newfag to leftypol, not-so-newfag to pol. I'm sure this gets answered ad nauseam, but is there a place for conservative or traditional ethics in an anarchist or socialist economic system? Does one necessarily result in the other?
Newfag to leftypol, not-so-newfag to pol. I'm sure this gets answered ad nauseam...
Other urls found in this thread:
Depends on what you mean by that, but the short answer is yes but don't be surprised exploring further into leftism and egalitarian thought that you'll start giving less of a shit about those things.
anarchism implies socialism but not necesarially the other way around.
anarchism implies you can think and do whatever the fuck you want but socialism doesnt necesarially preclude repressing people for whatever reason.
if the advocates of 'traditional ethics' oppose a revolution they'll be treated as the enemy they are and purged therin. expect most here not to be friendly to you if only because they think your opinions are retarded.
but if we magically got full anarcho communism tomorrow, you can think and act how you like.
Just become nazbol my man
You don't have to mary 3 transgendered otherkin and their asexual son (female) if it doesn't suit you. In fact, if you so like, you could even be so [email protected] as to live in monogomous union with a woman whom you love with a house full of kids. Just don't go yapping at people how they should live their own lives. I also suspect that there would be far less extreme sexual experimentation and fetishism when people are content with their work, education, creative outputs, and social lives, that said, those who's behavior deviates are not necessarily bad, and would also be discouraged from yapping at those who pursue traditional relationships.
why anarchism tho?
80% of the anarchists here can’t define what “anarchism” would even mean in actual practice. Basically take this picture and replace Jamal with “comrade”, and racism with “capitalism/hierarchy”.
Since I disagree that anarchy=disorder/chaos I may differ abit from a traditional anarcist. I see it as any regulatory body that exists (because one will always exist in some form, be it written and enforced or socially ingrained) simply existing and providing whatever it is that it wants to provide without forcing itself on others. Leaving those who want to do whatever to their own devices. Basically in my head it's the political equivalent of "don't bother me and I won't bother you". Anything beyond that is a personal agreement between yourself and whoever, large groups may agree to follow specific rules but overall those rules are the same as licking something and claiming it as yours.
black man with question marks.ff.bz2
you've never lived in a society worth conserving or have any traditions worth perpetuating.
I guess I would say I have some traditional or "socially" "conservative" values. I personally agree with Engels that socialism will result in largely monogamous relationships and Zizek that monogamous relationships are really the only true ones that actual authentic love can exist in, I agree with Lenin on the opinion of being against "free love", and I see the extended family as healthy and becoming largely the norm as more of the family has time to interact and become less alienated from itself.
While I do see these things as inevitabilities of socialism, if some don't agree with them post-capitalism, I won't force them more of I won't be able to, because the economic ability to leverage the economy against someone for there opinions won't exist to agree with me. I will still hold by them and my other values, however.
Yeah, your definitely anarchist or at least some variant of socialist. The sentiment of "don't bother me and I won't bother you" is something which fits in a lot of socialist models. Look up council communism or DeLeonism, they might suit you.
People with mental disorders such as "conservative or traditional ethics" will definitely have a place under socialism. Their illness will be treated with care and understanding, they will receive treatment in state mental hospitals and even get free trips to summer camps.
So your like some type of benign polyp
Only if they aren't reactionary I would think. Reactionaries would try to force everything to go back.
I'm guessing you're still a teenager or just got out of high school and get most of your opinions of social conservatism from Holla Forums. The answer is 'I guess so', but as said, you won't really give a fuck about those things as much the more you read.
Define conservative or traditional ethics, because thats pretty vague.
But in general I would say that doesn't make a lot of sense. Traditional ethics are following orders and respecting hierarchy, not opposing all unjustifiable hierarchies. A new society inherently goes coupled with new ethics.
Very few people would want to associate with their shitty blood relatives in a communist society, the only reason they still do so is because capitalism forces them to financially rely on them. All meaningful and intimate relationships are voluntary and based on mutual feelings of attraction and not on spooked allegiance to blood relations. This is why people prefer their friends and spouses over their relatives.
Thanks for being honest about being an authoritarian reactionary. It's a sad day when ancient philosophers were more revolutionary in their view of relationships, family and childcare than 21st century self-proclaimed "revolutionaries".
I do agree with you that true love is monogamous but true love is about loving a person for who they are and not about passing on your genes like an animal.
None of your values are worth conserving. Fuck off
This user is right.
Sometimes, not always. I agree interactions should be voluntary but I think most of the antagonisms within the family that exist today are capitalist in origin or at least exacerbated by capital. Among what socialist and communal societies we can observe, we see the family model returning to or being that of the extended family and the extended family as the average basis of society. I have no intention to force people together though.
I think your misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that even if I wanted to force people into such units I simply would not be able to, which is a good thing in socialism because it means no one can do the same to me for their opinions. I still retain the ability though to state and encourage my views, as I imagine others will do for their own.
Agree with this completely
It is, true love is about holding your partner as absolute and above all things. This idea of "shared" or "multiple" partners is a complete dilution of that in which you just say "I like some things about you, and some things about you, and for you, some of the other things I like that the others don't have because of their flaws". Love isn't window shopping and choosing different partners as to alleviate the faults of others, it's absolute, to accept your partner for everything they are even with their faults because to you they are already "complete". Listen to Zizek.
Hot take: traditionalists aren't any worse than the average normie leftist who totally wants to abolish the present state of things except for the aspects of the dead eyed hedonism that capitalism has created that he personally enjoys.
disparaging reaction image.rar
there is no such thing as true love or untrue love. you either love or you don't. love always involves "passing on genes" unconsciously, because feeling love (attraction) for an individual of the opposite sex is an essential part of our biological mechanism to procreate. humans are in fact animals. this is just a fact and neither reactionary nor anti-revolutionary nor anti-communist.
thats called lust, or sexual arosual.
there are conservatives here, but we get bullied relentlessly
biologficaly both love and lust are are methods to forward our genes. The differenc ebeing that long term love is passion+comfort and family type love.
Stop with this biological reductionism, it's "All things are just brain chemicals, so concepts don't exist" tier.
thats infatuation, like when you have a crush. it dies after a period of time. but I know what you're getting at.
his point was that a loving relationsihp is about actually liking the other person very very much, not using them as a vehicle to satisfy your spooks about muh lineage.
Ceausescu's National Communism might be what you're looking for.
it's not like you don't deserve it
nope. lust and arousal comes into play during and immediately before sexual intercourse. love is a different function, you might feel attracted to a certain person even while you don't have a boner, you might miss that person when she's not around and so on. also note that love is different from friendship to same sex individuals. it is a much stronger and much more powerful feeling with the potential to break friendships and worse things.
at the end of the day concepts arise through neuron interactions i.e. "brain chemicals". how do you think thoughts are created? by magic or something?
No force involved friend. We'll establish enclaves where fans of traditional ethics can live according to their ideals - in extended family households of 20+ people where they'll be caned for not observing every religious minutiae while a commissar playing the role of a feudal lord shall exercise droit du seigneur on their mothers. In a generation traditionalism won't exist.
t. I am a socialist because I watched propaganda where communism outlaws fun, makes everyone wear grey and call each other by numbers, and thought it was a great idea
Traditionalist Conservatives are closer to communism than liberals are
This is all true. It's just that arguing about feelings on this level is a complete dead end. For example you don't try to fix broken java code by moving around 1's and 0's in assembly. You use higher-level language to simplify what happens on the 1's and 0's level and that's where we get the language for "being in love". Things that happen on this linguistic level also impacts us on how we feel about people as well - so there can be a distinction of "true monogamous love" and "passing on genes" just because we experience it as a different subject.
Well, if concepts can still exist even if they are just neuron interactions, then any kind love being "just" a biological urge doesn't negate the existence of true love.
it really isnt as much as people would like to think.
its a stronger social bond is stronger, partially because of biology and partly because of bonding acts like kissing and sex, but its not as characteristically different as it gets imagined to be.
the 'true' in that is a spook. you like someone a lot and have an emotional attachment to and feelings of affection for them. there are better arguments against promisciuty and polygamy.
Nice spooks, faggot.
The fact that thoughts arise from neuron interaction does not negate the idea of concepts or of concepts in general. Just because an object is made up of atoms does not mean the object does not exist. The idea that since a concept was developed through a collection of thoughts that now the concept does not exist or is not "real" is ridiculous and overly reductionist.
That's not what people mean by socially "conservative" at all. I don't get what you have against people having large families and following a certain ethic because they want to.
A place, sure. But don't expect to end arguments with mere references to these kind of morals, or to not be greeted with contempt every so often. So don't sperg about it. If you have a thick enough skin for that, you'll be fine and welcome.
actually that's what you do. java code is no different from assembly or binary code. it is not different code, it just looks different. and no, you don't use higher level languages to create code that doesn't exist in binary. that would be - magic.
there is most likely no distinction, whether you like it or not. but what exactly is your problem with love being a function of or supporting "passing on genes?" do you fear racism, suprematism, social darwinism and similar right-wing crap exists there somewhere as biological functions or something? but you can fall in love and procreate with all kinds of sorts of different humans of your opposite sex, can't you?
i never claimed anything like that. stopped reading there.
hes right about that one though.
Were you not reducing love to a biological function rather then a universal concept?
yes, i did. so? i never claimed that concepts in general do not exist. they do. but like other informations, they are created via neuron activity, they are stored in your brain's memory and they induce neuron activity in another brain when they are sent via language or other means to a receiver. the receiving human might just store the information in his memory or react with a feeling to it or do something using his hands etc.
Then we are chill.
The problem with the family model is that it creates a tribal mentality between people, a bias towards their family members. Wouldn't it be better for society if everyone looked at all children as their own, regardless if they are related by blood or not? Why emphasize blood relation in the first place? You can have communal lifestyle without promoting family and gender roles.
True love is a nonsexual feeling, sex is a surplus in such a relationship and some extreme romantics might even say a corrupting force.
t. low lQ moron who must believe that welfare is anti-capitalism, transgenderism is anti-sexism or using eurocentric colonial terms such as "people of color" is anti-racism, when in fact all that does is reinforcing those traditions.
Kibbutz attempted this. Mothers ended up demanding as soon as the second generation to be able to see and rear their children. Whole thing dissolved into extended families in the end. I do personally think however that it is nice and should be encouraged for different families to become close to each other and for families to be willing to treat others children in the community as if they were there own. I think such a thing is a given as families interact more with each other and put value into the well-being each other's children and the community. I don't see communal rearing happening however. We'll see.
Children were raised communally in sparta for hundreds of years.
Yes, but I'm comparing something which existed in communes in the 20th century and not in city-states during slave society. Children at that time were raised communally and trained for combat regardless of what any parent thought of it because they were viewed as eventual soldiers of the state, not children. I wouldn't use Sparta as an example of socialism.
There's no "buts" you fucking faggot. Your shitty human nature argument is nonsense and there are plenty of examples from history that show it. Communal child rearing has happened before, and more likely than not it's going to have to happen again, whatever you "buh buh but the MOTHERS and their CHILDREN" fags need to learn to deal with it.
I'm trying to show an example from a time not too far from the current one, in a commune, and not in slave society, but if you wish I can pull different examples of extended families emerging from other times. The reason I don't count Sparta was because the rearing was enforced by the city-state, you did not have a say in it other then what the rulers decided. In the case of the Kibbutz, things were democratically decided, gender roles were abolished, marriage was abolished, resources were held in common, and communal rearing was instituted all within the 20th century. That is an actual better example of something close to socialism and works as a more clear case study.
True love is also strictly in the missionary position exactly 12 o clock midnight with the lights off.
i assume you have been raised in sort of a traditional family, yet you aren't racist, are you? just don't teach your children racist or suprematist crap, but to be open-minded, yet critical at the same time and they will be fine.
as opposed to you i believe that a "traditional family", aside from it being "natural" to humans, is actually neccessary for not becoming a selfish prick, developing a sense for community and learning to interact with others for mutual benefit.
True love is consensual hand holding
And sex only with a procreative role.
Family is inherently based on property, including property of children. In the USSR, they artificially upheld the family because they desperately needed more working hands. But in the early period divorces were starting to become extremely common and the institution of marriage was about to die. All it took was making marriage and divorce based on free association and removing the economic underpinnings of it.
Hopefully in future socialism we won't have the demographic problems associated with turning an impoverished feudal hellscape into a spacefaring superpower. So we could just re-educate the comrades who overlook the economic inplications of family because they are spooked by "wanting to marry a comfy gf" and just let marriage rot away naturally. Even now fewer and fewer people are getting married because children are no longer an investment and the institution is being upheld solely by capitalism's desire to sell baby cribs and wedding dresses. Most people would be perfectly happy dropping their kids off at a communal daycare and visiting them for a couple hours each day.
Divorce was common because a lot of people were married due to forced arrangement and financial necessity. After divorce was legalized, these people left each other. I agree that the institution of marriage would fall apart in socialism, but that would be because there would be no state apparatus validating it. Engels still argued people would engage in largely monogamous relationships in Origin of the Family. Its just that it wouldn't be state enforced or inheritance based, but sex-love based.
People are having fewer and fewer kids and getting married less because the cost and financial risk of having a child is so high, coupled with the fact that commodity based, short-term, on-and-off relationships have replaced any meaningful or long standing kind, especially given that the time constraints of capitalism force such things and make the "opportunity cost" to "invest" in a committed relationship too high. Now people have regressed into a state of "arranged relationships", but with apps and online services instead of parents and mediators and for short term encounters instead of long term commitments. Also, Marx and Engels didn't argue against the family but instead the bourgeoisie conception of the family, one in which relations were based on inheritance and finance.
failson, drop out, gaged, tranny, kickedout, runaway, embarrassment at the dinner table ass, goth, emo, incel, virgin FAGGOT
- unspooked individual
we are talking about extended families. capitalism makes me pretend to care for thrice-removed maternal aunts solely because of spooks or because one day they might leave an inheritance. traditionalists who believe in an extended family have never lived in one or at least visited a family gathering
why are you so annoyed about caring for your aunt? would you be annoyed by that under communism or socialism as well?
and what makes you believe that some random person or random persons would care about you as a toddler more than your genetic mother or father?
Feel free to renounce sex before marriage and gay sex forever if that gets you through the day. Just keep your "traditional" autism to yourself and we'll be good.
They are mutually exclusive.
Traditionalism would place metaphysical ends WAY above economic ends. The economy is a supplement to man's metaphysical aims. In traditional cultures economics/work/labor is just something you do to supplement yourself and family, and not something you obsess about and revolve around.
Socialist and Anarchist systems reverse this relationship and make man subordinate to economic pursuits by seeing everything in terms of "fair" or "unfair" economic and state relations, "fair and unfair" class struggles, fair-and-unfair financial transactions, and so forth.
It is said that what is called "the spirit of an age" is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation
why? what is the good in that
His sexuality is free for him to decide. I'm not going to stop anyone taking a vow of celibacy if that's what they want. As long as he doesn't attempt to force his "traditional morality" onto other people, I'm fine with whatever retarded plan he came up with for himself.
no need to force the truth on people, they either abide by it or reject it and become unhealthy and sick, probably hypocrites too
So uh will I get "sick" if I fap to traps or is that just you trying to rationalize your deluded beliefs?
it's a symptom of your sickness already
What's the actual "sickness", according to you?
being slave to lust
Oh, are you one of those no fap fags that were chronic masturbators, never realized that that's not normal fapping behavior, then go on and on about how great no fap is?
such is the mind of the discontent
there's no neutral, regular christian flag here
or theist or traditionalist flag, or Plato….come on, give us something
How about a little [EXIT], as in
there's the door
I mean, you didn't answer my question.
I'm asking if you were that sort of person, not insinuating that you are currently.
people in this thread are worse than Holla Forums
you get the threads you deserve
Let me guess — you're an incel?
Well Socialism was also attempted and failed in each and every case, I guess we should stop being socialists. This is reactionary empiricist thinking. Also the Kibbutz were Zionists/Jewish Identitarians that lived and supported a capitalist ethnostate. Hardly genuine leftist revolutionary socialists, so it's no suprise that they would degenerate into the family model, just like they degenerated into capitalism. The fact that Judaism, the source of their identity, is fundamentally pro-family, didn't help. Not to mention that the Kibbutz weren't radical enough, they made a conscious effort to make sure children interacted with their family every day.
Although I never said that children should be raised communally, I just said that blood relation should not be emphasized. Children are neither their family's property nor their community's human resources, they are their own individuals, let them choose what to do, we just need to make sure that they are safe and that resources such as food and education are available to them.
Imagine being this triggered because I said that people don't want to associate with people they don't like and that people form meaningful relantionships with people they like and not because they are related by blood. I can see that you are the product of your low lQ, disrespectful, greedy family.
Why are you so annoyed about someone not caring for someone else they happen to be related by blood?
Because there are good people that care about children other than their own and there are bad people that don't care about children, including their own genetic children. And then there are evil people that only care about their own genetic children.
"Again, I have said it before and I will say it again. Forget about any of that bullshit about talking about "classless, moneyless societies", about talking about "da workers" and all that weightless BULLSHIT. You want to tell if someone is a Communist, if someone is for real, and actually is ready to put their fucking money where their mouth is? Ask them about nature. Ask them about the family. Ask them about religion. Then you'll know. It is meaningless to call oneself a Communist today, it is a totally fucking arbitrary word which carries none of the weight or substance that it used to. So the way you tell is by focusing on that which isn't covered by the shit-mongering 'definitions'. These are the weak-points and sensitivities which actually define the universality the subject relates themselves to. And why? Because they exist within the immediate vicinity of the subject and it is hard for them to fall back on weightless, substanceless abstract platitudes: They are only here forced to confront the actual and full implications of Communism in relation to themselves, and aren't allowed to take a distance from them. And it is not only because these are 'personal' matters, but becasue we are dealing with a complex network of ideological conscoiuenss, in an age of consumer-identities and obfuscation, wherein, one can structure their ideological consciousness in a plethora of different ways with various different 'opinions', so that calling oneself a Communist, ideologically speaking can be different from being a liberal or a Fascist only cosmetically. The real substance of ones ideological position is revealed precisely at those weak and sensitive points dismissed as irrelevant, and this is also why those so-called 'Communists' who speak of 'SJW's', while there is truth in them, should be received with suspicion." — Rafiq
When will this meme die
What did he mean by that? Rafiq is such a cryptic autist sometimes.
fucking an acquaintance for a few months wont satisfy a humans need for compaionship, user.
He means that to recognize if someone is a true dedicated Communist is by looking at their views on nature, family, religion, property, etc because it's those personal matters that will what make him realize that under Communism present-day society will be totally destroyed and changed and not by looking at their devotion to a personally distant, abstract ideal of a Communist society. Acknowledging and promoting this radical change of society which will affect people on a personal level is what distinguishes a true Communist from a pussyfooting, fence-sitting coward or crypto-reactionary shill like Nazbols, who believe that modern-day "leftists" have gone too far in their social reforms, when in fact they have not gone far enough at all. Like I previously alluded here:
in response to this garbage statement that should be a bannable offense:
Here's the quote of Rafiq in context (Good luck!): revleft.space
I despise Rafiq's cryptic writing style and disagree with many of his views, but he is 100% right here. If you want to preserve anything of the Old Order then you are not a revolutionary leftist.
how you engage in them matters.
have a fiance.
C'mon now, try harder
Little bit more complicated then that, more then a few objected to the actions later carried out by Israel and most just wanted to be left alone in solitude.
It was by decision of the parents. Are you saying that the children should have never been able to interact with them ever and be forcefully taken away?
I also somewhat agree with this, but I should point out that I do also believe that parents do assume the immense responsibility of having brought a child into the world and should act accordingly in supporting that child's development until the child is developed and mature enough to be able to make their own decisions. This is also ignoring the very real and important biological and psychological factors that are completely dependent on the first few years between parent and child.
You don't want to be using this argument here.
First off, you are quoting the pet ownership post which is probably the worst of Rafiq's posts and the one people always bring up when mocking Rafiq. Second, this idea that absolutely all things relating even in the slightest to today's society will be completely destroyed and that nothing reminiscent of society today will exist is a purely absurd and utopian one. It is the material conditions of society and the economic structure of the system that will decide the social relations of the people. If some of those relations are familiar or similar to those of before, then so be it. You act like social relations are something which exist outside of their conditions. You don't force social matters, they emerge.
That is the exact same argument people use against socialism. I apply the same standard to revolutionary social experiments and not a double standard.
Is this why they participated in the 1948 First Arab-Israeli War on Israel's side (the war which could have defeated a pre-nuclear Israel) and later on in the 1967 Third Arab–Israeli Six-Day War on Israel's side?
Yes, if they were really serious in abolishing the family/ownership of children and communally raise children then why even tell the children who their biological parents are? Likewise why even tell the parents who their biological children are? Why make an effort to bond the children with their parents? If children were to ask who their biological parents were, nobody would be obligated to tell them. As for the parents, they don't have any "right" to know who their biological children are since they don't own them. In conclusion: it wasn't a serious radical attempt to abolish family/ownership of children.
I agree but maturity is relative (mature adults constantly make foolish decisions), as soon as a child is able to walk and talk they are self-evidently able to make their own decisions since they are able to act upon them, whether those decisions are the best for them or not it's their own responsability. 10 is a nice round number as the age of majority.
I never said infants should be taken away from their parents. Unless the parents are proven to be incompetent in taking care of their children then they should be their caregivers by default if they want to.
Human relantionships, which are reminiscent of all past societies, will not be destroyed and non-existent, they will just be freer.
The will to stop people from forcing social relations of production and social relations of blood by force is a material condition.
My point on the kibbutz was that there were separate and multiple communes, not just one big one where all decisions were delegated from. It also doesn't really factor into the observations of the communal raising as those things remain separate. If you think I'm defending Israel, I'm not.
There would be now way to absolutely enforce this other then some kind of police state in which all individuals were monitored and spied upon to ensure no one could ever obtain information regarding these things.
I personally don't think "walk and talk" is a good metric for whether or not a child is ready. They are still unable to operate most things properly, the language centers of their brain are still taking in information, and their judgment and reasoning is still in the developmental stage. If they cannot work for themselves and control their own labour, how do you expect them to self-determine or be self-sufficient?
But this isn't by force and it still isn't a material condition, at least in the Marxist sense.