Hey people if you have based takes for me to read that’s the moment I wanna read your based takes (I love lemmygrad thank you for being based)
Most people, even ppl in the imperial core, are communists in their hearts and they don’t even realize that’s what its called. When given the right circumstances, they help and assist people even outside their immediate friend and family circle, with no expectation of reward. They don’t barter and force grandma or their kids to lift themselves up by their bootstraps before sharing or doing something nice for them. We gotta keep pushing the idea that communism is sharing and caring, and making sure the few parasites who do exist don’t hold power over production and political systems.
Based
I’m imperial core communist
Nofap and No Nut November are one of the ploys by white supremacist groups and fascists to make themselves and their beliefs more mainstream via memes. Click on any account preaching about how evil masturbation is, and I guarantee you they’ll be subbed to a known Nazi.
Based
I enjoy wanking
It’s only human.
Based
I’m a human
Homo oeconomicus or homo socialis?
Wanking is fine, but remember that porn is essentially filmed rape. Its impossible to tell how consensual that interaction is (and if there’s money involved, that’s the definition of coerced sex).
Hentai ftw?
Capitalism has the tendency to prop itself as “great” but turns out to be the opposite (mainly from bourgeoisie trying to deradicalize the proletariat), while socialism (and to an extent, communism) is a case of “what ya see is what ya get”, it is the better option of capitalism (at worst, the lesser of two evils), and it delivers the benefits that outclass capitalism’s supposed benefits.
Monogamy is a result and extension of private property which codifies the commodification of sexual access, emotional labor, etc. Under capitalism, it masquerades as collectivist and unconditional and serves as a respite from the brutal individualism of broader society but it serves more to limit conceptualization of family down to one person and kids instead of its proper extent of the entire working class and human species. It’s propped up by capitalist propaganda as a force to compel workers to produce more wage slaves. Under communism, monogamy will generally cease to exist, along with paternity certainty, and all forms of human interrelationship including child rearing and other mentorship will flow freely and will cease to be commodified.
A really good book on this is Sex at Dawn, which is a deep-dive into the varied human romantic and sexual relationships for most of human history. Monogamy (and patriarchy) became entrenched with feudalism / the agricultural revolution, which is a tiny sliver of total human history. Neither it nor patriarchy is the norm of history.
After you read the book, you get a sense of how against our nature monogamy is, and how there are so many societal structures are set up to make sure that only upper-class men designed a system where they are the only ones allowed to have multiple ongoing sexual relationships, and everyone else, especially lower class women most of all, are threatened with societal ostracism if they disobey.
One random thing I’m remembering now from the book, is that none of our closest related species are monogamous. Bonobos for example are the closest species to humans (chimps, also not monogamous are 2nd), and they have sex for pretty much any reason, also having a lot of homosexual relationships. The closest monogamous ape to humans is gibbons, which is so far distant from our genes to even be considered. If monogamy were “natural”, you’d expect that at least some species close to us would exhibit the same behavior.
It’s interesting how a lot of leftist groups I was a part of always seem to end up hating monogamy lol. I myself don’t hate it or anything, I am perfectly happy with one partner, so just an observation I made in my years of leftism.
Also the whole natural thing is always weird to me. Chimps climb trees and throw shit at each other from time to time but you don’t see me doing that. Human society is much more complex than the ones of our relatives.
Not an attack on your comment btw, just what I was thinking
I probably should have use some more examples from the book, but pretty much all human societies before the institution of class society were not monagamous. The book makes the case convincingly that we should see their sexual behavior as more enlightened than the post-feudal modes, just as we view primitive communism as a more enlightened precursor to post-class society, where no one has ownership over the sexuality of someone else. Communal life incentivizes the non-ownership of another’s romantic and sexual life, just as feudalism and the nuclear family incentivizes ownership of the other person.
Monogamy was forced onto society by the feudal lords, who required strict female sexual subjugation in order to secure the property in the male lines. In contrast, tribal societies encouraged promiscuity and developed myths and religious beliefs to obfuscate male parentage and make sure every child was seen as the children of the entire tribe.
All these leftists be like we should model our sexual behavior on monke—but, why not dream big? We could liberate women from childbirth by using technology to grow children in giant green glowing glass tubes then raise them collectively and society could tend towards a post-sexual fraternal bonhomie à la termites, a clearly superior model for society.
I’m not sure whether I’m joking or not. I probably should be kept far away from any positions of power or influence. 😬
Yes, we should absolutely do that
Appeals to nature are an awful argument when talking about human society, especially regarding sex. Look at how many animals commit rape as one of their primary ways of reproducing.
I agree with Parenti, that humans do have a nature, its just more varied, malleable, and adaptable, but it still has trends and limits, we still exhibit automatic responses to certain stimulus, and we have statistical predictability in a lot of areas.
The “there is no such thing as human nature” line seems like the anarchist rejection of terms, just because capitalists define their preferred system as “natural”. If you look at most of human history tho, we lived in primitive communist, non-monagamous and non-patriarchal societies, and even in the capitalist and feudal age people still reject private ownership in many areas of their lives.
Any other books or resources recommended on the topic of monogamy/polyamory?
Lately in my life i have been exploring of what relationships mean to me and am very curious the nature of things, I have “Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State” on my reading list, but would like to add more, and this seems like a topic you have put time into.
Sorry if this isnt the place for it.
The book I referenced above, Sex at dawn, is a great anthropological study of human sexuality for most of our history. I’d def start with modern scientific works like these.
As far as more enlightened views of human sexual relationships, and those rejecting patriarchy and monogamy, a few writers: mary wollstonecraft, the utopian socialists like robert owen, Kollontai (make way for winged eros is a good starting point).
Thanks dude! Just downloaded Sex at Dawn, and Ill look into those authors, or at least try to as my thought process is bonkers, lol
No probs. Ya it’s understandably a touchy subject for a lot of ppl, but its our job to be as kollontai said: loving-comrades, and not act as owners over the sexual and romantic lives of our partners.
Of course :)
Based
I’m wired in monogamous culture but I see the future as you depict
South America is becoming more and more based lately, A Central+South American leftist coalition would be so fuckin based, especially if they challenged North American hegemony directly
Based
South America need to liberate the north
Hell yeah
They’re going to. Everyone is coming to terms with what the white man is about and theyve had it.
A state that oppresses landlords and reactionaries is the only valid state.
Based
The future will be stateless but in the present I support states that oppress landlords and reactionaries
Better yet, a state where those things don’t even exist to be oppressed.
My heart is full of vengeance
Deng had a greater understanding of Marxist theory than Mao
Spicy but gotta agree.
On god? On god.
Reading Maurice Meisner’s Mao’s China and After kind of broke my brain. Prior to that I had “upheld” Mao as one of the greatest communist thinkers of all time, but his conflicts with Deng and other “traditional” Marxist-Leninists really paint a picture of an over-excited and dare I say… ultraleftist leader, more interested and educated in the metaphysical and cultural spheres than the economic or material ones. Still have great respect for Mao as a brilliant revolutionary leader and unifier, but Deng and his “capitalist roaders” were really just pragmatic Marxist-Leninists, not enemies of the revolution, and often wound up being scapegoated by the idealist, “Maoist” faction for ultraleftist failures.
Whew… That’s brave.
But the man has reciepts. So.
Based
Mao was cool guy but Deng was the nerdy bro we needed all
