WithoutFurtherDelay @ WIthoutFurtherDelay @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

0

Comments

37

Joined

2 yr. ago

…Is it? I do not think it is a stretch to say that the despersonalization of a human being into a sexual object is indeed pretty degrading.

I mean, yeah, wanting to have sex is a pretty normal desire for a lot of people, so it’s not a surprise that some people would choose to do so professionally. There are definitely systemic issues at play that coerce people into becoming prostitutes, which makes the industry very bad altogether, but if removed from that context it’s pretty reasonable (and neither of the comments in the chain really seemed to have been complaining about the context)

I feel like consent has a lot to do with sexual acts being ok or not, but I doubt her respect would be consented given that she would be primarily surrounded by reactionary, armed men.

Funny as a joking self-description, terrifying in the context of people handing themselves over to cold, emotionless gears of war

This entire thread smacks of weirdly sexist brainworms to me

I’m not even talking about this because I’m believe in that “feminism is only about individual choice!” bs, but because it’s weird to imply that wanting to be a prostitute instead of a medic or a cook is some kind of mental degradation, and all three of those things being assumed as the only roles a woman would play in a war is just gross

I mean, probably because they don’t have to pay for them

everyone in favor of making Ghost of Faso the leader of the United Socialist States of America?

Which, again, this is a completely false definition of Anarchism's proposed slogan and is mostly made up.

I wish there was an actual anarchist here to describe things, I have more familiarity with anarchism than most but I'm definitely not able to communicate that familiarity well.

That’s not how convincing people works, though. Their concern might be silly in the short term but telling them it’s stupid is going to get people rightfully angry at you

When you point out that the goal is to have the state wither away, it’s a lot easier to convince someone to side with you then just going “states good actually 4head”

But that is what I am saying.

The article seems to miss the fact that the ultimate point of instating a dictatorship of the proletariat is to protect the creation of a mode of production that doesn’t need a State at all.

If the Anarchist says they are against the existence of the State, then that makes their desire ultimately the same as ours - a communist mode of production. The flaw of anarchist ideology seems to be this idea that the State is not justifiable even if it’s purpose is to destroy itself, which seems like a simple example of not reading about the tolerance paradox to me.

The arguments in the article just seem inefficient.

I think, if you have convinced an anarchist to form a state to defend their anarchist ideals, you have pretty much convinced them of Marxism, just with different words.

They’re still missing the important Marxist class analysis

This is really bad quote to use by itself if you’re trying to “debunk” anarchists. Not because it’s actually a bad quote, but because it seems like one when read naively.

Even though it’s trying to make a different, much more salient point, it just reads as another version of the “Hitler was a vegan” cliche.

I agree that anarchists are often conceited, but do we really have to take the exact opposite position to them, and decree that because an oppressive proletarian State is in the interest of the proletariat, that we should not try and dissolve the state at all? Is limiting ourselves to the short-term desires of the proletarian class, not even considering what kind of class structures that could form in the future, really the best way forward?

This reads a strange form of vulgar Marxism to me, a kind of reaction to the idea of anarchism that arises when you criticize it from gut opposition at their “arrogance” rather than the actual issues with it. I’m not saying the article is actually saying this, but what it is saying is dangerously compatible with such a viewpoint.

I am a Marxist because I believe that the struggle of the proletariat has the greatest chance to end the constant class struggle of human society, not because I think that the state is a necessary or even remotely “ok” methods of human organization. It is only justifiable as a form of self-defense for the proletariat (which the dictatorship of the proletariat should fundamentally be viewed as). Anything more than that isn’t just bad from some abstract moral opinion, but because it’s completely pointless to the revolutionary struggle.

The state.

I just finished reading it, and I think I can say my feelings on it with more certainty.

It is absolutely a bad refutation when misused. It is a refutation of specific, radlib strains of left-adjacent thought, not of anarchism itself. The only reason I specify anarchism is because “anti-authoritarianism” is completely and utterly meaningless, a vague gesture on removing an entire facet of natural human behavior, while anarchism is a committed opposition to a specific form of political organization.

The fact that the pamphlet often is useful as a refutation of self-described “anarchists” isn’t because it is an effective tool for debunking anarchism, but because the majority of self-described anarchists have put zero effort into analyzing things and actually have no concrete political beliefs.

I think, counter-intuitively, the solution might be to focus on anarchist tendencies more. By temporarily adopting a “Utopian” mindset, tempered and viciously sharpened with a constant awareness of materialism and the concrete reality of class, we could create a new breed of anarchism that’s more resistant to liberal intrusions, and more willing to work with actually existing socialism, while still maintaining it’s utopian moral principle.

I’m not suggesting this because I agree with utopian or anarchist beliefs, but because I think that the fundamental desires that feed into the inclination towards anarchism are valid, and will still lead to correct conclusions if tempered with a connection to materialism. Instead of denying their initial goals, we should instead point out to anarchists what actually achieves them

Half of this comment probably sounds completely insane. I am tired.

Apparently “on authority” is kind of a bad refutation of anarchism, which makes it very funny that people resort to dismissing it instead of pointing out it’s flaws.

Isn’t “brocialism” a term for an unaware patriarchally influenced socialist? seems like wanting inclusion for non-binary people would be the opposite of that

Yet another example of how providing things to the working class will get them on your side much easier than yelling at them to have the right takes.

I wish I could add or contribute to the issue you’re dealing with, but you and your party seem much more experienced than I am at managing these things.

Revisionist! The witches sometimes use sex to fuel their magic. You wish to deny them that despite their struggles against the local water floods, melting them all? I can’t believe you think you support the proletariat.