WithoutFurtherDelay @ WIthoutFurtherDelay @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

6

Comments

114

Joined

2 yr. ago

tbf the tolerance paradox is legitimately important

libshit is libshit though

The narwhal bacons at my axe

weird thing for someone who probably likes azov battalion to say

How could I forget ?!??

running water should be a human right though

The commodification of human relationships is one of the worst blights that exists in this world, and whoever aims to prolongue it is an enemy of socialism. As long as one sees human interactions as something to bbe bought and sold, they will be unable to understand what the liberation of the working people entails.

Shouldn’t this be argued for everything in general, not just human relations? Isn’t the damage capital does inherent to how it commodified everything, not just human relationships?

I think I agree with you based on that (and already agreed that it would be impossible to do prostitution and therefore flawed to even try under communism), but I don’t think your criticism is limited to just sex or human relationships, it implies that we should seriously consider the risks of having any kind of trade in our theoretical utopian communist society and I think that tracks.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. You are comparing (in a frankly offensive manner) those who cannot work to those who are not willing to work.

Well, fair criticism, but in my experience the kind of people who are most often accused of not wanting to work tend to just be straight-up disabled people that can’t. My comparison was flawed, but I think my first reaction of disgust at the concept was warranted. Similar to how someone pointed out that removing the context from prostitution is silly, expecting me or anyone else to just ignore how similar concepts have been used to shit on disabled people is also silly. It’s not offensive to mention disabled people here, because what I’m talking about is their literal lived experience, being told they have to be productive to be valuable and then being blamed and gaslit when they tell others that they can’t. You can say that you’ll just listen to them when they protest but I honestly don’t believe you. Someone will ask “what stops a landlord from trying to reclaim their lifestyle by claiming they’re disabled?”, and then people will start casting doubt on disabled people’s experiences again, something that can only be avoided with a radical willingness to just let people not work.

The only consistent way we have right now to find out if someone mentally can’t do something, or is just choosing not to, is by pushing them to a breaking point, and I’ve seen too many people talk about how abusive that can be to even remotely want to fight for a society that keeps it around.

We should eliminate the impetus to work altogether. It’s toxic and shitty. If we have to force and coerce each other to do labor to survive as a species, I say we let ourselves die off. The void is better than torturing each other for the rest of time for no reason.

But that doesn’t have to be our future. Sure, we would need to remove reactionary elements and drastically reconstruct society, and that’s what a dictatorship of the proletariat is for. But, in my dream world (I understand this is absurd Utopianism, but bear with me), everyone would contribute to collective goals of their own free volition, because that’s what they naturally are inclined to do. There would be no need to coerce, or threaten, or even abandon anyone. Those who could work naturally would be inclined to work because there would be no systems or unfulfilled needs or contradictory goals stopping them (though personal goals would still exist, just encouraged to not be antisocial). And then, with no reactionary elements or notions of selfish grandeur or enlightenment through wealth in the heads of anyone, we would know that those who don’t want to work would actually just be the people who can’t, either because their brain won’t let them or because they’re phrasing having an unmet need badly.

In the meantime, I get the need for what is probably (in my view) a toxic level of discipline with a socialist state. We aren’t going to get rid of reactionaries by being nice to them. And I think the kind of people you refer to when you say that they don’t want to work, or social parasitism, only really exist as reaction. It is not a normal human inclination to just refuse to do anything for no reason. There has to be a system or condition to convince someone to do nothing helpful for anyone else, people get bored and will stumble their way into some level production otherwise. If we get rid of ideologically reactionary elements, the parasitic elements will wither. Trying to get rid of parasitic elements first is blindly shooting in the dark and we could end up with us shooting ourselves in the foot.

Labor shouldn’t be a painful process that human beings need to draw straws to fulfill. It is a natural aspect of our psychology. We can only imagine the idea of people willfully refusing to work out of “laziness” in a society where everyone works jobs that do no good and take disproportionate amounts of effort and time.

I mean i hate to say this but, other than the fact that they obviously support the wrong side, I don’t see how us doing literally nothing is any better than that (from a moral perspective). Edit: oh yeah, I guess other than the sort of parasitic usage of traumatized people for money… nvm

From a personal/benefit-to-her perspective, I didn’t even think of that, and I agree that this is coercive towards her

I mean, i think i agree with what you’re saying here, but in the context of communism specifically,

Wouldn’t communism not have a worker’s state anymore? Isn’t productivity kind of just a toxic hold over to be excised once the dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary?

Also, what counts as production? Isn’t something produced just anything with a use-value? Isn’t sex technically a thing with a use-value? (Pleasure, or reproduction). Where’s the difference between it and, like, being a baker of sugary goods? Is this suggesting that people who specialize in making desserts should just stop doing that after we achieve socialism because it wouldn’t directly contribute to general production (and their products would disappear immediately after being consumed?)

Not defending prostitution under a communist or even socialist system, especially because i don’t think it’s possible, but I think it not being possible (or being somewhat coercive to the person doing it) would be the issue, not social parasitism (also, where’s the line between social parasitism and just being disabled? If someone can’t work, wouldn’t that mean that by this framework they deserve to either live without anything except bare necessities, or die from starvation?)

I am not defending prostitution as an act of liberation? I think even getting into this subject was a mistake, because I only cared about it because of the word “prostitute” being used to refer to something that I don’t think really counts as prostitution.

I was defending the abstract idea of someone having sex for reasons besides direct sexual attraction to their partner, not prostitution as we know or in any form our current definition would work with. Like, I don’t think prostitution would even be possible in a communist society, there wouldn’t be any goods or services to really bargain with if everything, including luxuries, was collectively owned

Like I know it looks like I’m moving the goalposts here, but I legitimately just think that the way I was explaining myself was incorrect

I was thinking of what the woman in the article was doing as prostitution, but thought that without any economic coercion or reason to do it, it wouldn’t be wrong. I realize now that without any economic coercion or reason to do it, it isn’t actually prostitution in the first place

It might be possible she is getting payment but the twitter post of her complaining about not getting with someone kind of makes me think she was just trying to get with people there? I mean, let’s be clear, being a weird war-sexpat is extremely gross, but it’s more horrifying and cynical than it is idiotic.

We are in a communist space. You have plenty context to work with: the last thing you have to expect of a critique of prostitution in a place like this is to be done from a point of view of religious puritanism and not from a perspective of principled marxist feminism, which is where @KommandoGZD 's comment and those following them came from.

The bourgeois state promotes the idea that all critiques to the existence of prostitution itself comes from conservative or reactionary perspectives. You are not immune to propaganda: before attempting to write a critique basing on the gut feeling that you get from reading something, try to read what is it that it is actually being said.

“We are communists so we can’t reproduce brainworms on accident” is not a valid defense and you even point that out in this very same comment. I’m not immune to propaganda, but you aren’t, either. Here’s an important question: What about a male prostitute? Do any of these supposed critiques of prostitution as a concept independent of other social context (something that is already blatantly impossible, because no action has any measurable value when removed from all context) hold up if talking about a man selling sex? If it doesn’t, then it indicates the issue is patriarchy, which is a social context.

That aside, because the morality was of prostitution in general is kind of off topic here,

The belief is that this women is an idiot, or some sort of brainwashed fool for deciding to… well, they’re not even selling their body for sex in this case, they’re just having a lot of sex “for free” as far as I can tell. This is so blatantly dehumanizing it’s absurd. It is not idiocy to decide you want to support a military you like by fucking them. It’s weird, and it is not a good idea, especially with how blatantly evil the Ukraine military is and the extremely suspicious power dynamics at play in any military, but lots of human beings enjoy having sex and it isn’t really indicative of someone being brainwashed or being especially stupid for wanting to do something like this.

You could at least acknowledge the wording was a little weird, or anything other than immediately jumping to accusing me of being a brainwashed stooge. I am providing light criticism of the phrasing and tone of a thread, a tone which I think is indicative of a certain kind of brainworms. You can do some self-introspection or not, I don’t really care.

Edit: you are downvoting me far before you would be able to finish reading this comment. I can only assume you’re just pissed about being called out

I mean... that's why I said "removed from context". All of this is context, context that was missing from previous comments (which read more like "how dare this woman not be traditional" to me). I agree that prostitution is coercive and wrong in every current implementation.

…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)

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

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 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.

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.

I’m referring to something that isn’t really that nsfw but I don’t know where the line of NSFW begins and ends here

I’m referring to the Cuban animation “La pavita pechugona”. The main character has been featured in a lot of, uh, artwork, because of their design, and because the internet can’t let cute animations just exist smdh

I should probably have phrased that differently but either way I can’t specify more without toeing the line of the no-nsfw rule

I’ve literally never seen an anti-war person argue against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Why? It’s the most sane argument against it.

I know it’s only tangentially related.