[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1626581624828.jpg ( 92.11 KB , 500x375 , love_candle_pink_heart.jpg )

 No.385010[View All]

Why do communists have such cynical views on love and romance?

It seems like every communist and anarchist I know not only hates the idea of marriage and monogamy but also the concept of "love" itself. They hold that having emotional attachments to one special person to be reminiscent of private property relations.

Anyone have thoughts on this?
376 posts and 37 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.395632

>>395629
Tell him that you love him, don’t spring the babies thing unless you’re financially stable enough for it. And it’s both something you want.
>>

 No.395636

>>394869
narcissists are humans just like me and you. You can condemn narcissism without literally dehumanising people
>>

 No.395638

>>395629
If he's already "your man" I think he knows you love him
>>

 No.395718

>>395632
Is there a quote from Marx I could send him that would make his heart warm and fuzzy?

>>395638
We have a weird relationship. I'm sure he has feelings for me but I've never confirmed it.
>>

 No.395746

Is World systems theory third worldist?
>>

 No.395775

>>395746

Hard to say. It certainly can be, but its not clear to me that it is a direct logical deduction from its premises/axikns.
>>

 No.395920

>>390925
> in that it breaks up communities and causes large amounts of distrust between peoples
These are consequences of having children under capitalism, not "free love".
>>

 No.395921

>>395718
>>395629
Oof, don't tell him you want babies right off the bat. Also not a good idea. Get to know each other together first.
Idk, I hate the idea of commitment. I would rather see how things develop.
>>

 No.395937

>>395629
No. Your body belongs to the revolution. You are nothing but meat to serve in the glorious revolution, there is no time for settling down.
>>

 No.395944

>>390925
>There's a reason why left-wing populism espoused by old school communists completely died off in the early 1960s when the birth control pill became mainstreamed.
Can we stop with the shit takes where everyone gives a random year in which a singular event happens, and then this event is what killed off the "old school communists". Half the time is has zero basis and only exists for anons to take a singular event they already didn't like, and ascribing it a larger role in terms of the state of the left to then try and draw opposition to it. And shit like this is without historical materialist basis to begin with, because it applies some kind of spooky vague quality to revolutionary development in which its not actual capitalist suppression or peoples relations to production that throttle or spur it, but one thing that "totally ruined the left guyz" that's oversimplified to the point of worthlessness.
>Real communists support healthy monogamous marriage and procreation.
Real communists aren't against monogamy or procreation inherently, but I don't think you understand at all the communist position on the institution of marriage.
>>

 No.395964

>>

 No.395965

>>395921
>I hate the idea of commitment
Why?
>>

 No.395976

>>385342
>The idea of love has been commodified and reified too much.

>food has been commodified and reified too much

>time to stop eating food
>>

 No.396089

>>395976
food can't be reified because it's not a social relation
retard
>>

 No.396575

Honestly, how many communist revolutionaries were poly/free lovers?

Seems like this kind of shit is unique to western armchair leftists.
>>

 No.396599

>>396575
Half-way bingo. Maybe this thread can get more interesting now.
I say half-way, because while it is true that within the context of the October and Chinese revolution the free love / polyamory-ish people often were to the leftcom of the communist movement at large, it is also worth pointing out that these successful, massive revolutions and wins for the Marxist-Leninists, who were often more moderate in interpersonal relationships (monogamous, but often at least opposed to Abrahamic marriage customs), it is worth poiting out that the context of the time was far divorced from what it is today. During both revolutions the religious norms of the semi-feudal societies were far more arcane that what most parts of the world, outside of the peripheries, are used to.
This adds complexity to the problem we're discussing here.
What the leftcommunists were politically proposing during the October revolution is today, 100 years of global material development later, more relevant. Most of the west is irreligious. Most of the semi-periphery is largely secularized in their modern pseudo-religiosity.
>>

 No.396638

File: 1627065044597.png ( 436.65 KB , 441x617 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>396575
Not exactly revolutionaries but Sartre and Beauvoir come to mind. Also Fidel was a huge womanizer
>>

 No.396652

>>385064
>>385077
fuck off inceloid
>>

 No.396790

>>395629
>>395718
>sabocat is a woman
somehow a lot of things make sense to me now
>>

 No.396818

>>385502
I just give them a list of Finnish pronouns and call them anglocentric if they refuse to use them correctly.
Although this isn't really usable when speaking face to face.
>>

 No.396866

>>389535
Unfathomably retarded, its always been the other way around in all economic modes, with monarchs having a shit ton of concubines, bourgeois fucking their mistresses or employees or "indentured servants" and proles typically being monogamous because it wouldn't be economically beneficial to have to raise a shit ton of children from different mothers, even impossible in many cases, historically the upper class men have been the class where polygyny is acceptable
>>

 No.396870

>>386792
Never change 'stache man.
>>

 No.396877

>>396790
>Only one person can use a flag
>>

 No.396880

>>394933
could you give a critique of a few major tendencies, you seem to know what you're talking about
(ML, MLM, etc.)
>>

 No.396912

Reminder that although many communists historically have opposed Puritanical positions, they also heavily resisted and opposed prostitution and pornography.
>>

 No.396936

also why is this not in siberia, actually, that'd be super low quality so yeah it's okay here, it could be argued
>>

 No.396958

>>

 No.396965

>>396912
Socialists countries have and are very puritanical and conservative in social stuff related to sex and love. I think there's a lot to critique there and analyse why that happened.
Obviously better than many western countries, but still worse than perfect.
>>

 No.396970

>>396866
I don't give a fuck what you think was "always the case with monarchs". I'm telling you what is now.
>>

 No.396978

>>

 No.396990

>>396965
Correct. The working class wants stability above all else. They don't want hipster bullshit culture.
>>

 No.396997

>>396978
What am I coping about you idiot.
>>396990
That's not true at all. Projecting shit unto the Proletariat mass is pure ideology.
>>

 No.397023

>>396866
>Unfathomably retarded, its always been the other way around in all economic modes, with monarchs having a shit ton of concubines, bourgeois fucking their mistresses or employees or "indentured servants" and proles typically being monogamous because it wouldn't be economically beneficial to have to raise a shit ton of children from different mothers, even impossible in many cases, historically the upper class men have been the class where polygyny is acceptable
I'm not going to defend what I'm about to state, but this isn't exactly true. We're the vast majority monogamous? Yes, but during the Victorian era, the man leaving to utilizing a prostitute to keep his "bestial" tendencies outside of the house was a relatively common practice. Marriage was generally a purely economic affair, with contracts of inheritance, the awarding of dowries, and the combining of finances. "Love" was something generally reserved to stories of young elopers and unmarried vagabonds. Hence Marx and Engels critique of the institution of marriage, which strictly dissuaded relationships of "sex-love".
>>

 No.397081

>>397023
>In the Victorian Era
>Victorian Era
>19th Century England, not even all of it
bruh, that's a miniscule time era and a tiny portion of the population that at best had influence in one or two other cities on continental Europe, it isn't representative of most of history before or after
>>

 No.397082

File: 1627079995004.jpg ( 7.45 KB , 300x168 , copium.jpg )

>>396997
>What am I coping about you idiot
>>

 No.397213

>>396997
I am proletarian and grew up in the Rust Belt, moron. Working class whites don't want hipster culture. They want strong marriages and healthy children.
>>

 No.397317

>>397081
>bruh, that's a miniscule time era and a tiny portion of the population that at best had influence in one or two other cities on continental Europe, it isn't representative of most of history before or after
That was just one example. If you read about the history of the institution of marriage scenarios like this were the norm. Two people get married for largely economic reasons either by their own decision or their parents, they live their life relatively distant from another and treat the relationship as just a proper formality, the husband is permitted to have relations outside so long as he doesn't bring is "proclivities" within the household. An affair is where "romance" was, the household was where responsibilities were.
>>

 No.397328

>>397213
>I am proletarian and grew up in the Rust Belt, moron. Working class whites don't want hipster culture. They want strong marriages and healthy children.
NTA, but the working class includes all of the working class, and I can tell you that most people want loving relationships, this is not the same as being puritans, and many aren't "conservative". Especially relative to the past.
>>

 No.397639

File: 1627094635249.png ( 11.82 MB , 4309x3373 , ClipboardImage.png )

>>397317
>they live their life relatively distant from another and treat the relationship as just a proper formality, the husband is permitted to have relations outside so long as he doesn't bring is "proclivities" within the household. An affair is where "romance" was, the household was where responsibilities were.
Can confirm. This was (possibly still is, to a certain extent) definitely a thing among the peasant/small-time prole/craftsmen/trade workers etc. in traditional Catholic Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Latin American countries (Mexico etc.), especially in the rural countryside, but also in the cities. Sleeping around with different women that aren't your wife, impregnating them, fathering children that end up discovering years or decades later that they have half-siblings that they never knew about before. It's because "conquering" (conquistar) women was (is?) seen as "macho" and a sign of virility, so the logic was: the more women bedded, the better, and the more "macho" you were. As you said though, the only caveat was to "keep the whores/harlots out of the house". Among the women/mothers, they talked about it among themselves while cooking or doing housework (with their neighbors who were also mothers, with their female sisters and cousins who were the aunts of their children etc.) as "Men are outside doing what men do." and "I don't care whether or not he's fucking whores outside the house, as long as he keeps bringing bread to the table and a roof over our heads."
>>

 No.398251

>>385010
one we're materialists, and recognize the underlying constraint that lead to the current love and family concepts
second, we recognize the spooks imposed by modern society onto all human relations, but especially the ones related to family and love
third, we are able to imagine alternatives
>>

 No.399398

>>386897
>>386911
That's actually the one thing that bothers me the most about Caleb, aside from his economism and class-collaborationism and light antisemitism. He constantly equates sex with degeneracy and birth control with eugenics, like instead of shaming women for being "sluts" he shames them for being "Malthusians". It also makes sense given his whole "after the revolution there will be mass baby-making orgies to increase the population so muh productive forces can keep increasing" line.
>>

 No.401496

i am 'cynical' because im a lonely weirdo and am aware of the fact that having 'good' politics or being a 'good' person has nothing to do with love, which seems to exist entirely in its own abstract axis.
>>

 No.401498

>>397639
This isn't normal at all, unless you live in very rural, very isolated communities.

>t. Mexican
>>

 No.401523

>>396965
> I think there's a lot to critique there and analyse why that happened.
Because the "socially progressive" stuff always comes from upper class university activists and privately-owned media, not ordinary working families.
Thus once you eliminate the bourgeois influencers, only the "conservative" (not really, but youd call it that way) remains.
>>

 No.401714

>>401523
>Thus once you eliminate the bourgeois influencers, only the "conservative" (not really, but youd call it that way) remains.
When has this relatively ever been the case?
>>

 No.401725

>>401498
>This isn't normal at all, unless you live in very rural, very isolated communities.
Define "very rural" and "isolated". Because this is very contextual in regards to the time being discussed. For example, this is literally a common occurance in the Philippines, even today.
>>

 No.402963

LOVE'LL GET YOU LIKE A CASE OF ANTHRAX
>>

 No.403010

>>401523
Do you mean that it would be neither progressive nor conservative? I Always thought socialist countries were kind of middle of the road on that kind of stuff usually.
>>

 No.403045

>>385484
have my babies

Unique IPs: 29

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome