"Communists support indecency, polyamory, and polygamy!"

Where did this meme start? Because out of all the leftist literature I've read, I never did see a single one mention support for any of these things. On the contrary, I saw more of the opposite.

Other urls found in this thread:


IDK, I guess some weirdo radlibs are into that shit and people tend to confuse them for commies.

uncontrolled promiscuity was the form that sexual relations took under the stage of primitive communism (i.e. before private property was a thing)

I suppose it's a mix of that and muh Karltural Marxism

Rad-libs and anarcholibs were/are super into that shit and were/still are the dominant group of "leftists" involved in western politics (this was especially true during the Cold War, since those were the only leftist groups that were even allowed to exist in many places.)

The anthropological record disputes that.

You understand Engels argues in that book that it is the bourgeoisie relationship that is prone to promiscuity and that it is only the proletariat that will be able to achieve true monogamous relationships.

Under communism, people would be free to choose whether or not they are monogamous without having to conform to bourgeois morality and norms.

Refer to , Engels argues that almost all relationships will be monogamous regardless as it will no longer be financially based but based on voluntary sex-love. Its less that polygamy or polyamory will be banned, but instead that it will be abolished.

Post-60s radlibs. But a lot of it is just projection. Not that the "left" hasn't had it's fair share of promiscuous (or "deviant") figures, but the hypocrisy is palpable when "moral vanguard" engages in rampant 'de'generacy'.
The founder of British Fascism for example was known for her drug-fueled orgies, the SS encouraged promiscuity, and American neo-nazis have had several cases of high-profile (pedo) sex offenders.
Then of course there's cases like Trump himself (who was self-admitted 'best friends' with Jeffrey Epstein), Berlusconi, rumors surrounding Putin (just look up that weird video of him kissing a boy), etc.

Meh there will always be some group of people ot there living a hedonistic lifestyle. Changing the modes of production will hardly alter some people's lust and lack of self control.

I agree that there may be a few but disagree on anything substantial, though I am quite economically determinist. I'm of the opinion that almost all social relations are predicated on the economic system and material conditions we exist in.

Those things were always present in leftism, it just didn't always express it. If you've got a soviet empire to build, you want families to produce children, if you're a leftist in present day america who doesn't have to do shit and whose only active position is opposition, that opposition will also be applied to decent, normal families, whose very functionality is seen as part of the problem.

It all comes down to material conditions, in a rich western nation that sustains them, the degenerac.y gene gets activated, in harsher conditions, it stays dormant.

ring the pic where he explodes in murderous narcissistic rage over someone supporting animal rights

Most forms of deviancy have their root in social alienation and material conditions resulting from exploitation in its various forms. We can blame Marcuse and the New-Left for looking at free time from labor as a sensual and therefore sexual in nature to the productive forces. To use those material forces to increase erotic and pleasure from the body was the idea expressed by many neo-Freudians in tge 60s.


There is no moment when leftism listened to the snake, ate the apple, and had fun enter its previously pure body.

According to literally who? I've never heard of "leftists" opposing homogenous monogamous heterosexual relationships. Not even the rabid SJW types.
IF it even exists, it's far from a mainstream opposition position, or even a common fringe one.

Literally what?

Say no more.

Not practicing those is seen as liberating and empowering by them and lands you a place among their subjects of rank, the "minorities".
Not literally, conceptually.
I've never read anything from anyone so completely collapsed into an ideological neurosis as rafiq; the singularity of marxism. He's the complete opposite of a schizophrenic, yet would probably appear much the same if ever seen in person, for madness isn't just irrationality, it's also over-rationality. If for the schizophrenic everything has fallen out of place, for rafiq everything is frozen solid into one place.

Does anyone know if he ever appeared at a meeting or made some other form of appearance?

The french/US/Western New-Left in the 60s/70s

communism effectively liberated woman and right wingers cant imagine a functioning relationship where a woman isn't economically dependent on a mans income because they have no quality as decent human beings

Alexandra Kollontai.
Wilhelm Reich.
Even the Communist Manifesto speaks favorably of "community of women".
"Free love" was the norm in left circles as early as the 50s.
And Lenin had several girlfriends FFS.

This is the heaviest case of autism I've ever seen


Talking about Rafiq here

It's almost like the US and by extension the west spent an entire decade spreading anti-socialist propaganda.

then why did even marx spend time debunking that shit in the fucking manifesto? lol

Who started this meme?
It's a desperate attempt to suck up to right wingers and it's annoying how retards throw basics under the bus to look good for pr.
Fuck off.

dubs wasted on a retard
You're right! Stalin was just sucking up to right wingers!

Capitalism does support western culture. Rationalism, democracy, secularism, equality, etc. These are all things communists support and fascists hate.

polygamy yeah, but if anything polyamory would become *more* common if there weren't such a social stigma against it (manufactured by patriarchy under capitalism)

speak for yourself

Practiced nowhere except decadent imperialist countries. It will not be a thing under communism and will be illegal under socialism.

just like homosexuality amirite?
pick one and only one

Communism is not nicer capitalism. There will be no capital to gain from riding every dick. You will be more of a hoe.

I'm already a hoe, but because I like sex, not because I think I have "capital to gain." Maybe you should try actually talking to women before strawmanning us.


literally early 19th century thinking with no basis in anthropological research



Epic meme For now ofc

Both concepts not directly linked to the West and rarely promoted correctly, my point stands, supporting traditionalism is hypocritical, does more harm for us, and is bootlicking the bootlickers.


When the USSR tried it and the results were pretty much what you'd expect. It didn't last long but was documented at the time and has been a source of propaganda ever since.


Sounds like you need to read more then.

Sexual promiscuity was widespread in the early USSR, which resulted in a massive increase in abortions (which had just been legalized). Not that it's a bad thing; it was better than the rolling back of those socially progressive policies under Stalin.

Nice source material budy

This is all your posts amount to.

wow kill yourself anytime

Why do y'all care so much about what kinds of sexual and romantic relationships people have? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, you don't need to give a shit. Join the GOP or something.

Under communism will I be allowed to have sex with boons?


Why not? What's the point of communism if I can't even have sex with boons?

yo're a nazi, you get shot
end of the story


I'd rather die ten deaths than be deprived of my right to fuck boons!

understandable, have a nice day

Alright goodbye

Bye bye boons!

Goodnight son. Breathe in the gas.

Monkey want a 'nana?



They're crawling all over the place on reddit and tumblr - the anti-natalist morons, "cat moms", "dog dads", feminists who describe marriage as "oppresive", lesbians attempting to talk bisexual women into "giving up" on men.

It's all incredibly infantile, rooted in a combination of Bourgeois Lifestylism and "fuck you mom, fuck you dad, I'm going to raise a Hamster as a human".

this is a classcuck in the realest sense of the word letting porky hold all the women and keeping them from the proles

Well, if you don’t like it, wouldn’t that be good of them to not have children?
I’d rather have a ton of pet “parents” than have poor kids come into a world where they’ll be abused, malnourished, unwanted and having their material conditions be utterly awful.
Marriage doesn’t have to be oppressive (of course we know that, but you don’t have to get married in order to have children, just be in a relationship)
Last time I checked lesbians and co with vaginas could still have children, would they want the danger and trauma in their body? That’s another thing.

The DDR was the most sexually liberal society in history.


We're talking about Socialism here. If there are still kids who are poor and malnourished, your doing it wrong.

Last I checked polygamy and polyamory weren't at all common Also, early DDR was quite conservative on sexual matters (maybe a little too much). I have trouble using late DDR as a reference for socialism when they still allowed exploitative work like prostitution to exist by turning a blind eye to it.

If you are pro-family you're not a leftist. Children aren't their parents property.

Oh yes well I was talking about at the moment.

The fact that you can only think of children and families in terms of property and ownership is the most disturbing part of this.

Family is when parents own their children, that's a fact or else there wouldn't be no families.
Don't post cutesy anime children. You don't care about children nor do you value childhood. You care about children's potential as adults and you value adulthood.

So being people attached to their family are supposed to be some form of lumpenproletariat in your mind? Kys

Well most of these people are quite young - the emotional maturity they possess at 25 may be completely different at 45.
Parents who have many children will openly acknowledge they did a better job raising their 5th kid than their 1st. This is natural.

However it is important to understand why they feel this way and the cultural/economic reasons they do. I've found that the types of people who talk this way are from Anglo/Protestant backgrounds, where they were under stronger influence from the Free Love Movement.
It is much more likely that you will find an American or Brit talk this way, compared to an Irish or French person.

Whilst it is bad to raise a child in such poor conditions, this economic factor is much less pronounced in the West.
Many of the people who are pro-promiscuity and anti-natalist themselves grew up in quite comfortable Nuclear families. I find this bizarre.

"Fuck you mom, fuck you dad. Your Grandchild is going to be a Guinea Pig"

I find that many people who espouse such ridiculous sentiments are not actually that Left-Wing. Pic related.

There are only two types of people that do this: pedos and trans/gay activists who hate their parents because they psychologically tortured them throughout their whole lives. Regardless of which group you are a part of your opinion is still worthless.

Did I said anything like that you fucking moron? I'm talking about anti-familialism: children not being owned by their parents, therefore "family" not being a formal/official group of people recognized by society. It's okay for children to associate with their parents if they want to but if they want to disassociate with them then they should be allowed to.

If you find the notion of revolting against one's parents distasteful then you should stop calling yourself a revolutionary.

Marx was racist and sexist therefore not a leftist (at least not in those issues). And rightism is all about family values so logically an anti-family view would be leftist or else there is no fundamental difference between the Right and the Left.

Or someone who wants children to be respected and treated as individuals since I myself was a child once and know how it felt like to be forced by adults against my will. Nearly every child is tortured by their parents and teachers, including you.

Or under the stronger influence from Puritanism which advocated extreme torture of children by following the Old Testament commandments of beating them up.

Makes perfect sense to me. Children from economically unstable families are forced as a result of their precarious condition to mature faster and therefore their reproductive instinct is very deep-rooted in them and also they adopt the pro-family traditional values of their parents without never questioning. While children from more economically stable families are safe to enjoy their childhood so they mature slower (their reproductive instinct is weaker) and also they have time to reflect and realize that breeding is dumb.

I feel like you completely misunderstood Marx
Ever think this is only you?

I'm no a marxist.

Then why does the overwhelming majority of parents (and the state) schools children against their will and why do they encourage them to grow up and stop acting childish? Why is the entire child-rearing system aimed at turning children into responsible and successful adults instead of just letting them decide what to do?

Actually, I would argue the opposite - it was Protestant cultures who relinquished their ideas of how sex/relationships/family should work in order to attain something more "progressive".

It is very strange to me how Americans believe they have a "Puritanical" society, as they are the ones who gave the world Las Vegas in the early 20th Century and later developed the worlds largest porn industry.
You are not more "Puritanical" than Europe. There are areas which are more ardent in these Traditions.

In Europe, it is largely the Catholic countries who held onto the concept of family.
They also tend to have the highest birth rates, and lowest divorce rates. Nothing "Puritanical" about this (this is a Protestant concept).

Your second point about economic security is nonsense - kids who grew up rich will abstain from family as a result of their lifestyle.
However, poor kids who grew up raised by a single mom are statistically more likely to end up divorced compared to a kid from a Nuclear Household.
It has nothing to do with the speed of "maturing".

You revealed your intentions in multiple ways with that comment.

You can't stop society from recognizing families, such social relations will be determined by the material conditions and economic system people exist in. Given that the extended family has been shown to exist in both proto-socialist and socialist environments, I personally think such families will continue to exist. Also, children are the responsibility of the parent and family as they lack both the maturity and intelligence to make proper informed decisions. In regards to birth parents, they bear the responsibility of having brought the child into the world in the first place.
That's not what "revolutionary" on this board pertains to
Are you sure your on the right board right now?
T-that doesn't follow any sort of logic. Right and Left denotes economic system, not social opinion or values.
No, I think maybe this was just you.

That wasn't Protestant culture, that was industrialization and anti-protestant 60's counterculture. Protestantism was vulnerable to change because of it's principle of salvation by faith alone which can degenerate into antinomianism (not being obligated to follow the Mosaic Law). Although Catholicism is also vulnerable through Magisterium.

Promiscuity and procreation are two sides of the same pro-sex coin.

I'm not American, I'm from one of those southern european Catholic countries.

You need to urgently check your eyes because according to those maps Catholic countries have the lowest birth rates and the highest divorce rates (see the color RED).

Everything Puritanical about that since Puritanism promoted high birth rates and zero divorce rate. And although Puritanism was a Protestant movement, both Catholicism and Puritanism are based on the Judeochristian Bible, which Puritans sought to be as faithful to it as possible.

Likewise you revealed your intentions, you crypto-rightist.

Of course I can, it's called authoritarian state socialism. The state will protect the children from their parents, any parent that resists and tries to violate their child will be shot.

Who are you to decide that for them? Children are their own individuals, please respect them.

No they don't, in fact for having needlessly brought a child into the world without the child even asking for it they have demonstrated they have no responsibility at all their child and the other living persons.

This board is not revolutionary.

Pretty sure I'm on lefty/pol/, yes.

Yes they do, don't be retarded.

So adults never forced you to do things you didn't want to? You were free to do whatever you wanted as a child? You always went school because you wanted and liked?
I don't believe you. I believe that you were so tortured as a child that you forgot your own torture, how sad. You're probably grateful to your parents and teachers for having forced you to acquire so many useful skills to your adult life. This is slave mentality. Not the mentality of a revolutionary.

And in which areas did this "counterculture" begin?
I find it funny that you claim to be from Southern Europe, yet use "z". American English.

There are certain anomalies, yet the general trends ring true.
I am from Ireland - the trends suggest that we have the lowest divorce rates in the EU, we also have the second-highest birthrates.

Poland and Italy also have low Divorce rates, whist France has the highest birth rates.
Meanwhile, the Protestant countries are very low on all three counts. This extends to America.
Observe the Hajnal Line for the root of these differences. Pic related.

Aha, keep using your "z", you Southern European.

Calling an Irish Socialist who cares about the integrity of families and the sexual/physical health of a society a "crypto-fascist" (that's what you really meant, isn't it) shows how you really believe about these topics.

You referred to breeding as "dumb". From what I've seen, you too have an infantile understanding of how relationships should work.
You are also probably lying (about your Southern European country), and you are from North America.

I hope you're 100% serious in your beliefs and not trolling because I'm enamored with the idea of someone being as moronic and autistic as you are.


US, UK, France.


Nope. All the lowest rates are from catholic countries.

Lmao you do realize that my native language is not English, right? Unlike you Irish who don't speak native Irish anymore, the vast majority of the world still speaks in their native languages. Not even going to bother to explain the obvious, I'll let you figure that out.

I repeat: if you are pro-family you're not a leftist.

I do have an infantile understanding. You have an adulterated understanding of how relationships work.


I'm 100% serious, you child beater.

you're adorable.

The fact that you use words like "adorable" to mock really shows your contempt for children.

LOL, what? People also write "neigbor" instead of "neighbour" because that's what they see on TV and/or read online - where American spelling rules.

Protip: when you speak English you're not supposed to capitalize every Noun, dear Germananon.