmed, it should be essential to get involved to prevent harm. just like people are not free to kill, they are not free to have sex with their family.

If birth control is used, your argument is ruined. And what about when the other part of the intercourse is sterile? Or even, what about if the intercourse is of homosexual nature?

No kids, no harm done.

Elliot_R

16th November 2008, 07:49

Gleb

16th November 2008, 08:25

no by encouraging them not to do it. forcing people to do something is counterproductive hence we should encourage them not to. in addition people in the same family having sex together harms me and others who pride themselves on morality. this is the same kind of mentality that will eventually encourage murder etc.

Reading your posts really harms my very intelligence. Thus I'm going to ask you to abolish thyself. Please?

But seriously, I'd really like to know why the society should give a fuck what you think about things that seriously aren't your business. That's why I really dislike most of you moralistic douches; you think that you are somehow better than those of "lower moral fibre" and that we should actually think that those narrow little thoughts wandering in wide void of your head should be somehow relevant.

Now we are going to assume that you and your little mind is not the center of world. Why should those two people in an incestous relationship care about your - heck, they probably don't even know you - opinions when it comes to their sex life? I mean, we are "hurting" them if we are taking their sexual rights away because Elliot of the Internet doesn't understand completely what they are doing. We are telling them to not to do something no one is suffering from just because little chemical mechanisms inside our brains feel disgusted towards it. That's hurting people as irrational restriction of personal liberties always is.

this is the same kind of mentality that will eventually encourage murder etc.This one you pulled from the darkest corners of your arse and I'm not even going to try to rebunk it. This is not 1952 and sexual anormalities have no proven ties to one being a rapist nor a baby eater.

Module

16th November 2008, 09:19

incest harms their children.Well, no, incest has the potential to create children, but not 'harm' them. ;)
Do you, to be consistent, similarly disapprove of people having children if they have a family history of cancer, or perhaps carry a gene that could potentially mean their children develop some kind of disease?
Incest does not mean 6 fingered children, despite what Hollywood will tell you.

in addition people in the same family having sex together harms me and others who pride themselves on morality. this is the same kind of mentality that will eventually encourage murder etc.Are you fucking kidding me? :lol:
If I dislike the colour blue, can I say that everybody that decides to wear blue is 'harming' me?
It's your problem what morals you have, nobody else is obliged to go out of their way because you personally object.

apathy maybe

16th November 2008, 12:18

http://www.revleft.com/vb/incest-t42619/index.html?t=42619
http://www.revleft.com/vb/incest-t58124/index.html?t=58124

TragicClown has said some things in those threads which are worth repeating.

No one seems to object to couples with a proven genetic risk (those who have already had children with genetic disorders) having more kids even though they risk the same degree that such siblings would, so should those people be prohibited as well or do you want to maintain a double standard for some reason?

Or, consider the fact that any healthy couple, including siblings believed to be at risk for passing on genetic illnesses to their children, can when using IVF have their embryos screened with preimplantation genetic diagnosis, which is already a standard practice, and then only have proven healthy embryos implanted. Would it be okay if they had children that way, having no more risks for genetic defects than anyone else, or would that still be too gross?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=891945&postcount=16

Basically though, closed minded people often take their own personal tastes as to what they find gross or disgusting (which are probably as common as they are for evolutionary reasons, but that doesn't make them more or less valid then less common tastes) and declare them to be universial values for everyone, arbitrarily elevating tastes to the level of morality. If this is wrong with homosexuality then clearly its wrong with consensual incest between people of a similar age.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=638503&postcount=20

----

ZeroNowhere

16th November 2008, 12:36

Yes, it 'allows' for incest, and whatever the hell people want in the privacy of their own bedroom.
Wait, so one has to be for incest being legal to be a commie? :O
(I don't wish to make incest illegal, but...)

Module

16th November 2008, 12:43

Well, yes... :confused:
Of course.

Sendo

16th November 2008, 13:00

It doesn't matter what our "thoughts" are.

It all boils down to one of two real options:
1. Devoting resources to preventing or punishing incest.
2. Not devoting resources to preventing or punishing incest.

Most socialists will pick option #2. Anything else is irrelevant and a waste of time. Move on.

Now as for OI discussions, the debate should be really about enforcing somehting like this. Incest won't happen much no matter what. There is only one reasonable argument for option #1, and that's protection of people.

What is the status quo in many parts? Illegal, but you never hear about anyone going to jail for it. Unless it's rape. For silly reasons rape via oral/anal is called sodomy and rape upon family is called incest by the courts. So if we can agree that rape is rape, and the rest is incidental (how it was donbe?) the same can apply for genetic defects with kids the same way for women over 35, cousins, or carriers of illnesses. But then again, incest between siblings carries far more risk than breeding over age 35.

So now we must ask, are we going to enforce laws to ensure that all affected groups do not breed? Who wants to pay for the policing of that? Like with most things, to me, policing does far more harm than good; best to minimize it out of existence.

Dr. Rosenpenis

16th November 2008, 15:17

Well, yes... :confused:
Of course.

Wrong
being a communist has very little to do with opinions regarding incest

Killfacer

16th November 2008, 17:39

This is stupid. Do the people who are saying that incest is wrong beleive that something should actually be done about it? That's just invasive. It's fucking wierd don't get me wrong, but if someone wants to do it then they certainly shouldn't need the state's approval.

JohnnyC

16th November 2008, 17:59

What two (or more) consenting humans do is their own business.You can think what ever you want about incest or any other so called sexual "deviation", but you can't forbid it or interfere with someones right to practice it.

Module

17th November 2008, 00:12

Wrong
being a communist has very little to do with opinions regarding incest
I would say that it does, though not incest, by itself
Communists do not support legal restrictions on harmless personal lifestyle choices.
Legal restrictions on incest run completely counter to the basic socialist tenet of social egalitarianism.

synthesis

17th November 2008, 01:31

Communists do not support legal restrictions on harmless personal lifestyle choices.No, communists want to abolish wage slavery. You don't support these restrictions and should oppose them on the basis of your own opinions and the logic and experience that led you to those opinions. Many people who have an equal if not greater claim to the label of a "real socialist/communist" would not agree with you.

It bothers me when people try and define "socialism" or "communism" (or anything else) as "everything I believe." The abolition of wage slavery is the only core objective of either ideology; everything else is peripheral and should be debated as such. The use of the phrase "un-Communist" and arguments implying "anti-Communism" mirrors the use of the phrase "un-American" in that they are applied arbitrarily and prevent legitimate discussion of the issue itself.

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th November 2008, 01:40

Junius

17th November 2008, 01:44

Agreed with KF.

Communism has never been defined as a specific stance on a specific social issue, be it abortion, incest, or marriage, but for the abolishment of wage slavery and private property as a whole. Trying to turn it into something else is dishonest.

Module

17th November 2008, 02:38

No, communists want to abolish wage slavery. You don't support these restrictions and should oppose them on the basis of your own opinions and the logic and experience that led you to those opinions. Many people who have an equal if not greater claim to the label of a "real socialist/communist" would not agree with you.

It bothers me when people try and define "socialism" or "communism" (or anything else) as "everything I believe." The abolition of wage slavery is the only core objective of either ideology; everything else is peripheral and should be debated as such. Communists want to abolish wage slavery … well, yes. :confused:
Communists do not seek to abolish wage slavery as an end in itself, but because of the material effects of wage slavery. Communists do not seek to abolish class because they would just reasonlessly rather society was organised in a different way, but because of the material effects of class. Communists do not seek to replace capitalism for no reason, but because it is an oppressive economic system.
That is the communist view of the capitalist system and the reason why it must be replaced. The communist analysis of social oppression is that it is sustained by political, economic inequality.
Marx describes social oppression as “the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power” and something that must be overcome if the working class is to achieve its own freedom.
Communists believe that a system is economic equality provides the necessary material conditions for a socially equal society to develop, for social prejudices to wither away, and that such an equal society is desirable.
Supporting legal restrictions on incest not only seems to presuppose the existence of a state to enforce such laws, but also creates a socially unequal society, where one system of morality, divorced from specific economic conditions, or social consensus, or any kind of rationally thought out reason whatsoever is imposed upon a minority of people.
It bothers me when people try to simplify ‘communism’ to the extent that the entire purpose or ideology of the movement is distorted or ignored completely.
LeftCommunist, you are right, communism has never been defined as a specific stance on a specific social issue, but the communist ideology can be defined as that which seeks to establish an egalitarian society, with which some things are inherently incompatible, such as some specific stances on abortion, incest or marriage as they create social, political or economic inequality that is in fundamental opposition to it. Would you disagree?

synthesis

17th November 2008, 02:58

It bothers me when people try to simplify ‘communism’ to the extent that the entire purpose or ideology of the movement is distorted or ignored completely.Who has the right to define "the entire purpose or ideology of the movement"? You? I think you're the one oversimplifying the issue here.

Communism has many different interpretations and methods of implementation. The only idea binding them all together is that wage slavery exists and is worthy of abolition.

Develop your own system of belief and call it Desrumeauxism and say it's influenced by communism - but don't call it Communism and expect everyone to unconditionally bow down and adopt your definition.

redguard2009

17th November 2008, 03:13

Biologically, incestuous pregnancies are harmful to the gene pool and the human race itself. Emotionally, however, I think sex itself is taken far too seriously; the simple act of it is believed by many to be some sort of divine event when really its just a man rubbing his genitalia into a woman's vagina repeatedly until the increasing stimulation evokes a physical response in the form of reproductive matter being ejected from the penis. Big fucking whoop. I jack off every day and it's not like I'm in love with myself or committing an incestuous act. It feels good, so who the fuck cares. Smoking pot or drinking alcohol feels good, should it be taboo to do that with family members? Hell, watching a good movie or TV show can sometimes evoke a nuero-chemical response in my body (in the form of happiness, fear, sadness, etc), should I feel ashamed when I sit down and watch Lost with my kids?

Junius

17th November 2008, 03:19

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
Communists do not seek to abolish wage slavery as an end in itself, but because of the material effects of wage slavery. And what are the most severe consequences of the system we live in? Wages which are barely able to keep workers alive, if they are lucky to get a job. Mass unemployment, homelessness, wars which kill tens of millions in defense of their nation, starvation, racial hatred, genocide, a world which is not able to even provide clean water, the great majority of wealth concentrated in a small minority.

Yet here we have someone trying to define communism by its stance on incest! Some perspective, perhaps.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
Communists believe that a system is economic equality provides the necessary material conditions for a socially equal society to develop, for social prejudices to wither away, and that such an equal society is desirable.So, even you admit that it is only a communist society that allows for 'social prejudices' to be rid of once and for all. So, are you going to struggle for incest rights or struggle against capitalism?

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
Would you disagree?I agree that they are important things. But in the scope of things they are rain-drops in a storm. I see economic inequality as the cause of social inequality, hence my priority is against this system of capitalism, not campaigning for abortion rights, women's rights, incest rights or whatever. Even though I agree with these things.

Module

17th November 2008, 04:25

And what are the most severe consequences of the system we live in? Wages which are barely able to keep workers alive, if they are lucky to get a job. Mass unemployment, homelessness, wars which kill tens of millions in defense of their nation, starvation, racial hatred, genocide, a world which is not able to even provide clean water, the great majority of wealth concentrated in a small minority.

Yet here we have someone trying to define communism by its stance on incest! Some perspective, perhaps. It is not a matter of definition by it’s stance on incest but a matter of consistency.
I don’t see why you’d call my perspective into question when this thread is entirely about incest. How on earth could this be a reflection of my perspective? :confused:

So, even you admit that it is only a communist society that allows for 'social prejudices' to be rid of once and for all. So, are you going to struggle for incest rights or struggle against capitalism?
I agree that they are important things. But in the scope of things they are rain-drops in a storm. I see economic inequality as the cause of social inequality, hence my priority is against this system of capitalism, not campaigning for abortion rights, women's rights, incest rights or whatever. Even though I agree with these things. I have never personally ‘struggled for incest rights’, but I don’t see why if I did that would be instead of struggle against capitalism.
This thread is about incest, not capitalism. Although ‘incest rights’ is obviously not a very good example, much social discrimination is very much worth struggling against in the here and now. I have never suggested that this is an end in itself, but oppression is oppression, and I would struggle for women’s rights and abortion rights as they have a direct material effect on the lives of people in the here and now. Incest rights are obviously a trivial example of how this could be the case, but as I said, incest is the thing that we are actually talking about.
I don't see why you're trying to twist this into an argument of how I consider 'incest rights' more important than struggling against the capitalist system. Obviously this is not the case.

Module

17th November 2008, 04:38

Who has the right to define "the entire purpose or ideology of the movement"? You? I think you're the one oversimplifying the issue here.

Communism has many different interpretations and methods of implementation. The only idea binding them all together is that wage slavery exists and is worthy of abolition.

Develop your own system of belief and call it Desrumeauxism and say it's influenced by communism - but don't call it Communism and expect everyone to unconditionally bow down and adopt your definition. Please don’t be obnoxious. Of course it has many different interpretations. So does anarchism, so does feminism, etc. etc.. Does that mean that each different ‘interpretation’ is valid or reasonable? No. Social anarchists contest the idea that ‘national anarchism’, and ‘anarcho capitalism’ are genuine forms of anarchism because they see it as fundamentally opposed to anarchist ideology. Similarly, in the feminist movement, ‘separatist feminism’ is seen by many feminists as being a contradiction. Do they, in your view, have no right to this opinion?
Communism is not only bound together by the idea that wage slavery exists and is worthy of abolition. Communists seek to replace capitalism with communism. Communism has a definition; an egalitarian society; social, political, economic equality.
Political positions that promote or create social, political or economic inequality are inherently opposed to communism.

Junius

17th November 2008, 04:55

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
I don’t see why you’d call my perspective into question when this thread is entirely about incest. It was. Until you put forth the claim that someone isn't a communist, unless they have a specific view on incest; i.e. they agree that it should be legal. In my view, this is incorrect. A worker can be opposed to capitalism whilst holding a certain view on incest which is opposed to yours. Just like a worker can be opposed to capitalism whilst holding a certain view on abortion opposed to yours. Support for abortion has never been a precondition for striking.

As Marx said in the Manifesto:

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
I have never personally ‘struggled for incest rights’, but I don’t see why if I did that would be instead of struggle against capitalism.Because typically such movements want to see change within capitalism. If you, as a communist, accept that only the abolishment of capitalism will rid of such reactionary social standards, then you hold a contradictory position.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
This thread is about incest, not capitalism.Communists don't debate the merits of something in a philosophical void, but the relationship between the social issue and capitalism; I don't support abortion because of a certain philosophical stance on whether a fetus constitutes a 'person', whether abortion is 'murder' but on the grounds that restricting abortion is socially disadvantageous to female workers.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
much social discrimination is very much worth struggling against in the here and nowThis depends on whether you think such change is plausible. So far as the West is concerned, most feminist movements are pro-capitalist movements. Actually, this is probably true of most feminist movements around the world. Meanwhile, these bourgeoisie feminists see nothing wrong with supporting this or that slaughter of the working class, or the conditions of female workers in textile factories, for example. So no, I don't think I should support such movements. As a communist I should point out that whether abortion rights are granted or not, whether woman are allowed to vote or not, the main enemy is capitalism and that for all the calls of equality we cannot be equal in this system.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
I don't see why you're trying to twist this into an argument of how I consider 'incest rights' more important than struggling against the capitalist system. Obviously this is not the case.Fine then.

synthesis

17th November 2008, 05:13

Do they, in your view, have no right to this opinion?They have the right to their opinion. So do you.

You still don't have the right to define "the entire purpose and ideology of the movement."

Some of the dialogue on this forum is unintentionally hilarious.

A: "Dirty laundry is un-Communist!"
B: "But Marx and Lenin were Communist, and they had dirty laundry."
A: "I'm not defined by what Marx and Lenin said and did!"
B: "So if they didn't have the right to establish a standard Communist dogma, why do you have that right? Can't you argue against dirty laundry because of its inherent characteristics and not because it goes against the dogma you seek to create?"
A: "..."
B: "..."
A: "Grape soda is un-Communist!"

Dogma is still worthless even when it's the one you created and established.

Module

17th November 2008, 05:21

It was. Until you put forth the claim that someone isn't a communist, unless they have a specific view on incest; i.e. they agree that it should be legal. In my view, this is incorrect. A worker can be opposed to capitalism whilst holding a certain view on incest which is opposed to yours. Just like a worker can be opposed to capitalism whilst holding a certain view on abortion opposed to yours. Support for abortion has never been a precondition for striking.

As Marx said in the Manifesto:

"In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:
(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.
(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."
Yes, I agree a worker can be opposed to capitalism whilst holding a certain view on incest which is opposed to mine.
I do see your point of view and perhaps I have been a little ‘extreme’ with my issues of ‘consistency’.
But do you think, then, a worker can support the oppression of other workers by, for example, calling for the murder or imprisonment of certain ethnic minorities, thinking that women, or non-whites should not have the right to vote, or maybe even supporting something like slavery, or whatever, and still call themselves a communist?
In reference to your quote, this part “They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole” social discrimination is divisive and oppressive, it is not in the interests of the proletariat as a whole. Marx himself acknowledged this, as I demonstrated. So I still do not see how somebody who holds socially discriminatory positions could be seen as having “no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole”.

Because typically such movements want to see change within capitalism. If you, as a communist, accept that only the abolishment of capitalism will rid of such reactionary social standards, then you hold a contradictory position.What bearing do ‘typical’ movements supporting incest rights have upon my own politics as a communist?

Communists don't debate the merits of something in a philosophical void, but the relationship between the social issue and capitalism; I don't support abortion because of a certain philosophical stance on whether a fetus constitutes a 'person', whether abortion is 'murder' but on the grounds that restricting abortion is socially disadvantageous to female workers.So do I, what is your point?

This depends on whether you think such change is plausible. So far as the West is concerned, most feminist movements are pro-capitalist movements. Actually, this is probably true of most feminist movements around the world. Meanwhile, these bourgeoisie feminists see nothing wrong with supporting this or that slaughter of the working class, or the conditions of female workers in textile factories, for example. So no, I don't think I should support such movements. As a communist I should point out that whether abortion rights are granted or not, whether woman are allowed to vote or not, the main enemy is capitalism and that for all the calls of equality we cannot be equal in this system.
I don’t see the relevance this has to my argument.

Junius

17th November 2008, 05:48

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
But do you think, then, a worker can support the oppression of other workers by, for example, calling for the murder or imprisonment of certain ethnic minorities, thinking that women, or non-whites should not have the right to vote, or maybe even supporting something like slavery, or whatever, and still call themselves a communist?
So far as racist workers are concerned, I would argue that their racism has no validity, that it serves the purposes of capitalists and that workers must unite on a class basis alone. I give no support to the murdering of ethnic minorities, nor do I give support to ethnic minorities which murder, as opposed to other leftists. In either case, I argue for fraternization.

So far as a worker thinking that a woman should not have the right to vote; this doesn't particularly concern me more than other issues, since I don't support voting so I don't particularly see it as something which is going to change the position of the working class in class struggle. So far as someone would judge my political views on the basis of my gender, of course I would oppose it and again point out that the existence of someone's vagina doesn't change our class interest. I don't think this is really a practical problem today; most people in the West agree with liberal feminism - i.e. that men and women should be equal in law. If a worker holds a chauvinistic position, for example, thinking that it is a job for a woman to clean the house, then I am not going to get on my moral high-horse and argue with this worker to prove the point. In such a scenario I would still argue, for example, for strike action (and this isn't a hypothetical, I might add). Their social views do not change our class interest. And more to the point, I see their social views as a reflection of our economic situation, and nothing but a challenge to our economic situation can change the former; capitalism being unable or unwilling to provide, for example, cheap day-care service to all women or wages and jobs comparable to men's.

So far as a worker supporting slavery is concerned - none today support the concept of slavery. Many "support" wage-slavery. Our job is to struggle against that.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
In reference to your quote, this part “They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole” social discrimination is divisive and oppressive, it is not in the interests of the proletariat as a whole.No, it is certainly not. The question is how we oppose it; by working class solidarity and an end to capitalism, or by campaigning politicians to keep abortion laws, for example.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
Marx himself acknowledged this, as I demonstrated.Marx himself also noted, in Capital, that for all capitalism had done to put woman and children in the position of men in the workplace, that this wasn't something to brag about. It certainly wasn't done on the basis of capitalists recognizing that woman and men are equal. I suggest you read it.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
So I still do not see how somebody who holds socially discriminatory positions could be seen as having “no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole”.For example: someone opposes abortion but still opposes capitalism. They hold a wrong social position RE woman, but still hold a progressive stance RE the proletariat.

Originally posted by Desrumeaux
I don’t see the relevance this has to my argument.That reform is obsolete and so are partial-struggles.

I think this will probably be my last post on this since I've talked about this stuff ad nauseum in this thread and others, and it doesn't particularly interest me versus other areas of my politics. Thank you for putting forth your opinions, however.