The landlord fucking charged me a cleaning fee for the sheet left on the bedbug infested mattress
this specific image is good and upsets that actually
Let's not pretend the stigma against veganism doesn't exist.
It definitely does, and it makes it much easier to for them to push this shit.
the fact this is downvoted while a meme that explicitly just dunks on anarchists without any real critique to it is just sad
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
I don't think there's any meaningful distinction that's reliable. The most fucked up goals do seem to be mostly external, though. Toxic things like success aren't things people chase because they've developed an irrational love of being successful, but because they're physically punished and socially ostracized for not being that.
In other words, the most harmful desires aren't desires anyone actually has, but impossible goals they think they should want but don't even pretend to want in reality.
People want to do art. Nobody actually wants to be a successful businessman, though. They want all the stuff that comes from being a successful businessman but being a successful businessman is actually universally perceived as quite shitty and unenjoyable in reality.
I looked up Marcuse and on a really primitive reading of his Wikipedia article, while I disagree with his negative views of the USSR, his views seem to be way more in line with reality than Ted's
It’s not pathologizing, quite the opposite, OP is saying that the industry is necessary because a normal human behavior exists that the constant drive for commodity production interrupts
Capitalism doesn’t cause differences, it makes behavior that isn’t strictly in line with the norm much more dangerous to the person having it.
I find it fascinating how the Unabomber and, to an extent, anyone who advocates weird, “every society not built on killing and eating is bad” worldviews, they can see this concept of surrogate goals but immediately jump to invalidating them. What makes the desire to become the best rock thrower in the world any more valid than the desire to survive? More people certainly want the latter, but in the absence of a god or higher power to give us some sort of direction, these surrogate goals are as equally valid as any human endeavor ever ventured upon.
What I suggest seems superficially preposterous, I mean, anyone can tell that not starving is more important than becoming the best rock thrower. But that’s the thing- we only think that because the majority of people do not want to starve. Both the desire to throw rocks and the desire to eat are rooted in our biology, one is just more popular and therefore well supported (and, to be clear, should be supported, I think not starving is more important than rock throwing too)
In fact, most of this is pretty much just nonsense. Most “surrogate” desires never reach the level of toxicity or self harm that exists today in corporate culture or even religion.
Also art is not a fake desire ffs
I would go as far as suggesting that these supposedly fake desires only exist or become truly fake when people are forced to submit to them. When someone is pursuing a “surrogate” or supposedly fake desire without being forced to by conditions or the current mode of production, they’re usually pretty content with it, or experience it as an enjoyable vibe rather than a painful goal, therefore something that can be truly satisfied, like eating or sleep. See art communities for this. There are examples of toxic behavior and attitudes in art communities but they always seem to coincide with a desire to commodify one’s art or as a side effect or the idea of productivity.
I’m used to everything pro-Ukraine on this instance being downvoted to hell. Everyone who supports Russia is being downvoted instead. What is going on?
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.