/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>388990
It's a bit more nuanced then that, with Engels personally seeing monogamous relationship as the most common kind in the future, though there is always uncertainty in such things.
>Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination.
>And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience, the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.
>But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.
>What we can now conjecture about the way in which sexual relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.
>Let us, however, return to Morgan, from whom we have moved a considerable distance. The historical investigation of the social institutions developed during the period of civilization goes beyond the limits of his book. How monogamy fares during this epoch, therefore, only occupies him very briefly. He, too, sees in the further development of the monogamous family a step forward, an approach to complete equality of the sexes, though he does not regard this goal as attained. But, he says:
<When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society … it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.

>>389017
well you don't need it anyway, it has no value
so why keep it

>>389020
You don't need a lot of things, but it is still find to keep them. Is communism supposed to be an all-work-no-play society?

>>388838
>this is total bourgeois politics nonsense
Good post all around however calling everyone and everything “bourgeois” is really unhelpful trying to convert and convince people of your cause. Let’s be honest here, most working class people only care for better living conditions at first. They’re nowhere near the level of reading 4 volumes of Kapital or knowing about The Ego and Its Own to get how most of the superstructure they’re currently living within is reactionary.

It’s both practical and necessary to introduce more progressive societal norms once the material base to support them is fully completed. For instance, how can you even support trans rights when the legal system isn’t even complete enough to protect rights of workers or the healthcare system isn’t even advanced enough to have free healthcare let alone free sexual reassignment surgeries so that trans rights isn’t exclusive to a bunch of rich libs in the west? Another example can be seen in the history of the Soviet Union, during Stalin’s time some of his policies like subsidies on stay-at-home mothers could be seen as “reactionary” but in reality they’re not. The policy was born out of the historical context in which ww2 had taken the lives of almost 1/5th the population of the USSR. Under Khrushchev, when the slumping population had been sufficiently supported, rights for women in workplaces was also supplemented alongside communal childcare to give everyone regardless of gender a choice to either work or stay at home.
>But being a communist that's supposed to just bend to demands of the people is just the same as any politician, and no one will respect that.
Dude my country saw this during the schism between the MLs and Trots. Ho Chi Minh already promised both the peasants and Trots that land reforms will eventually be implemented and the national capitalist be taken care of in due time. Yet, they didn’t listen and try to stage a popular revolt… in the context that the country was under occupation by the “allies” and the Vietminh was doing everything to fight them (KMT and their shills in the north, French, British and the puppets in the south). This eventually let the French takeover of Sai Gon and the chance for them to establish their puppet’s legitimacy. It’s not about bending over to anyone but being practical and choosing your priorities wisely.
>>388944
Singing to the choir, dude. Fucking hell Engels himself live with his lover in an open relationship and that’s actually more healthy. But not everyone is as open to the idea as Engels did, especially when the deeply entrenched cultural norms hasn’t been destroyed.
>>388841
Yeah, I get it. There’s a lot of LARPers that bought into 1984 style red fascist narrative of western propaganda and go full contrarian calling it a good thing to own da libs. But then again, a large part of this board are /pol/ converts so it’s understandable that there’s still some moralist holdouts. That doesn’t mean that they can’t change for the better.
If crazy schizos like Lovecraft can change then they can too.

>>389014
neither do I. I just don’t see it ever becoming more than this sort of fringe alternative arrangement some people engage in.

I mean it's a text from 1884, there's been a century and a half of anthropologic studies on the subject since.

>>389044
>I just don’t see it ever becoming more than this sort of fringe alternative arrangement some people engage in.
I have to disagree. Sexual norms have become more lenient over time, and young people are more open to non-monogamous relationships than older people. Bear in mind that there was a time when living with a significant other you weren't married (cohabitation) to was considered scandalous. Don't assume that the sexual norms we have today will continue indefinitely.

>>389043
hm i get your point about priorities, at least to the point of not fighting your allies when there are also enemies around
(also i meant bourgeois-politics as one thing, as in their political system and way of doing politics as opposed to communist politics which goes beyond votes)

>>388764
>I'm talking about people defending family, monogamy and this whole load of shit.
Plenty of cowards too afraid of the future to embrace it

>>389065
>also i meant bourgeois-politics as one thing, as in their political system and way of doing politics as opposed to communist politics which goes beyond votes
Yes, it’s actually about rallying the popular force of the working class through concrete goals and actions. The whole support base argument of mine wasn’t even about voting (living in a one party country made me abhor multi-party clown parades) but about not alienating your peers once you have a good movement going. A good historical example is Mao’s retardation when supporting SEA revolutions. Dude was so focused on making Chinese diaspora exclusive communist orgs that it became an easy prey for fascists to lump sinophobia and anti-communism together. Plus it made the grass root communists to see it as only a ploy to divide the workers. Another recent example is the US using divide and conquer on the their proles by separating them based on identity lines.

>>389061
i'm generally on the side of not being a reactionary in communist clothes, but still I disagree that the future is non-monogamous relationships, and that this is what more liberalized/lenient sexual norms looks like.
I think you're more on the money with the little fact about cohabitation.

Consider this, a typical monogamous relationship holds certain expectations about what it is to have a (committed) romantic/sexual relationship - one of those is that you're supposed to put that person first in your life, and center things around your new life as a couple. You're expected to be able to give this person time and some material and emotional support.
If we take this without changing it, but just multiply it by 2 or 3 or 4, it's not very stable or possible. Of course polyamorous relationships happen and some work well and last long. So I don't deny the ability for these relationships to exist, but obviously something must change about the relationship. It stops expecting the same things - you can't be expected to spend hours each day with someone alone, or at least have time for them as you go to sleep, when there are more than one. (already I think our notion of marriage and romantic partnership is fucked up and stupid but this just breaks it)

There has to be a dialectical action here wherein both things change - as we become more open to loving more people, our idea of love will have to change.

I know that most polyamorous people say they're down for non-conventional relationships in other ways, but from what i've seen and read, it seems like the biggest flaw of polyamory is that it (or rather, the people practicing it) expects under the surface that really normal relationships can be sustained more or less unchanged except in quantity.
~~~~
what i want to know is why is everyone on either reactionary "christian family values" shit or radlib polyamory shit, as if that's the only choices?
i'm so much more interested in the love for your comrades, and how we can form true, solid horizontal relationships not based on sex or contracts, but just loving mutual (MUTUAL) aid and friendship…
This is very lacking in the US at least, there is lots of alienation and loneliness. I don't get the big focus on sex and small, closed-in-on-themselves relationships

>>389105
you're cool af, sorry for saying you were being like a politician

>>389107
>still I disagree that the future is non-monogamous relationships, and that this is what more liberalized/lenient sexual norms looks like.
Well it doubt that everyone, if given the choice, would end up participating in non-monogamous relationships. It is possible that most would not opt for them. However, I do think that, at the very least, a large minority would.

Another thing I need to point out is that non-monogamous relationships can come in many different shapes in sizes. Polyamory is one form, one in which you have a whole bunch of people who are romantically tied to each other, but there are other forms, like open relationships. An open relationship is one in which two people are romantically exclusive, but are free to have sex with other people. I suspect that open relationships may end up being more popular than polyamorous ones, at least partly for the reasons you stated (it's hard to manage multiple romantic relationships at the same time).

>>389134
Prime example of a fascist LARPer.
>>389107
I never see monogamy and polyamory as this black and white kind of thing. Because there’s gray areas that exist in both spectrum. There’s never a life long bond and there’s never truly equal poly relationships (people will always play favorites despite everything). This is true in nature as well, there’s only one real life long non-adulterous animals that is a single species of gibbon. The rest are frequent cheaters.
Human monogamy as it currently exist is like that, you don’t immediately choose the first person you have feelings for as your life long partner. That’s also the reason for some poly relationships to fall apart.
The first thing you need to do is to get rid of the stigma and toxic ownership mentality that exist in both kinds of relationships. This is actually the lynchpin of capitalist superstructure within marriage. At that point, you can give people the choice to do any of those commitments without the oppressive force involved.

>>388780
You got it wrong. Monogamy is bourgeois and not the other way round you incel

>>389210
>The first thing you need to do is to get rid of the stigma and toxic ownership mentality that exist in both kinds of relationships.
You will never make me a cuckold

>>389372
That explains why Sukarno had 8-9 wives during his lifetime. (He's rather socialist)

>>389372
Historically, the upper classes were the ones having multiple lovers at a time. Proles are the ones who seek monogamy because they want stability.

>>389376
Hey, as long as you don’t treat the person cuckholding you as needing you there it’s fine :)
>>389377
>soekarno
<socialist
No. If he was he wouldn’t got himself powerless during the 1965 coup.
>>389450
The upper class can afford such a luxury because they don’t rely on each other in a relationship for survival. Marriage to them was purely a way to divide your estate and continue your class interests. Proles have no other choice, that’s why you always see poor couples breaking apart whenever they got suddenly rich. Both are toxic for the same reason.
It’s also why a lot of animals like birds form monogamous pairs. They need each other to take care of their eggs. But that doesn’t stop them from cheating just like us.

>>389516
just stop your making yourself look bad

>marx invented marxism
how new are you

>>388870
>most people just don't give a shit what you do, only might be surprised to learn about a new weird thing
*most people in the Western cores where there's no society or community, just individuals
it's normal that society cares about itself. western individualism is abnormal.

>>388880
based "mature" countries, none of that immature porn that the others watch

>>389134
this sounds sensible, but why are commies made through procreation of other commies??

It's about understanding the world we live in and trying to make it better with other people. If we have to indoctrinate kids (w/ no experience of the world yet) into being commies, we've already lost. The point is to work with people already here, and help them go through the mental steps we went through to be here. Raise everyone up. If that doesnt do the job, then maybe we're doing something wrong

>>388764
I'm fine if people want a "traditional" lifestyle. I just think any communist that thinks we need to waste resources and manpower to police the bedrooms of gay people is ridiculous. I have a quote traditional unquote lifestyle. I'm married, had a non-denominational wedding, have a house payment ect ect. It's not a lifestyle for everyone. As long as relationships are consensual and between adults I don't see a reason to seeth. If anything we should be cracking down on conservativsim and "traditionalisim". The catholic church is basically a tax free child zoo and then you got the evangelicals with incestuous families on TLC.

>>388966
Yeah, wtf happened? :'(

>>388926
Yes, 100%

>>388880
Based Russia.

>Mandatory reading
>I'm talking about people defending family, monogamy and this whole load of shit.
Why don't you read it yourself before recommending it to others, you fuckbaguette?

<We are now approaching a social revolution in which the economic foundations of monogamy as they have existed hitherto will disappear just as surely as those of its complement-prostitution. Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individual – a man – and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man. But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?

<One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men.
t. Engels

>>388794
>etc. doesn't matter
>Traditions are bad because they are traditions let me start an escalating conflict with people who want to keep these traditions
It's almost like you can use evidence to pick which traditions to try and get rid of, and that not every tradition is bad. You can't just say abolish pizza, pretend it's bad, and label everyone who likes pizza a reactionary.
They reply "who cares" because there is no evidence that "etc. doesn't matter" is harming anybody.

>>389020
It has no value, yet there is currently a massive industry supplying it and making a fuck load of money, which can be used to buy goods and services.
If porn has no value, then are porn actors not being exploited in the Marxist sense?
Anyway, in reality the vast majority of porn is not exploitative in the liberal sense.
And, in general, stop playing word games with "exploitative"

>I'm talking about people defending family, monogamy and this whole load of shit.
The entire basis of the family has been torn apart. Reduced to atomised individuals who are now estranged from their family for superficial reasons
A strong family is the last bastion of community and collectivity in this hyper individualist society

The bourgeois would love nothing more to atomise this even further so they can build the pipeline for children rolling off the treadmill at 18 to become pornographers/prostitutes/escorts/strippers/models etc.

You need stability to raise a family and reproduce socialist society and no amount of weird fucks that think they've discovered something new and are poly-whatever-the-fuck do so because their material wealth has been eroded and where they can't realistically have a family so why not get a group of people around to lick each others genitals most of the day
>reactionary "communists"
You should learn what reactionary means
<A political position that maintains a conservative response to change, including threats to social institutions and technological advances. Reaction is the reciprocal action to revolutionary movement. Reactionaries clamp down on the differences of the emerging productive forces in society, and attempt to remove those differences, silence them, or segregate them in order to keep the stability of the established order.
People promoting poly and other lifestyle trash (like "living in a van" because rents and houses are impossible now) do so to gloss over the material wealth that has been eroded from the Working class. Who want stability and families and who now scorn it because stability has been completely removed.

And besides poly people are disgusting

>>392064
>And besides poly people are disgusting
Poly people are poly because they'd be incels otherwise.
Time and time this is proven again. Every time.

>>388880
>Lesbian
Most porn viewers are still 14 or mentally 14 I guess.

>>392077
>I judge morality from aesthetics
Morality is irrelevant because morality itself is a social construct. Here go educate yourself
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch07.htm
and my opinion on other people being poly even more irrelevant (as I'm just one person)
From a Marxist standpoint the only question should be asked what ideology does this serve?
And polyamory serves reaction. It encourages a type of sex-love to be viewed as collectible commodities

Synthetic lefts are quick to throw around the word "reactionary" not understanding what reactionary means"

Reactionary isn't when you're told "you need to stop stuffing things up your arse and calling it a political movement"

I just want communism I don’t give a fuck about any of this retarded shit.

>>392097
>And polyamory serves reaction. It encourages a type of sex-love to be viewed as collectible commodities

I can just as easily say "polyamory is based and leftist because it removes sex-love from the perspective of 'private exclusive property' and liberates sexual/romantic relationships from being solely mechanisms for property to be held through generations and inherited by biological offspring'.

>>392102
And yet it does not do those things

>>392098
You VIL share your loved one with other men and you VIL have to be happy about it.

>>388780
only the most cucked out there claim to "speak for the workers", true legends only act and do in ways that benefit themselves or their communities

>>388779
if you think the capitalist "nuclear family" would survive a change of mode of production you're not very materialist. In fact, modern capitalism have already twisted its meaning massively

>I'm talking about people defending family, monogamy and this whole load of shit.

Reading Origin of the Family we can conclude that
<the family has always existed just in different forms depending on economic mode of production
<this is by no means an excuse for you hippie free love commune.

In fact it is capitalist alienation that is reducing the size of the family and monogamous relationships in society
with the end of capitalism we will see a lot more healthily families and relationships

>>392219
I agree. People here shit on "1984 larpers", but it seems that being a leftist for them is when you read Brave New World and think it's actually a good thing lol

>>392810
its a good thing BNW is so underrated so people are content with orgy-porgy for the sake of fighting big brother