Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should pornography be legal?

POST REPLY

Pornography?

Permitted without restrictions
19
22%
Permitted with some restrictions
39
46%
Forbidden with light penalties
9
11%
Strictly forbidden
10
12%
Other
8
9%
 
Total votes : 85
Soviet cogitations: 78
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2014, 02:42
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 07:05
Ah, ok. I know that under the Tsar divorce was very hard to get. And then Lenin made it easy to get. And then it became hard to get. I thought that happened again under Lenin, but I'll take your word for it that it occurred under Uncle Joe. Thanks for the correction.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:49
Quote:
enforcing it to that degree is completely pointless.


Who said anything about enforcing? It would just become Social custom. Many women couldn't enter bars or restaurants until 1973, in the US, without a man accompanying them - and only because of pressure by the accommodationist movement.

Creating a more Romantic society is just a matter of creating a social movement, coming into conflict with the prevailing social thesis - and defeating it, and then becoming the default influence on society relative to sexuality. However, this would not happen under capitalism, as sexual consumerism is a large-scale industry, and morals frankly matter little outside of individual objections.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 16 Nov 2014, 19:57
Havee3333333 wrote:
Who said anything about enforcing? It would just become Social custom.

A social custom is enforcement, just as much as law is. It's cultural law, enforced by shunning and shame, and many government laws are just codified versions of it.

Quote:
Many women couldn't enter bars or restaurants until 1973, in the US, without a man accompanying them - and only because of pressure by the accommodationist movement.

People who want women to be able to go outside without a guy are just an "accomodationist movement"? Because I'd rather not live in Saudi Arabia, thank you very much.

Quote:
Creating a more Romantic society is just a matter of creating a social movement, coming into conflict with the prevailing social thesis - and defeating it, and then becoming the default influence on society relative to sexuality.

And you want a social movement against masturbation, to reshape society? Because if so, there's a movement out there for you, right at this time.

http://m.youtube.com/v/RzHcqcXo_NA
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 243
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2011, 15:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2014, 08:33
MissStrangelove wrote:
And you want a social movement against masturbation, to reshape society? Because if so, there's a movement out there for you, right at this time.

http://m.youtube.com/v/RzHcqcXo_NA
This reminds me of this satire piece http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81752461/ But for what it's worth, and for your information, not every Christian is against masturbation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba.htm And incidentally, though I'm not really interested in porn, or even nudity, I do masturbate quite a bit. I feel that it both helps to relieve an erection, which I've found can get even from as little as simply having my hair clipped, as well as helps to clear out any possible urinary tract infection. But that's just me.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2014, 09:20
MissStrangelove wrote:
A social custom is enforcement, just as much as law is. It's cultural law, enforced by shunning and shame, and many government laws are just codified versions of it.

You have to take economic conditions into account. In the Middle East, it is quite clear that their social customs are meant to continue oppression of women. If a woman is willing to let men force her how to dress, she will probably be willing to do whatever else they make her do. This maintains the patriarchal social structure that their society is structured upon. Socialist social custom is not equal to Capitalist and pre-Capitalist social custom, it is far more developed and complex. Screw bourgeois postmodernism.

Quote:
People who want women to be able to go outside without a guy are just an "accomodationist movement"? Because I'd rather not live in Saudi Arabia, thank you very much.

Read Georgina Hickey's article "Barred from the Barroom: Second Wave Feminists and Public Accommodations in U.S. Cities." This subject just wasn't discussed before the accommodationists in the last '60's and '70's. People are not going to revolt unless things become apparent, and things don't become apparent until economic conditions make them apparent (business deals we more frequently being conducted at bars and restaurants at the time, and Middle Class women considered non-accommodation to be handicapping their abilities to become business women). This is basic Marxist dialectics.


Quote:
And you want a social movement against masturbation, to reshape society? Because if so, there's a movement out there for you, right at this time.

http://m.youtube.com/v/RzHcqcXo_NA


Really? And in what way is anything I am saying connected to religion? Here is my point regarding this, "Socialist social custom is not equal to Capitalist and pre-Capitalist social custom, it is far more developed and complex."
Nothing can happen until a Socialist revolution if we truly want the complexity attached to scientifically-based Socialist principles, so a modern Romanticist campaign is pointless (just like in the 19th century when Romantics tried to stop the British bourgeoisie from seizing the commons). In other words, I am saying we should avoid pushing for this until a Socialist revolution for exactly the same reason you are connecting me to a bunch of religious nuts (to avoid being associated to more simply constructed concepts and arguments).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 17 Nov 2014, 18:18
Jason24 wrote:
But for what it's worth, and for your information, not every Christian is against masturbation.

I never said otherwise.
The vast majority aren't, Christine O'Donnell (Miss "I'm not a witch") is just a weird fundie. And weird fundies seem to be the only people who care at all about it.

Havee3333333 wrote:
You have to take economic conditions into account. In the Middle East, it is quite clear that their social customs are meant to continue oppression of women. If a woman is willing to let men force her how to dress, she will probably be willing to do whatever else they make her do. This maintains the patriarchal social structure that their society is structured upon. Socialist social custom is not equal to Capitalist and pre-Capitalist social custom, it is far more developed and complex. Screw bourgeois postmodernism.

What does this have to do with anything I said, though? Social custom is law. It impacts people as much as a codified, written law. Usually it's the source of those written laws. You yourself are essentially admitting that, by emphasizing its importance. So I'm not sure what you're getting at, beyond tilting at windmills.

Quote:
Here is my point regarding this, "Socialist social custom is not equal to Capitalist and pre-Capitalist social custom, it is far more developed and complex."

And while we can't predict what the customs will be under socialism, if you think masturbation ending is even slightly likely, I have to say that's really strange. I'm curious about what makes you believe that, but I don't see how socialism would have anything to do with it. The vast majority of us would not consider relieving yourself "bourgeois" in the slightest.

I made the fundie crack because they're just about the only people who care about it.

Quote:
Nothing can happen until a Socialist revolution if we truly want the complexity attached to scientifically-based Socialist principles, so a modern Romanticist campaign is pointless (just like in the 19th century when Romantics tried to stop the British bourgeoisie from seizing the commons).

Tying this into Romanticism is also strange. I mean, Byron and Shelley (among the most socialist of the Romantics) would clearly not be on-board with the let's-end-masturbation agenda.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 17 Nov 2014, 23:37
MissStrangelove wrote:
What does this have to do with anything I said, though?


I am outlining the origins of social customs, and asking you to rethink the statement "social custom is enforcement." Customs of a culture are natural and have evolved relative to the material conditions a society deals with over hundreds of years. To suggest that there is "enforcement" assumes that custom is arbitrarily placed, and not the subject of social evolution. This is bullocks... Cultures do not need to enforce themselves - they are the standard. There can only be antithetical principles to the standard, which emerge from contradictions in the standard.

Quote:
And while we can't predict what the customs will be under socialism, if you think masturbation ending is even slightly likely, I have to say that's really strange.


The Romans disliked pants for their relation to barbarians. If you were caught wearing pants in Ancient Rome, they'd think you're a barbarian. Frankly, appealing to something's popularity or unpopularity isn't going to prove that a trend is going to last forever.

The reason why I think Socialism will eliminate this bourgeois trend is because of Socialism's restoration of such virtues as dignity. Honorable men in history had a sense of piety, humility, moderation, honor, dignity, and other grand virtues. Granted, these were entwined with religious zeal, but Socialism will return these virtues in a form that will promote general humanism and proletarian brotherhood/sisterhood. Any display of hedonism is contrary to the goals of Socialism. A true revolution isn't just a change in economic or political arrangements. A true revolution happens on all levels of society. If a revolution occurs and bourgeois tendencies like greed, self-satisfaction, exploitation, and others still exist, there might have well been no revolution at all. If a person still feels the need to masturbate after a revolution, rather than establishing real, genuine, and unalienated relationships with friends and colleagues for the rest of their lives, then it will be their own lose. Yes, we cannot predict what customs under socialism will be like, but we can deduce the principles simply by examining necessary economic relationships.

Quote:
Tying this into Romanticism is also strange. I mean, Byron and Shelley (among the most socialist of the Romantics) would clearly not be on-board with the let's-end-masturbation agenda.

Are you sure? I'm sure they would be all for Aristotle's principle of establishing friendship based on virtue rather than friendship based on pleasure (masturbation, in my perspective, being an indirect pleasure-based relationship with someone else) and utility.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Nov 2014, 04:27
Havee3333333 wrote:
Customs of a culture are natural and have evolved relative to the material conditions a society deals with over hundreds of years. To suggest that there is "enforcement" assumes that custom is arbitrarily placed,

No it doesn't, it just assumes that customs maintain themselves through being socially enforced. If you don't abide by them, you are shunned. Again, you're tilting at windmills here.

Quote:
Cultures do not need to enforce themselves - they are the standard.

People enforce them. The standard only becomes the standard if it's socially enforced. Otherwise, a different standard arises. That this standard will fit whatever the circumstances of the time are is irrelevant; our actions, collectively, are the circumstances of the time.

For instance, as capitalism decays more and more, we probably will transition to socialism. But, if we fail to, barbarism could be the end result instead. Thus, socialism needs to be enforced. We can't just "let it happen," or it won't.

Quote:
The Romans disliked pants for their relation to barbarians. If you were caught wearing pants in Ancient Rome, they'd think you're a barbarian. Frankly, appealing to something's popularity or unpopularity isn't going to prove that a trend is going to last forever.

First of all, you just proved my point above. Why didn't Romans wear pants? Social shame. If you wear them, you look like one of those crazy Gauls.

Secondly, nobody said a trend is going to last forever. But there's no conceivable reason why we would stop touching ourselves, and you have yet to prove it's "bourgeois." I've seen monkeys do it at the zoo, for god's sake. Are you telling me exploitation from the chimp-capitalists caused them to do that?

Quote:
The reason why I think Socialism will eliminate this bourgeois trend is because of Socialism's restoration of such virtues as dignity. Honorable men in history had a sense of piety, humility, moderation, honor, dignity, and other grand virtues.

You haven't even defined half of these, which are pretty nebulous and fuzzy. What is "honor" really? The product of a feudal gentlemen's agreement, a code that inhibits the weaker party. This is basically just preachy moralism.

Quote:
Granted, these were entwined with religious zeal, but Socialism will return these virtues in a form that will promote general humanism and proletarian brotherhood/sisterhood.

The goal of socialism isn't to "return" anything to anywhere. We're all for forging a totally new society. There will be some things that'll resemble past societies in some ways. The alienation of advanced capitalism will be drawn down, for instance. But that's because it's an essential goal of socialism, not out of any impossible desire to go back to any non-existent perfect point in time.

Quote:
If a revolution occurs and bourgeois tendencies like greed, self-satisfaction, exploitation, and others still exist, there might have well been no revolution at all.

Self-satisfaction is the only one there masturbation falls under, and that's the one I think has nothing to do with socialism. Do we not all want to be satisfied? Is the point of socialism not to satisfy our needs, instead of a society where some peoples' basic needs are ignored while others live extravagantly? The nihilistic, self-flagellating socialism of "let's all suffer as one" isn't socialism at all.

Quote:
If a person still feels the need to masturbate after a revolution, rather than establishing real, genuine, and unalienated relationships with friends and colleagues for the rest of their lives, then it will be their own lose.

...you realize someone can do both, right? To masturbate does not mean to spend all day jerking off on 4chan. I'm sorry if you've experienced that, but this is basically being a Grinch out of smug self-righteousness.

Quote:
Yes, we cannot predict what customs under socialism will be like, but we can deduce the principles simply by examining necessary economic relationships.

Which you haven't done on the jacking-off question. And we only can to a pretty minor degree, pointing out the flaws in capitalism and things that might be better than today. And even those things are just "might"; changing circumstances may make even those solutions obsolete. With such a fundamental transition, there are so many variables at play that to try and map out that society would be a fool's errand.

Quote:
Are you sure? I'm sure they would be all for Aristotle's principle of establishing friendship based on virtue rather than friendship based on pleasure (masturbation, in my perspective, being an indirect pleasure-based relationship with someone else) and utility.

Byron was a wanton hedonist, and Shelley was a notorious womanizer. "Friendship based on pleasure" was half of what they did. They certainly didn't subscribe to an outdated Aristotelian virtue-ethics. Philosophically they'd be much closer to the existentialists, and Nietzsche was very inspired by those figures. For traditional Aristotelianism, you're looking less at the Romantics and more at Thomas Aquinas/Catholic ethics.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 07:22
I don't have time to talk about this anymore...

Just study some logic and examine deducible principles that socialism will establish. Also, I recommend studying Marx's The German Ideology where he outlines how societies are built, and further outlines a few living conditions under Socialism. If you disagree with my deduced logic and Marx, you will never agree with anything I say, and we are just wasting time speaking.

Realize that hedonism isn't a principle that will be practiced in Socialism, so things like masturbation won't exist anymore.

Once you study this, you will realize how pointless it is to continue a discussion regarding this topic.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Nov 2014, 09:44
Havee3333333 wrote:
Just study some logic and examine deducible principles that socialism will establish. Also, I recommend studying Marx's The German Ideology where he outlines how societies are built, and further outlines a few living conditions under Socialism. If you disagree with my deduced logic and Marx, you will never agree with anything I say, and we are just wasting time speaking.

I've read it, it's one of his best actually. And show me where Marx talked about masturbation. You can't, because Marx wasn't a weirdo.

Also, the problem is, you haven't laid out any logic whatsoever. You've just declared something, backed it up with some moral jargon, and expected people to take it for granted.

Quote:
Realize that hedonism isn't a principle that will be practiced in Socialism, so things like masturbation won't exist anymore.

"Hedonism won't be of primary importance, therefore people will never pleasure themselves." If that's your idea of logic, it's really twisted. And I'm seriously curious about why you're so insistent here.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 18 Nov 2014, 16:21
Quote:
The reason why I think Socialism will eliminate this bourgeois trend is because of Socialism's restoration of such virtues as dignity. Honorable men in history had a sense of piety, humility, moderation, honor, dignity, and other grand virtues. Granted, these were entwined with religious zeal, but Socialism will return these virtues in a form that will promote general humanism and proletarian brotherhood/sisterhood. Any display of hedonism is contrary to the goals of Socialism. A true revolution isn't just a change in economic or political arrangements. A true revolution happens on all levels of society. If a revolution occurs and bourgeois tendencies like greed, self-satisfaction, exploitation, and others still exist, there might have well been no revolution at all. If a person still feels the need to masturbate after a revolution, rather than establishing real, genuine, and unalienated relationships with friends and colleagues for the rest of their lives, then it will be their own lose. Yes, we cannot predict what customs under socialism will be like, but we can deduce the principles simply by examining necessary economic relationships.

Outright bullshit without any basis in anything, much less Marxism. You're pulling all of this out of your ass so i won't even bother to ask you for anything that would even remotely corroborate what you just said here ( inb4 that Lenin's "against-the-glass-of-water-theory letter" or something ).
You sound like a ranting neckbeard basement-dweller.

Also what MissStrangelove said.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4796
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Feb 2004, 11:09
Ideology: Other Leftist
Central Committee
Post 18 Nov 2014, 16:42
I absolutely don't understand people who take Marxism to mean only logic.

Humans are still humans with sexual urges and desires. Unless you totally defeat the human endocrine system, you're barking up the wrong tree.

At very best it's like saying that crime will be completely eliminated, which is just sheer lunacy. You can't say something will not happen just because it's not an acceptable practice under a socio-economic system. Humans are not unfeeling robots and never will be, we will never be 100 percent efficient at being communist. It has nothing to do with the means of production.

What you are assuming via logic is flawed by basic statistics and any study at all of human psychology. It assumes 100% participation, 100% of the time by 100% of the population. The sheer blindness of believing that is possible with any sizeable population immediately discredits your viewpoint for anybody who has ever worked with demographic data before.

If you honestly believe that you could actually ever eliminate deviant behavior, you live in a fantasy land of an idealist.

It's one thing to argue that good socialist won't practice hedonism or masturbation under a Marxist system (they still will) but it is quite a leap to say it won't exist at all. In fact it's entirely laughable.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 17:25
Loz wrote:
Outright bullshit

Yeah... According to you culture isn't going to change much after a revolution. I remember you promoting free will once and I had to correct you and point out that Marx was a compatibilist.

And according to your girlfriend, cultures are forced principles onto society and therefore the individual (as if to say individuals aren't raised in societies, and naturally conditioned with such principles). No! Historically antithetical social classes adapted the social structure relative to real material conditions - individuals grew up under such conditions until contradictions appeared and newer antithetical ideas came about. What she said here was completely against everything Marx said in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology. Culture, relative to economic structure, is the basis upon which society is formed - enforcement isn't necessary unless contradictions are apparent. We are part of the culture, so at what point is she suggesting enforcement comes into play outside of oppression against antithetical ideas - because social conditioning is not a form of enforcement. I invited her to learn some logic because she completely missed the fragging point I was trying to make...

Anyway, this is from The German Ideology, which clearly neither of you have read,

Quote:
[4. The Essence of the Materialist Conception of History.
Social Being and Social Consciousness]

The fact is, therefore, that definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into these definite social and political relations. Empirical observation must in each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with production. The social structure and the State are continually evolving out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals, not as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but as they really are; i.e. as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions independent of their will.

[The following passage is crossed out in the manuscript:] The ideas which these individuals form are ideas either about their relation to nature or about their mutual relations or about their own nature. It is evident that in all these cases their ideas are the conscious expression – real or illusory – of their real relations and activities, of their production, of their intercourse, of their social and political conduct. The opposite assumption is only possible if in addition to the spirit of the real, materially evolved individuals a separate spirit is presupposed. If the conscious expression of the real relations of these individuals is illusory, if in their imagination they turn reality upside-down, then this in its turn is the result of their limited material mode of activity and their limited social relations arising from it.

The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.

In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness.

This method of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment. Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions. As soon as this active life-process is described, history ceases to be a collection of dead facts as it is with the empiricists (themselves still abstract), or an imagined activity of imagined subjects, as with the idealists.

Where speculation ends – in real life – there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men. Empty talk about consciousness ceases, and real knowledge has to take its place. When reality is depicted, philosophy as an independent branch of knowledge loses its medium of existence. At the best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which arise from the observation of the historical development of men. Viewed apart from real history, these abstractions have in themselves no value whatsoever. They can only serve to facilitate the arrangement of historical material, to indicate the sequence of its separate strata. But they by no means afford a recipe or schema, as does philosophy, for neatly trimming the epochs of history. On the contrary, our difficulties begin only when we set about the observation and the arrangement – the real depiction – of our historical material, whether of a past epoch or of the present. The removal of these difficulties is governed by premises which it is quite impossible to state here, but which only the study of the actual life-process and the activity of the individuals of each epoch will make evident. We shall select here some of these abstractions, which we use in contradistinction to the ideologists, and shall illustrate them by historical examples.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /ch01a.htm
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 17:38
I have always been intrigued by this idea of total human perfection, it often pops up in most theories of "totalitarianism" which often imply that there is at least one person who is 100% engaged with absolutely everything and is omniscient to everything going on around them. This flaw is often reproduced in normative economic theories both from the left, though the more naive ones, and mostly in those to the right of the political spectrum that either rely on "optimal efficiency" and everybody making "rational choices" - we are a bunch of neurotic reflexes, complex emotions weighing up environmental and circumstance, and rarely "rational" if ever "scientific" in our personal relations - sexual ones included.

Assuming that socialism creates "perfect humans" just gives credence to those shitty theories on "totalitarianism" that we supposedly believe in a Leviathan and are all for weird social engineering experiments that go against the actual complex characters of people.

Quote:
If a person still feels the need to masturbate after a revolution, rather than establishing real, genuine, and unalienated relationships with friends and colleagues for the rest of their lives, then it will be their own lose.


This is probably the finest thing said on this thread - that you will get shot by a Chekist for wangling your wong.


What does that excerpt have to do with either gays or wanking?
I have read the German Ideology (at least the 1st and final sections - the rest is just rambling on about vaguely unimportant professors working in 1840s Germany), and by your own admission the current entrenched positions against homosexuality are socially enforced quite well enough, yet people are still gay. Out of interest, what do you understand by social and cultural enforcement of ideas? I understand it to be physically and verbally abused by those unwilling to tolerate difference for inconsequential things like being a man and growing long hair, or coming out as gay and living in fear of having your ribs broken with a baseball bat, or having acid thrown in your face for not accepting an arranged marriage. You are apparently arguing that those types of things are a-okay.
Last edited by Erichs_Pastry_Chef on 18 Nov 2014, 20:37, edited 1 time in total.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 17:43
SciHobo wrote:
At very best it's like saying that crime will be completely eliminated, which is just sheer lunacy.

Where did I say it should be criminalized? I said society will evolve out of the need to masturbate because alienated relationships will be eliminated...

Just look at the early Eastern Roman Empire, where hedonistic tendencies were abandoned for modesty and other such qualities. People were abandoning their lives and going out and living in the desert with the first being Saint Anthony. These were class-based changes in the upper class, sure, but I believe self-dignity can be an achievable quality in Socialism. There is no excuse for a society to maintain any bourgeois social relations if they can struggle against it.

My real dislike for masturbation and pornography is its alienated relationship. It creates an alienated indirect sexual relationship between an individual and someone else, and I am a strong proponent of eliminating such trends from the culture. Whether or not someone wants to do it is their own loss, and perhaps our own failure.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 17:52
So the internet will no longer exist if "alienated relationships" are to be abolished? I don't get what you mean by the final bit or people going to be hermits for whatever reason, it seems like you are wanting to lump socialism in with the moral code of a distant land some 1000 years ago, which makes it even funnier when you just quoted Marx' GI.

What makes you think you should be an authority to decide on what is morally and socially acceptible? You seem to imply people like us are partially to blame for people wanking, can you please expand on this as it makes literally no sense to me.
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 18 Nov 2014, 18:10
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
So the internet will no longer exist if "alienated relationships" are to be abolished?


Well, the internet will take on different features I hope. Hopefully it can be more interactive and connect people a little more directly.

Quote:
I don't get what you mean by the final bit or people going to be hermits for whatever reason

No, no, no, no... That was just an example of a culture radically changing its character. It was my attempt to show that such radical social transformation have occurred, as during the Roman transformation from slave-based means of production to feudal means of production.

Quote:
You seem to imply people like us are partially to blame for people wanking, can you please expand on this as it makes literally no sense to me.

Capitalist modes of production are responsible. Individuals are merely reflecting their social and material conditions. Individuals can't be blamed for such things.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9286
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Mar 2005, 20:08
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 18:31
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
So the internet will no longer exist if "alienated relationships" are to be abolished? I don't get what you mean by the final bit or people going to be hermits for whatever reason, it seems like you are wanting to lump socialism in with the moral code of a distant land some 1000 years ago, which makes it even funnier when you just quoted Marx' GI.

What makes you think you should be an authority to decide on what is morally and socially acceptible? You seem to imply people like us are partially to blame for people wanking, can you please expand on this as it makes literally no sense to me.


You know, let's be fair, we had a mechanical understanding of the world like that too once. And so did the Soviets in the 20s, when Marx's philosophical views still fit into the prevailing paradigms of ideology. Since then, however, the world has changed greatly, and so has human knowledge, so trying to shoehorn things like Engels' Origins of the Family, based on L. H. Morgan's now-discredited work, into academic discourse became increasingly difficult. The Soviets tried to do this with archaeology, particularly as it related to paleoanthropology, but it just ended up looking stupid, as at the time, they had a tiny amount of discourse compared to today, and trying to use an over-arching theory to explain something you just began studying will inevitably lead to mistakes.

It's the same for trying to jam Marxism into social phenomena. The attitudes people have to pornography are not a cultural universal, and neither is a specific form of relationships, sexual or otherwise. Of course under capitalism, relationships become very commodified, but there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to this or other things at a philosophical level.
Image

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz
"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 18 Nov 2014, 19:01
Havee3333333 wrote:
Yeah... According to you culture isn't going to change much after a revolution. I remember you promoting free will once and I had to correct you and point out that Marx was a compatibilist.

"Culture will change" is not remotely the same as "people will stop touching themselves."

Quote:
And according to your girlfriend, cultures are forced principles onto society and therefore the individual (as if to say individuals aren't raised in societies, and naturally conditioned with such principles).

If they grew up in it, if they were "conditioned with" it, that's acculturation. That it has material conditions behind it is wholly irrelevant, those conditions are what form society. So, unless you believe those conditions automatically give us an inborn set of behavior existing without social influence: you just proved my point for me, again. The windmills are calling, Don Quixote.

Quote:
I remember you promoting free will once and I had to correct you and point out that Marx was a compatibilist.

We should care what makes sense, not what Marx said. Marx, while progressive for his time, was homophobic and racist by modern standards too. Do we adopt that as religious writ just because he said it?

Though for the record, I'd argue that if causation is a narrow "X-leads-to-Y" thing (which quantum physics makes fuzzy), free will doesn't exist.

Quote:
Well, the internet will take on different features I hope. Hopefully it can be more interactive and connect people a little more directly.

Here I'd actually definitely agree, and I think lessening competition in the broader society would go a long way to lessening the cliquiness that breeds social isolation and this whole "look how many Facebook friends I have" mentality. Which is, unfortunately, alienating people, dividing a lot of the youth today into "Facebook popular kids" and "Wizardchan basement dwellers" camps (with a lot of mutual hatred), and culminating in school shootings.

Quote:
We are part of the culture, so at what point is she suggesting enforcement comes into play outside of oppression against antithetical ideas - because social conditioning is not a form of enforcement. I invited her to learn some logic because she completely missed the fragging point I was trying to make...

No, I looked at it and picked it apart. Sorry if you think people are imbeciles for disagreeing with you.

And funny you mention that, you're evidently missing my point. How is social conditioning not a form of enforcement? It not involving guns pointed at the head does not mean it's not a means of pressuring for a certain set of rules. How would any of the cultural conditions under capitalism end? Some form of social pressure. And there's nothing wrong with that, capitalism's rules expanded that way too. Feudal norms had to be actively fought, and even to this day some of their scant remnants still have to.

I'll also reiterate that you still haven't proven that masturbation is "bourgeois" or laid out how it would possibly end under socialism. Or why you care.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 18 Nov 2014, 20:21, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Embalmed
Post 18 Nov 2014, 19:23
I am pretty sure people wanked in the USSR as much as they did in the Paris Commune and even in prehistoric times, that mysterious time where alienated relationships were supposed to have never existed. Can you provide a history of wanking, showing a positive, causative correlation with the rise of the bourgeoisie?
Image

"Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron