I am torn.
While I believe man should live in a utopia where work is minimal and all is organised by the benevolent state.
Yet I recognise the tyranny of authority and that man is exploited not just through wage relations. Similarly I do not agree with this consumption of man by the work ethic.
How do I come to terms with both Communist and Anarchist tendancies?
I made a similar thread once and was linked this
>How do I come to terms with both Communist and Anarchist tendancies?
>How do I pretend that these things aren't the same when they are?
>How do I not look up what Communism even is or what Marx said it was?
literally the most pleb ideology out there. Graduate high school first.
>that picture implies that traditionalism & conservatism weren't torn down in a matter of decades by women. How strong is your protestant nuclear family now you strong-jawed aryans?
The majority is not always right. You're point is mute
>you'll need to can the references to religion in order for that to be taken "seriously", even in theory
Maybe to the degenerate post modern leftists/materialist masses.
>opinions aren't relevant here, I'm saying your whole setup was torn down in roughly 30 years (from the inside) after hundreds of years of construction, and is therefore flawed
Traditionalism was lost during the Judeo Masonic Revolt of 1789
Its all about NeoReaction today.
>I am torn.
I'm all out of faith
This is how I feel
I'm cold and I'm shamed
Lying naked on the floor
Illusion never changed
Into something real
I'm wide awake
And I can see the perfect sky is
You're a little late
I'm already torn
>How do I come to terms with both Communist and Anarchist tendancies[SIC]?
THERE IS NO ULTIMATE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "COMMUNISM", AND "ANARCHISM"; THEY ARE BOTH BASED ON A FUNDAMENTAL NATURALISTIC & MATERIALISTIC PESSIMISM; THEY ONLY DIVERGE IN THEIR METHODOLOGY; ID EST: THEY ARE IDEOLOGICALLY HOMOLOGOUS.
YOU ARE NOT "TORN"; YOU ARE CONFUSED.
Believing in a literal utopia is like believing in heaven, you're no better than this little shit.
The worker's utopia was always figurative; just endless improvements, setbacks, failures, and improvements again. I wouldn't call the fact that our current age is a utopia despite that 95% of the world no longer needs to break their backs toiling in the fields, only to barely avoid starvation.
It depends on what you mean by Anarchy?
I believe in a stateless society. Stateless, but not without authority. Traditional monarchy for example, is the organic formation of voluntarily relationships (imperfect I know).
When I say I am an Anarchist, I really mean to say I am against democracy and the modern state, I am a proponent of natural rule.
Marx is not a utopian. That's why he posits things like the dictatorship of the proletariat. His aim is to scientifically understand present relations and contradictions so as to understand what would be the best course towards a stateless, classless society.
Most anarchists also aim towards a stateless, classless society but do so under the basis of shallow analyses of the state and of capital and of the contradictions of capitalism. They posit a "there" without understanding the "here" and as such, fail in getting from here to there.
In any case, the political plays itself out in concrete, not theoretical, abstract terms. If you're interested in adding to the literature, then by all means just study either of these trends of thought. If you're actually interested in radical movements and possibilities, look to how the political plays itself out in certain regions today. The Zapatistas, the PKK, SEA "stateless" zones. All these originated out of historical conditions and concrete relations (not abstract worker/owner or state/subject).
Abstraction is one of the main hurdles to radical consciousness in the West. People consider themselves as abstract entities (prole, subject, women, PoC) being worked upon the different apparatuses without grasping their historicality and essence as related to concrete spaces and people.
Radical politics isn't a discourse game, an ultimately ineffectual resistance in the form of protest, dropping out, or other lifestylism. Radical politics is recognizing one's base form of life and its concrete enemies.
>interested in communism
>interested in anarchism
>doesn't research anarcho-communism at all
I'm afraid that you are grossly misunderstanding the necessity of struggle to the human experience. It is so important that in its absence people will make up or inflict struggling upon themselves just to fill the void it leaves.
But even putting an end to social equality, there would still be plenty struggle for humans. So I don't really buy the argument that we need to create artificial struggle because we desire struggle so much.
And what do you think people would struggle against? Themselves? Do you think it is more merciful or easier to struggle against yourself (where you in essence are your own enemy) than it is to "struggle" to fulfill a desire or against the world in some other fashion? Do you think that people, in the absence of struggling to survive would even take up that struggle instead of giving in to unlimited decadence and material pleasure because of how easy it is?
The world whether by state or economy, finance or any other oppression, is bogged down by convoluted academic excuse for its own existence.
This is, by far, the case with Capitalism. The true state of man is to operate the mechanisms of the state in some respect, without calling it a state, and having tremendous disrespect for the state. But all should have hatred towards economics.
There's no real third option. You can have Marxist elements of some sort, but combined Marxist and Anarchist ideals is the only way to set a long standing moral community. Community, instead of civilization.
>The true question should never be communism itself, but the issues this ideology spreads in the real world and the mental state of its followers.
No, the question is why we cannot provide for people with mental conditions. Why our immediate urge is to condemn people for being mentally ill as if it is an insult.
It is how exploitation progresses casually. Exploitation of the mentally ill has happened across history because they are considered weak and low willed and useless.
You cannot extract labor from the mentally ill easily, and they're considered more danger than their worth.
These people would be far better given the care they need, but our current world denies them that.
Our world addresses this, yours does not.
>I'm opposed to both Capitalism and Communism
>Socialism should be used together with Capitalism
>What is mode of production?
How we treat the mentally ill in society is wrong. They cannot fit into the economic worldview of everyone working at the same capacity. There's no argument to be made that can dispute this. Because it is observable, testable, fact.
Yes, of course I believe in right and wrong in certain conditions. Inducing suffering to extract labor that cannot be got is wrong, it's terrible. I don't know how our society can function just disregarding people like they're waste and claiming everyone has equal opportunity to get an education and become wealthy. It's a lie, and it's a sham.
There's no comfort for the mentally ill in poverty. There's endless doubt. Expecting the mentally ill to be anything but against what they fully understand but others cannot, can you blame mentally ill people who want more than what they were lied to they could achieve in youth?
I'm not going to act like some sociopathic fuck and look the other way while shit like this happens. This only scratches the surface on how many lifetimes Capitalism has ruined.
Ok, let me tell you about yourself.
right = what works in favour of your utopia
wrong = what goes against your utopia
Some people must rule over the others, that's how the world works, you just can't accept reality but you're too weak to kill yourself.
The only weak person here is you. So cynical. To think nothing I'm speaking of has weight on you. To think the value of what is weak and strong isn't as faulty as the lies built up to defend it.
We have enough resources to provide for the homeless, and we so many empty homes, we could house millions.
You are guided by gut reaction, fear, and the same story told generation after generation to excuse what ended up disregarded.
You are weak, but you don't deserve what you have either.
Funniest part is that you guys killed more than 100 million people, probably this is the number of poor, mentally ill, weak and sick people the catholic church has helped throughout the centuries with real care and not only this utilitarian first world ''love''.
Do you have any idea how many aspects of Marx exist. You are standing on lies, you only can ask for alternatives to the truth. "Maybe we can rely on the church for resources for our disregarded!"
You care about other people so far as you are told is possible.
>You care about other people so far as you are told is possible.
I care for those who are next to me. You guys hate humanity but love the oppresed at the same time you hate everyone who surrounds you. It's obvious your ''care'' for other people is always based on your egoistic feelings.
We assume our weakness, you can't do it because you think you're superior cast of humans.
>It's obvious your ''care'' for other people is always based on your egoistic feelings.
It's very clear to anyone with eyes the most efficient use of resources is not occurring among humanity. How that makes me a superior class of human, is beyond me.
1. ETHICALLY, "COMMUNISM" IS THE ARCHETYPAL "EVIL" IDEOLOGY; ITS CORE PRINCIPLES DERIVE & REVOLVE AROUND PERVERTED NOTIONS OF HUMAN NATURE, AND "COMMUNIST" STATES HAVE DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY, CAUSED THE DEATHS OF MILLIONS OF PERSONS.
2. ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT "ANARCHISM" IS SOCIALISTIC? IF SO, YOU ARE PARTIALLY MISTAKEN; "ANARCHISM" IS NOT NECESSARILY SOCIALISTIC.
I mostly study Stirner myself, but both Marxism and Anarchism have certain ideas about what humans are like. Marxists wouldn't call it human nature, depending on what kind of Marixsts they are, but it doesn't change the fact that a decent amount of assumptions about human nature goes into their thinking.
>ETHICALLY, "COMMUNISM" IS THE ARCHETYPAL "EVIL" IDEOLOGY; ITS CORE PRINCIPLES DERIVE & REVOLVE AROUND PERVERTED NOTIONS OF HUMAN NATURE
>AND "COMMUNIST" STATES HAVE DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY, CAUSED THE DEATHS OF MILLIONS OF PERSONS.
Freedom from work does not mean never having suffering. Instead of having to spend all day farming (or x form of menial labor, all coercive labor is menial), you can devote your life to art or science or whatever, and push yourself to create. You can choose to suffer, you can choose to work, but you don't /have/ to.
Read Conquest of Bread.
The problem with your "utopias" is that they're not utopias for everyone. Some people like work and forcing other people to work. Some people wish to do things the state doesn't allow. You must realize the world is a "war against all". While you may a humanist, tolerant society, for the Arabs complete submission to Allah and the destruction of those who oppose him *is* their utopia.
You're best off catering soley to your needs than the needs of man as generality.
"So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."
- Vladimir Lenin
Anarchists are basically marxists who think less.
So there's only a multiplicity of equally valid opinions out there that we should all respect and live in peace with? There's no potential for establishing an overarching general universalism that we can all agree upon?
No. There's a multiplicity of opinions out there the indivual must learn to resist.
>There's no potential for establishing an overarching general universalism that we can all agree upon?
Not as long as people want different things.
There is no perfect state. Man is imprefect, and there will never be a universal ideal that fits the criteria of the worlds population.
If we live in a community that doesn't promote work, we wouldn't be able to meet the demand of our current world. We're too many people to keep up. So we either need genocide to provide a suitable living condition with little diversity to equalize our work and material welth. Or we need some form of population control to make it possible in the future.
This hypothetical world is however bleak. Diversity will be minimized. We'll limit ourselves to progression. Mostly everyone will be doing work they're not enjoying, as the limited population won't allow for diversity in work. We'll be doing just the essential to survive as a species and only a small percentage will be capable of following their desired paths. If we'd increase the amount of people we'll also increase diversity, but at the cost of having more people do less favourable work to meet the supply demand. By then we're right back to square one. Should we equalize the worlds wealth today, we'd all be living in substandard conditions with resources being scarce.
Another issue with an equal "utopia" is no incentive to improve. Why would I work harder than my neighbour if we recieve the same share of the cookie? We like being challenged by our surroundings. We like doing stuff we're good at, and we like being better than other people at it. This competetive standard makes us improve. Remove competition and we're left with just acceptable, but great or brilliant, just adequate. I can't help but imagine suicide rates increase dramaticly in a world like that.
I am in agreement on the fact that we should have equal opertunity though. Everyone have a fixed amount of potential, and we should strive as a species to maximize personal fullfilment of potential. How we'll do that I have no idea. More focus on schools maybe, separate the brilliant and hard working from the ones who don't have, or refuse to live up to their potential.
As for Anarchy, the general public have no idea what they want. We're like children, and we need a parent to tell us what we can and can not some times. We can't have ice cream for breakfast even though we might want to. The world would be run by companies that supply our gluttonous tendencies. The exploited would be exploited even more, and the rich would be richer. Money would essentially be power. It would be like living in a faceless dictatorship.
We need a new set of ideas. We need the private companies to take responsibility, do what is required to improve as a whole, even if it may not be the most profitable route to take. We also need the government to allow diversity, the more we change, the more we learn. We need a benevolent leader who rules with an iron first. Someone who is reluctant to rule, who isen't interested in power or money, but still sees the value in it.
Bad thread. Too few people are discussing the relevant literature.
Read some Cornelius Castoriadis (often known as "Paul Cardan" in English translation), CLR James, Raya Dunayevskaya, Sergio Bologna, Mario Tronti, Selma James, Otto Rühle, Pannenkoek, Paul Mattick, Alexander Berkman, Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Steve Wright, Solidarity (UK), Irish Workers Solidarity Movement
I'm serious. Not trying to be grimdark. In fact, I am trying to live a happy and productive life. But I can only realize this at a personal level.
I am really quite pessimistic for "humanity" as he exists today. Mankind is just a resource for another set of ideals. He is soon to find out that like most resources subject to the laws of capitalism and technology, his usefulness increases exponentially until a revolution in technology usurps his pride of place.
Mankind is subordinate to technology. He is soon to find out how.
What the fuck does this have to do with the workers controlling their means of production, and thus probably no need for a (big) state. Seems like youre just going on a big ol pessimist rant with no real substance. Stuff you said is the archetypal reactionary garbage that most people brush off, but with a flavor of depsair and sadness that will attract pepe posters and idiots. Truth is you end with a completely utopian view: We need corporations to take responsability.
>There is no perfect state. Man is imprefect, and there will never be a universal ideal that fits the criteria of the worlds population.
We can overcome this anon. With biological and technological enhancements to the human body we can fundamentally change our nature. If we got over silly moral concerns we could have a near utopia within a few generations.
>every democratically-elected gov. is either sabotaged by capitalist / investor rebellion or ends up traitorously hostile to labor
>take shit over directly instead, demolishing existing gov.
>create powerful socialist state to defeat capitalism and disentangle it from society, implement socialist planning
>state necessarily gets kinda big
>state's so big it's hostile to being dismantled
>state suppresses potential decentralizing measures, even more efficient technology that might streamline planning
Not torn down yet, in the process of being torn down, a process which is easily over turned itself.
Either way, let's see how long the progressive welfare state drowning in debt and identity politics driving down productivity lasts :)
This nigger needs a citation for the millions of killed during the era of Stalin, Mao, Polpot, etc
The worst thing is that often their economic policies killed not just summary executions, forced labour as well as "judiciary" executions, not to mention how many more died due to the fact people with know-how were disposed of which led to millions of dead during world war 2 alone (hello Red army purge and commisars)
I think most people have had moments of doubt. I mean if you read Marx, he talks a lot about capitalism, but not really so much about communism.
Praxis is supposed to be this ongoing process that will move us from the transitional period into a functioning system. Basically, we can only learn how the system will function by doing it, and learning how to organize.
Personally, my doubts come from this.
You know, they found lists after lists of names signed personally by Stalin in the soviet archives.
I assume you didn't. Neither did I imply Stalin killed them, he just gave out the orders.
What next, you going to tell me he wasn't responsible for the great purge either?
>I believe man should live in a utopia where work is minimal and all is organised by the benevolent state.
The state is a business with monopoly on violence.
Why would you live in a non competitive world?
What is wrong with pluralism?
>I recognise the tyranny of authority and that man is exploited not just through wage relations.
Yes. It is referred to as physical violence. The left are delusional.
>I do not agree with this consumption of man by the work ethic.
If there is not planned activity occurring somewhere then why even exist? The only thing is then a few quality men who will some day achieve enlightenment or at least master all possible faculties, increasing their number to the highest possible amount.
Do instead of not. What is Socialism but a celebration of the mediocre?
I know mediocrity, I am in it and the logical conclusion is to remove yourself of it.
>How do I come to terms with both Communist and Anarchist tendancies?
You do not. They are flawed traditions.
what is pedophilia for 200.
But really, it's more a thing of young girls being biologically more appealing to us. Youth represents helth and fertility, and we're biologically attracted to that.
Hadn't there been rules or social stigma attached to sexing underage girls it would have been exceedingly common for older men to have sex with girls around the age of 14-18. Which has been throughout history a normal thing to do.
I don't know. Personally I think there is nothing better than to see the lines of a thong through a girls pants. Simple panties tell you that a girl isn't down for some fun.
Well clearly sexual desire evolve, we also have a say in our own sexual preferance. I mean homosexuality is a thing, and that has no evident biological gain, so we clearly have the ability to shape our own sexual desires, but for most hetrosexual men I would say a young girl, regardless of ones own age will stimulate some erotic desire.
>that has no evident biological gain, so we clearly have the ability to shape our own sexual desires
Necessity does not exist in this context.
Biological gain is not necessary.
You are mistaken, in so far as I can see.
Enlighten me to the scientific contrary,
provided it exists.
Sexuality is any thing to do with activity intended for procreation or genital pleasuring.
There is no ghost which lingers above us, reminding us of what will be a "biological necessity",
because such a thing simply does not exist.
>have the contituent communities of society in a constant political battle
What is Yugoslavia, lebanon, syria etc
>strongest group i.e. the super rich rise to the top in our capitalist system
Democracy and modern neo-liberal capitalism are incompatible.
We have learnt that Liberal capitalism also does not work.
We have discovered fascism and authoritarianism to be despicable.
Thus we have only a couple of options left.
While curvy, big titted and assed women might attract men visually with the promise of fertility and maternal instincts to their progeny, young girls represent unspoilt, virginal territory. More chance of the offspring being yours, being healthy and removing her from potential rivals.
>What is Yugoslavia, lebanon, syria etc
Countries whose armies fought with each other after the dissolution of the Yugoslavian Socialist Republic under Tito.
The wars occurred because extremely violent men with notions of diverse national identities were forced in to the same Empire. Would the problem be no existent with out socialist activity in said area: Probable.
>Democracy and modern neo-liberal capitalism are incompatible.
Two party democracy exists, therefore it is compatible.
>We have learnt that Liberal capitalism also does not work.
I am not aware this is scientifically correct.
Define "does not work".
>We have discovered fascism and authoritarianism to be despicable.
Speculation. Communism is authoritarian.
Anarchism, as Rei pointed out, is crypto-communist,
thus also ironically and paradoxically authoritarian.
Side note: "Fascism", or the outlines of the political happenings which were written by Mussolini can occur any where under the name of "Communism", which it did and does in Russia and China.
>big titted and assed women might attract men visually with the promise of fertility and maternal instincts to their progeny
I am not scientifically aware of "maternal instincts" or inherent subconscious knowledge of "promises of fertility" within the minds of a "male" brain.
>young girls represent unspoilt, virginal territory
They may, although "their" symbol fluctuates between various possible imaginary notions with in a mind.
>More chance of the offspring being yours, being healthy and removing her from potential rivals.
This could be a logical conclusion, but I am not scientifically knowing it to be inherent in all "male" minds.
A constant state of democratic activity would be stagnant.
Even a 400 party democracy would not be inherently democratic, most likely.
Two party democracy is democratic,
as democratic activity occurs.
It may not be "as" democratic as you may prefer.
If another method is preferable,
then please provide me with a scientific reason as to the contrary.
If there's one thing that's sure, it is that the fact that you're torn between anarchism and communism is dialectic itself. Just transform this into dialectic materialism and you're good to go.
>so we clearly have the ability to shape our own sexual desires
I mean, there's numerous cases of homosexual animals, and I don't think that's so much a shaped desire more-so the result of differential hormone activity
>the result of differential hormone activity
How can hormonal activity define a symbol to which you are "attracted"?
No, the symbol simply triggers a habit,
in the same way seeing food or smelling food you get hungry.
It is a learned habit associated with the practice of fornication,
the activity of the "sexual" organs, areas of flesh which have a complex nervous function.
It is fluctuating between being a learned habit and not,
I am not scientifically knowing its origin.
That being said, I will reduce it to minimalism:
Sexual activity is a learned practice,
notionally transported through cybernetic means:
with in atomic social groups, the internet, literature, etc.
Education should be private,
not only because it drains the State Treasury,
thus inducing heavy taxation enforced through violence,
thus being a catalyst for economic stagnation,
but also because the form education should take should not be diluted.
Its outline is fluctuating as the organizers and members of academies attain higher levels of enlightenment.
Each University should be private, open to self run scholarships where students are not capable of the rigor which is applied to the dialectical methods occurring with in the location of any professors or academics.
get past the believe that anarchism is only the opposition to statehood in socialism (in fact, there are quite different approaches within the marxist tradition, for example communisation and councilism).
Most anarchists reject
historical materialism and dialectics.
Thus they clinge thankfully to marx's analysis but are shitting on the tools that made such an analysis possible.
t. former anarchist that is now leftcom
>I mean, there's numerous cases of homosexual animals
I always dislike when gays use this as an argument to homosexuality being normal.
I mean, there's numerous cases of animals being born retarded, with 3 legs, 2 heads and a penis on its back, doesn't mean we pretend it's normal, in fact, if it appears in humans we try to fix it. Why is homosexuality so different? I mean, if we find the "cure" for gayness would it be wrong applying it?
Anarchists: if you don't agree with us in everything 100% of the time we'll character assassinate you for being tyrannical for as long as time lasts.
Marx and Engels weren't ever really /at odds/ with Bakunin and never tried controlling the International. That's just buttpained Anarchist fantasy. They want to be the Jews of political history, living off a narrative of always being persecuted for simply being the Chosen People.
This is not a /pol/-post.
>or the appearance of brains and minds even exist is a mutation: an anomaly.
No, it's not, look up the definition of the word god damn it. Being gay is an anomaly...
What utility is that? Personal gratification?
That's a shitty explanation, you do know that right? The retarded part is that it's unprovable and can't be disproved either, thus it's convenient to be brought up every time as a way of saying "WELL IT'S POSSIBLE". Well, yeah, but you may also be a brain in a vat stimulated by electrical impulses and reality as you see it is just an illusion and no such thing as gay people actually exist...
>What utility is that? Personal gratification?
Is there any other kind? What's the point of civilization or life at all if people aren't happy.
The fact is that 90% of the population have to walk around completely ignorant to of the potential sexual attractiveness of 50% of humanity.
There is also the advantage that bisexuals can chose to have sex in ways that have zero chance of pregnancy, and then switch to herosexual relationships when they want to settle down and have a family.
Even if you are a conservative who's obsessed with people having families, you should at least consider the benefits of that part. Unless you are just violently opposed to people having fun.
What kind of retardation is that? "Potential sexual attractiveness"? if you like sucking dick, to put it bluntly.
>There is also the advantage that bisexuals can chose to have sex in ways that have zero chance of pregnancy
But an increased chance of STD's, good job, if you want that trade go for it. By the way, straight persons can do the same thing.
>Unless you are just violently opposed to people having fun.
Sure, go for it, just don't go pretending it's normal behaviour nor demanding I should accept it as normal. It's your body and you should do whatever you want with it in the privacy of your home assuming you do no harm to anyone without consent.
>if you like sucking dick, to put it bluntly.
If you were bisexual, you would like sucking dick though. You'd be able to look at most people, male or female, and find them attractive.
But I'm not, and it serves no purpose to be bisexual, the sexual gratification I can get from women...it's the same exact gratification, just the gender from which I get it is male instead of female.
It's also nastier, ass holes are full of shit, it's kind of what they do...also, I doubt being bisexual means you automatically like sucking dick, I said that kind of in jest.
You seem to think social situations can be somehow related to pathology.
There's not a genetic truth to everything. Some animals engage in homosexual behavior or lesbian behavior what have you or the same reasons humans do. Which isn't genetic, but social.
There's no reason to even believe it's genetic in the way you're describing. The fact you can't even argue without resorting to pathology is damning. The idea you have to cure a human to shape him into healthy or pathological behavior shows how little you understand about the human mind or society or culture.
I always find it interesting how often times people resort to pathology to explain what frightens them about others.
>There's no reason to even believe it's genetic in the way you're describing.
Where did I describe this?
>Which isn't genetic, but social.
So, now it's a choice? So, you dismiss a possible genetic explanation out of hand and instead argue for a environmental one? Why is that?
>The fact you can't even argue without resorting to pathology is damning
>The idea you have to cure a human to shape him into healthy or pathological
Oh, but it's okay when we do it with peadophiles? Both are sexual anomalies, the difference is one is now morally and socially acceptable and the other is not.
>I always find it interesting how often times people resort to pathology to explain what frightens them about others.
I always find it interesting how people have to resort to portray their opponents as being scared, bigoted, racist or somehow not opened enough to "truly" understand.
It's not genetic. There's no evidence it's genetic. There's no evidence it isn't environmental which doesn't make it a choice. Could be a choice for some either.
The need to explain behavior that is deemed other as pathological has existed since the end of time, so don't sorry you're not alone in trying to pathologize the social of man.
And comparing pedophilia to homosexuality is moot because pedophilia involves the harm and trauma of children. Homosexuality, does not, but I'm sure you'll find a way to say it does.
Haha, I like your double standard "there is no evidence that is genetic" so you need evidence for it being genetic but at the same time "there's no evidence that it isn't environmental' meaning it's environmental one and someone has to disprove it for it to not be true?
The honest and fair thing is for you to claim there is equal possibility of both unless proven otherwise.
>And comparing pedophilia to homosexuality is moot because pedophilia involves the harm and trauma of children.
That plays no role here, we're not talking about the impact on others. We're talking about both being sexual anomalies. Thus being on the same level. I could bring up necrophilia, that has no harm or trauma for the dead body either. Point is not what effect it has on others but rather the fact it's a sexual anomaly in both cases.
Stay off the point though.
>We're talking about both being sexual anomalies
You're comparing homosexuality to pedophilia because you are a total contrarian wanker who thinks he can score fucking brownie points for doing so by labeling both sexual anamolies.
By all accounts, your life is a sexual anomaly. The idea that homosexuality, like anon was saying, is purely genetic is such total bullshit. Your comparing it to pedophilia and implying their both genetic shows you know literally jack shit about what you're talking about.
You sound like a hick and your argument sucks ass.
>diversity diversity diversity
literally gibberish. Why is diversity so important to you?
Is english your second language?
>. Some animals engage in homosexual behavior or lesbian behavior what have you or the same reasons humans do
The same reasons? What?
>You sound like a hick and your argument sucks ass.
> you are a total contrarian wanker who thinks he can score fucking brownie points
Contrarian? Maybe on tumblr. Not here.
>You sound like a hick and your argument sucks ass.
This is how liberals argue
Become a surrealist nihilist. Nothing matters because it is all too abstract too fully comprehend with our feeble human brains. Then go about your life feeling good about everything you do from now on, you're welcome
I think a chart like that is cancerous, but ffs if Anarchy isn't shortsighted. Inside every little social-group there is some sort of anarchy. Say with your friends. A space where laws and government don't exist in a sense, but there still hiearchy. You can't ever escape that natural, social hiearchy. And that will always build into something else
Friendly reminder that homosexuality is a result of a combination of a person's endogenetic pre-disposition to endocrine development and hormonal composition as well as the environment's effects on hormonal development right up until late puberty and early adulthood.
Friendly reminder that contemporary society, particularly our synthetic, processed diets, fosters intergenerational abnormalities in endocrine formation and hormone processing.
Because a monotonous society doesn't allow more than a slight percentage of the population to live in their desired condition. So first of all, we'll restrict the amount of jobs, right? Because in an equal society we don't need super expensive cars, clothing, food, anything for the sake of vanity, righty? Art, music, literature etc will follow as there is simply no one to create it in our society. It's not needed, so it'll be a hobby for some people at best, but there won't be a way to distribute it as a commodity.
Maybe it'll still be viewed as a valuable quality of life thing and continually be made for the sake of pleasing the masses, sports, and arts as a sort of modern Colloseum to distract us from our daily lives.
Without diversity we'll be left with maybe one genre of music, one type of literature, one branch of sports. You can't go cherry picking which hobbies you like because there will only be one or two to choose from. We'll see the same in science, we'll limit our own technological progress. That is why I think diversity is so important. It allows us to experience new things, good or bad we'll learn from them and evolve further as a species.
At no point is racial diversity mentioned.
Diversity means variety, difference, unlikeness. In the context of what's been written, where does race come into it?
We're arguing against marxism, i.e socialism, which means less diversity.
No, it is not.
I infer you are attempting to imply I phrased myself badly, which may be the case,
none the less I trust you to make sense of what I typed and would prefer a response instead of nothing.
Communists get there with a state
Anarchists absolutely reject the state as it is absolutely corruptable and thus cannot bring about true revolution.
OP here, I knew the difference from the start.
Question hasn't really been answered
Page 8, I know, but how would the revolution spread in a reasonably effective manner? If the state was dissolved immediately, what would stop foreign intervention? It seems stupid to throw away any power to export an ideology. This isn't directed at you, just at anarchists.
That's hardly as effective as state power, unless an extremely high proportion of the worlds population were revolting. Looking at history, a state is much more likely to come into existence than a massive revolt (massive in comparison to all other revolts) of what is currently an ideological minority.
>That's hardly as effective as state power
State power is only as effective as it keeps up with the needs of others and not restrict itself as a reflection of the past, this rigidity of its parody of power is what leads the problems with the state, aside from many others.
>Looking at history, a state is much more likely to come into existence than a massive revolt
Insurrection is not Revolution.
>currently an ideological minority
This won't happen any time soon. Perhaps in centuries, not within our lifetime.
>State power is only as effective as it keeps up with the needs of others and not restrict itself as a reflection of the past, this rigidity of its parody of power is what leads the problems with the state, aside from many others.
Could you rephrase this?
>Insurrection is not Revolution.
Did I imply it is? What I meant was that rebels are far more likely to seize control of the state than be part of an international revolt to dismantle the most powerful ones.
The state enforces the subtexts and restrictions evident in language (so culture), and so, are unable to have a compatible relationship with people outside of the standard Power and Powerless dichotomy.
I was talking about the state as a means to export an ideology, though, not as permanent means of controlling people through its power. Think about the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.