No one here believes pic related, I hope?
Love Under Communism
good luck with that lmao
Nothing lost with a mute.
No, I'm not a retard.
Why does it seem like the "queer" anarchists are always the ones that say shit like this? Don't gay people feel love?
Stirner literally said the opposite of this
why are people this retarded
thanks for making me want to slit my wrists OP
no its scientifically proven gays don't feel love or any other of the normal human feelings except depraved lust for cock
Because any "queer" leftist is a massive faggot. This isn't to say homosexuals are reactionary and should be excluded, but when you make queer a part of your philosophy it's guaranteed you are an obnoxious faggot and a retard as well.
True love isn't possessive. Love exists outside a capitalist context, otherwise why have we been talking about it through tribal, feudal, socialist and capitalist systems?
asking for a specific kind of cohabitual relationship is not the same thing as owning someone.
also does the sexual free market user know about this argument
should we kill commies too???
you heard it here first, communism is capitalist af
It is vice versa. This stance, although it may have been suggested by the fringe marxist thinkers, found itself perfectly at home with capitalism. Communist states, on the other hand, stayed away from it.
The reason for it is that natural sexual relations are healthy both for an individual and society longterm, but are unprofitable.
Sexuality doesn't exist but monogamy should, just going around fucking anyone seems selfish and disgusting t b h
i mean who really cares
i do bitch
Get rid of both love and sex. Test tube babies bred to have no emotions. That's the future I want.
Dystopian as fuck, dude.
pic related is what we'll have under communism
What the fuck is that
Lightly pornographic pictures and cartoons, coming from Japan.
it's called anime, grandpa. it's cool.
No this is.
how about both
The weak Stirnerian attack on love is wrong, but the abolition of monogamy and the expansion of desire beyond the family is definitely necessary. Capitalism functions by isolating desire to the family.
Why do black flags insist on making awful posts like this? It's radlib garbage.
Why are tankies afraid from the logical conclusion of their own ideology?
Now this is shitposting. Most people would prefer to be monogamous or "serial monogamist" where they are with one person at a time, but change partners now and then. As for families, kids form bonds with their parents and barring abuse or whatever would usually choose to associate with them once they become somewhat independent. It's true that our current society makes kids depend way too much on their parents for support. In communism, kids would really be raised by the village.
Hate to do the "as a" thing, but as a queer and an anarchist (not a "queer anarchist"), it's extremely stupid. Most of these people appear to me to be in the "I'm becoming the thing that most upsets my parents" cohort, and instead of actually trying to deconstruct these concepts or invent new theory even, they are literally just rationalizing why the things their parents hate are both real and good actually.
There are plenty of monogamous species. Are they that because of capitalism? The post in the pic reminds me of the claim that being gay is a disorder caused by capitalism and especially common among bourgies, even though there are animals with homosexual orientation (I don't mean they occasionally mate with the same sex, but that they consistently seek out the same sex).
A weaker case can be made that the notion of marriage for life was shaped by the economic system: The importance of
1) inheriting wealth if you want your offspring to not have a shit life and
2) wealth as leverage with that leverage being weaker when the wealth is managed by a group.
It's not shitposting, many people have a very reified view of love.
severe case of identity. i suggest you drink some water and eat some bread it's will be a 'Lacan ing' regime for 2 month.
Love is fucking cool tho.
If you're talking about the actual interpersonal dynamic of a relationship then no, but if you're talking about the bourgeois commodity then yes.
what the fuck, this isn't a rafiq post.
sacred love is a spook.
love is a series of physical chemical reactions in the brain and it feels nice as fuck.
He misinterpreted Stirner.
Its not entirely incorrect. Love can certainly, like most things, become a spook. Someone can definitely be 'spooked by love'. That doesn't make it meaningless.
Surely its always possible to fuck people and not 'feel possession over them' although I'm willing to concede that capitalism likely encourages sexually possessive behaviour.
Either way I see no reason why sexual possessiveness would stop with capitalism since outside harems and sexual slavery such sexual possessiveness is hardly a facet of private but rather personal property.
Finally monogamy (like polygamy) is certainly related through institutions such as marriage to land ownership and property which would be rendered void with socialism but the idea that monogamous relationships between a pair of people would simply no longer happen under socialism is delusional. There may well be more polyamorous groups but there is no reason to suspect people would stop living and loving in pairs altogether.
LOL, I'd completely forgotten about that insane troll. She/he/it was one of the worst idpol posters on that board.
That said I don't doubt that abolishing capitalism would tend to change the way relationships work, after all every other change in the mode of production has caused pretty massive changes in that regard, why would it be any different this time?
Wilhelm Reich pls. it's not 1960 anymore. we all know capitalism is perfectly able to recuperate and commodify sexuality, which isn't magical fairy dust but just another biological drive, as exploitable as hunger or thirst.
In case someone would actually question that: we do feel love
Why are you posting that? Does this prove that homos are more capitalist than the others? Also if they do, mind that neoliberalist policies ensure their rights which were non-existent in the past.
nowadays I'd argue the reified idea of sex is as prevalent as the reified idea of love.
Where the fuck are my parades for HATE?
As in general, not towards any specific group. Just celebrating HATRED.
Because unlike love, hate is genuinely subversive and communist.
It's called "having a giggle" while at the same time showcasing how utterly shameless corporations are to use virtue-signalling as advertising.
Wtf I'm a nazi now
This is really not true. In fact Kropotkin argues the exact opposite in Mutual Aid, that in fact, the ability to not a skank is basically the most basic form of Mutual Aid, because you gain nothing from not fucking your sister if you want to, but the tribe gains from you not fucking her, not producing fucked up offspring that need to be cared for etc and so forth, also disease. Remember when people lived in tribal societies incest(by accident) was a big issue and they needed to keep a close eye on blood lines etc, usually there was no enforcement for this.
Also, this prick is pretending love=only hetero straight love, and is actually "straightwashing" the concept of love, which is funny for an obvious SJW slimebag
There is love between friends, love between father and son, mother and child etc, love of Karl Marx, to name but a few things you can love.
Also it is NOT a fucking spook. Love/union of egoists, whatever you wanna call it. Love is highly ego pleasing to both parties, what is more pleasing to the ego than to be loved and adored?
Sad, I think the OP needs some love
It is sacred love that is a spook, not love itself. Love between two individuals does not have to be possessive, nor can it not be mutual between two people. Love can be many things besides that of boyfriend and girlfriend or married couple. This Queer is a slave to past incidents that condemns love and restrict itself to physical pleasure.