#marxism leninism

[cult-of-the-girl-offensive]

Many times I have seen Communists getting into fights over pornography, but I think the matter is really quite simple.

While previously Communists have oft adopted a prohibitionist stance, if we regard pornography as art, then the correct policy becomes clear: under the dictatorship of the proletariat we will promote socialist realism in pornography.

[last-tarrasque]

Yes, you are correct every argument I've made here has been dismissed before, generally when very privileged people want to ignore the harm they cause, they dismiss it.

1. Individualism, Mechanicalism and Particularism, Read On Contradiction.

I think the reason you had such a hard time finding "where to start" with what I wrote is that you didn't bother to understand what I wrote. I never once said that my main issue that porn could contain "nonconsenting actors." I'm well aware that the people in tentacle henti or whatnot are fictional. As such, brining this up ether shows you didn't read what I wrote, or you are simply trying to score a "win" against me in the eyes of anyone who only reads your criticism. Perhaps it might help with a bit of ego bosting as well.

The Marxist criticism of porn which I did was done holistically from all sides (unlike your response which only considers the one consuming porn, and sometimes the subject as an individual, we will touch on this more later) and clearly addresses that the essential nature of porn as an art and commodity. Perhaps I should have been clearer about the following point.

It dehumanizes its subjects; turns them and the broader social categories they represent into objects. It might only show one woman in that drawing you made, but that sends a message about every woman whether you meant to or not.

Clearly it does not matter in this instance what medium the porn is done in. Marker, Oil pastel, photography, the mechanics are secondary. What matters is that when pornography is created, it contains a message, and every member of the social group depicted is subject to this message. When southern racists drew pictures of Ol' Uncle Tom and their other racist icons, the fact that they used ink pens and charcoal pencils on paper rather than a pilloried camera on a desperate black man coerced into acting for them did not diminish the harm these images caused to Black People. These figures became a stand in for every Black Person in the minds of Whites.

Finaly, you make a nonsense point about how rape and murder is illegal and so is distributing illegally produced rape and murder porn. Clearly this has not stopped anything, so I'm not sure what you are celebrating. I'm sure the thousands of MMIWG will be overjoyed to hear that what happened to them is officially banned, even though their killers and rapists will never be brought to justice and cops will not spend more than a few hours halfheartedly searching for them. You should know better than to make this nonsense point, which shows just how strong the "porn exception" is when it comes to your kind of so-called "Marxists." You then go on to acknowledge that this kind of thing still happens, only to blame it on human nature and a vague "capitalism." The fact that this is a gender issue seems to be lost on you.

The reason it still happens is because people are fucked up and will do anything for money, and some people who are really fucked up have money

You finish it up with more mechanicalistic and individualist thinking. Let's address this real quick.

Your mechanicalism is concentrated on the difference in form between porn that is drawn, written, etc and that futures real live people. This is because you view porn purely as a commodity capable of fulfilling a use value and do not consider its social impact. Thus the only thing that matters to you is how pornography fulfills that use value. Was that p*ussy painstakingly drawn by a hunger artist on twitter or captured by a camera. This is individualistic and one-sided thinking.

Your individualistic thinking is the source of this whole failure of yours but is most apparent in what moral considerations you do have when it comes to porn. Was the subject of the pornography coerced? You accept that any real live actor is coerced and thus being done harm. This is good but incomplete, in terms of harm being done by porn you only see the individual. You only ask if this induvial is being violated, you never bother to ask about how porn affects sociality at large, you only consider the actor as an individual and not the stand in for a group of people that they are. Even a short look through any porn forum will reveal this reality.

This whole section is basically a "how to" book for making philosophical errors and adopting an undialectical world view. You have failed to address or dilatate the aspects of porn which are particular, and which are universal. You instead just treat them as all particular aspects. This is particularly embarrassing since I already did this task for you. You don't even bother addressing the philosophical aspect of my post, nor any of the Marxism really. You don't even attempt to make a philosophical analysis of pornography to counter my own, you just ignore that aspect of analysis entirely. This is pure laziness.

2. More Particularism and Some bad Hypothetical's, False Equivalences and a Whole lot of Handwaving.

I don't want to claim that the source of your errors is simply intellectual laziness, but it is certainly a contributing factor. It is very hard to practice good dialectical thinking without a solid basis of understanding for dialectics (hell its hard even with one) so that likely explains why you display the worst mixture of liberal thinking I've seen in a good while.

You start off by mispresenting my argument, not once did I say porn is the one and all-encompassing cause of sexual violence, that would be absurd. But by debunking the claim I did not make, it allows you give the appearance of debunking my real claims about how porn contribute to sexual violence. You than go on to take the example I shared about myself and go "eh sounds like a you problem." I guess this is a "you problem" shared by millions of people all over the world. I am far from the only person who has experienced this problem, in fact I gave plenty of examples in my first post. I guess there is just a lot of dummies out there, no way this is a social problem.

One look though any BDSM or sex forum will reveal plenty of stories of how what was seen on porn is brought into the bedroom. These same forms serve as education centers for the practice of BDSM or Kink or whatnot. One can easily find pornographic guides on how to do Kinbaku, or how to taker an erotic photo, or how to safely practice whipping or how to keep your bratty sub in line. Examples of "good punishment systems" and charts ranking spanking positions by how painful and/or humiliating they are. Not to mention the overflowing liberal feminist ideas about consent and BDSM which dominate everything.

I recall a piece of porn I once consumed by Welcome to Heaven featuring two of her characters engaging in slapping. In it the dom feels bad for enjoying the feeling of inflicting pain on her partner. The post then goes on to explain how this is a "dom drop" and is a perfectly fine and normal feeling. Is this not teaching behavior to be brought into the bedroom? Does this mean that every little thing someone sees in porn is taken with them to real life? No, but lazily dismissing this real phenomenon as a "you problem" is just as intellectually dishonest as claiming that.

(including this because I can't find the original post, and because the original post is not something I really want to be propagating)

Here now is where the intellectual laziness and false equivalency really takes off. You say:

All arguments for banning one type of art must also be able to hold up for banning other kinds of art. Unlucky for the "violent porn causes violence" crowd, "violent video games cause violence" is a hypothesis that has already been disproven innumerable times.

Firstly, you seem confused between a genre and media. Genre refers to the content (such as farming sim, spy thriller, romance novel) while as media refers to the form (such as video game, oil painting, film). Video games are a media, not a genre, porn is a genre, not a media. In fact, you can have pornographic video games, what do you think the sex with Aphrodite minigame in GoW was? I have never advocate for banning a form of media, casting porn and video games as equivalents is just dishonest.

Furthermore, the claim that video games don't cause violence is also wrong. Absolutely playing fortnight isn't going to make you into a school shooter, but like all art, video games are propaganda. When you mow down hordes of faceless Muslims in CoD, what social force do you think that is contributing too? What do you think America's Army: the US army made FPS, is teaching the teens who play it?

Finaly you finish this section with a "not all porn", you next confusion being again the result of (and say it with me now), particularism and individualism. You claim the following:

and porn that is critical of current systems of oppression can (and does) exist. This is what people are talking about when they say "drawing porn is an act of defiance". The individual ability for people to make porn that is actually defiant ranges,

Interestingly enough, while on the one hand you hold particularism (casting the universal aspects of porn as particular) you hold in your other hand universalism (casting your interests as universal), really all this comes down to individualistic one sidedness.

You are correct to point out that making porn can be a act of rebellion, but against and for who? Lets start by understanding why some reactionaries despise pornography.

The staunchest opposition to pornography from reactionaries comes in the form of religions like Catholicism and Islam. Both of those religions are feudal in their origan. Under feudalism, people are exclusively the property of their master. Serfs do not rent out their labor freely, they belong to one lord. Women are the sole property of their fathers and then husbands. Porn (and sex work) challenges this. An image of a nude women isn't the property of any one man, but anyone who looks on it (this is also why these religions care about modesty so much) and a prostitute belongs for a short time to any man who rents her.

Meanwhile liberalism objects to the idea that anyone can own another. Under capitalism workers are sold off piecemeal to any section of the bourgeoisie and are the property of the whole class. Women the same are property of the whole of men, perhaps loaned out to a husband. Porn and sex work are the fullest expressions of that; anyone can buy these comedies on the free market.

Both of these are reactionary, patriarchal worldviews that struggle against each other, but neither of them is anti-peritracheal. There exist a large variety of worldviews along these lines. For the longest time non-capitalist men have supported a very strict worldview in which women where men's property and porn were for men only. In more recent times, as feminist reforms have spread across the first world, a more "gender equal" form of patriarchal thinking has sprung up which champions "sexual freedom." In which anyone can do whatever they want as long as everyone is "consenting". Here pornography is a privilege afforded most 1st world white women and some queers who are mostly protected from the fallout, which is dumped onto immigrants, semi colonized people and 3rd worlders who get to pay the price for the subjective pleasure of these 1st worlders. For example, the effects of Asian fetish porn are taken out on sex workers in southeast Asian.

Meanwhile porn and pro-porn ideology is mass produced and dumped onto proletarian and semi proletarian men and feminist movements the 3rd world, poisoning these sections of society which do not have an expendable 3rd world population to dump the consequences onto.

3. I'm beginning to question whether you even read what I wrote.

Here, you finally define pornography, and you do it in the simplest way possible. I was at first tempted to suggest that this was because you are lazy, but that can't be right because my definition of porn was right there, it was the first thing I wrote, here was no work from you required. So, then I thought that you must disagree with my definition, but you don't argue against it in the slightest, so what gives? Clearly you must feel the need to provide this simpler definition because it suites you better, funny how your position benefits from concealing the true nature of porn, isn't it?

"sexual art" sounds so innocent doesn't it, a whole lot better than "a commodity which realizes its use value though the degradation of its subjects it depicts to mean objects rendering them subhuman for the subjective pleasure of its consumer." This is why we single out porn, because it inherently must reinforce sexual hierarchy and dominance, which is reactionary.

An FPS can be a piece of US propaganda like CoD or America's Army, but you can also have something Special Force, the Hezbollah produced FPS about fighting the IDF in its invasion of south Lebanon. I've never, in all my years of consuming porn, found a single piece of pornography which has not involved objectification, if you have found such a thing, please feel free to let me know (however don't send me porn unannounced please, get my permission on a case by case basis).

Your whole position also relies on a total unwillingness to interrogate sexuality under patriarchal society as a whole. You are totally unwilling to dig any deeper then to topsoil, you refuse to look at the roots. Sexuality under patriarchy (which is distinct from pre or post patriarchal sexuality) is defined my relationship of dominance and we cannot escape that. That is likely a discussion for another day, but until then it will serve to note that you fail to take a multi sided view of sexuality in the slightest. You do no investigation on this (or any other) topic, as the saying goes; No investigation, no right to speak.

4. On the Topic of Radical Feminism.

I think I've made it rather clear that I oppose radical feminism as an ideological trend and always strive to put forward the Marxist view of the women question. This is the only correct position for any Marxist. This does not mean however sealing my ears and eyes to the correct aspects of analysis produced by radical feminism. There are many criticisms to be made of Andea's philosophy and the products of her work, but taking a monotheistic view of it all bad is pure nonsense.

You dismissal the first quote with the same lazy GTA example you've used already several times before, with the same one-sided individualistic thinking you've shown thought your whole response. The subjects of porn are a stand in for whole groups, because porn is propaganda. You cannot separate a social group form its depiction in art.

Your dismissal on the second quote is much the same.

5. Some Privilege and Some Arrogance.

I have never once suggested that Pornography proceeds patriarchy, patriarchal sexual relations (which arise out of the needs of a developing class society) provide the base for pornography as one of the ideological tools for the maintenance and propagation of patriarchal sexual relations. This is the dialectical relationship between patriarchal sexual relations and pornography. Dipictions of things we now consider sexual have existed long before patriarchy and by extension, porn, but this does not make them porn. This is mirrored in the individual exposure to porn, there is nothing inherently sexual about a pair of breasts or thick thighs of spanking or whatever other subjects of porn exist, nudity itself isn't inherently sexual. Only with the cultural context of patriarchal cultures does porn have the power to realizes subjective sexual pleasure, without this, porn can't be a propaganda tool. We are required to think "oh god that's hot" for porn to work. After all we are generally a lot more willing to accept an idea if it justifies us doing something pleasurable.

(interesting read about nudity that isn't sexualized in a culture that still wears a lot of cloths)

I have not, nor will ever, advocate for the banning of Pornography under the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. The Bourgeois state's legal stance on pornography will always be an expression of its particular tactical needs at any given moment. Bans will more often than not be used to crack down on queers and hurt sex workers and will not in the slightest stop pornography anyway.

I am in favor of the progressive and revolutionary forces of society adopting the correct Marxist view of Pornography and adopting this into their organizations. When we reject Bourgeois morality, that is not a license to do whatever we want. We must adopt proletarian morality and discipline, but unsurprisingly most of tumbler would rather have petty-bourgeoise morality instead.

I am in favor of the banning of pornography under the auspices of the New Democratic and Proletarian states, who are charged with the suppression and dismantling of all reactionary aspects of the old society. This is the historical path taken by all New Democratic and Proletarian states, the USSR, Vietnam, China and more, all banned porn. Don't like it? Too bad. All peoples who have successfully carried out revolution condemned Porn. Anuradha Ghandy, a former leader of the CPI (Maoist) until her martyrdom due to state repression, and a leading Marxist voice on the Women Question, condemned porn and the feminists who saw it as positive in her seminal work Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement.

Objectively it became a diversion from building a broad movement for women’s liberation. The radical trend by supporting pornography and giving the abstract argument of free choice has taken a reactionary turn providing justification and support to the sex tourism industry promoted by the imperialists which is subjecting lakhs (100.000s) of women from oppressed ethnic communities and from the third world countries to sexual exploitation and untold suffering. While criticizing hypocritical and repressive sexual mores of the reactionary bourgeoisie and the Church, the radical trend has promoted an alternative which only further alienates human beings from each other and debases the most inti mate of human relations. Separating sex from love and intimacy, human relations become mechanical and inhuman.

It is awfully arrogant of you to proclaimed loudly from the mountain tops that your pornography is very moral, and that it does not cause any harm, while the oppressed people of the world are suffering and dying from the consequences of pornography, while you high up in the 1st world are insulated and safe from these consequences. Oppressed people have spoken, time and time again on pornography. The international communist movement has made up its mind on pornography. The facts have been well and clearly laid out. Why will you not listen?

This is why MIM (Prison)'s theory of the Gender Aristocracy is so important. I would recommend giving their work a read, you can find it all online but use Tor browser, because the FBI monitors visitation to their website.

6. A Bit of Cheap Mudslinging to Wrap it all up.

(This is all very secondary stuff, it does not matter much at all)

You finish it off with a bit of cheap mudslinging, petty insults and some back patting, this is all immaterial nonsense that is not worth addressing further.

Then you accuse me of uncritically supporting radical feminism, this is so clearly untrue. Please, go to my blog and search "radical feminism" or "radfem" and see how uncritical I am of radical feminism. I really liked The Thorn and the Carnation and learned a lot form the ideas expressed by Yahya Sinwar in his book, does this mean I must be uncritical of Islamic national liberation?

Next you do a U-turn on @frankenstinegirlz, you previously where happy to cheer on my criticism of her awful takes on Radical Feminism (I've added the recites below) but seemingly now have decided that her position is not nearly as threating to your privileges. To further make this a more comfortable alignment for you, you have misrepresented the positions expressed in her posts on the subject.

In hindsight, I let your praise get to my head and disarm me, it inflated my ego and made me feel good, which is why I tagged you in this post in the first place, because I believed you were better than the average tumbler Dengist, despite the clear evidence you were not. This is my fault, and I need to do a better job making sure my ego is not driving my discissions and judgements.

@murlopal I say your own response, from a quick look it seems to be about queerness in porn, which is a topic I did not really address in my initial response and am excited to look more into.

Drawing porn is an act of defiance. It has been for some time, given that it goes against the puritan morals of the church, but it's more than ever a sign of defiance.

Fuck mastercard. Fuck visa. Fuck any payment processor that gets bullied into slashing queer content AND horny slop. That's MY fucking horny slop and if I want to access it, as a grown ass adult with money, LET ME.

Draw porn. Write porn. I don't care how much skill you have, make it! Don't let them censor you! Don't let them tell you what you can and cannot enjoy!

BE UNMARKETABLE

STAND WITH THE PORN ARTISTS

We've been telling you this for years! Censorship won't stop at what you don't like! It never will. Stand for us before there's nobody to stand for you.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

Throughout the civilised world the teachings of Marx evoke the utmost hostility and hatred of all bourgeois science (both official and liberal), which regards Marxism as a kind of “pernicious sect”. And no other attitude is to be expected, for there can be no “impartial” social science in a society based on class struggle. In one way or another, all official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery. To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital.

Vladimir Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, 1913

[commiequotes]

[dre759]

Gosh this book is so good. The author’s faith in Gorbachev’s reforms are extremely sad in hindsight (this book was written in 1987 so he clearly wasn’t aware of what Gorby would eventually do), but he’s able to so effectively convey the evolution of Soviet society and its own version of democracy within the context of the hostile international situation.

He does other stuff very well too. Such as explaining the dissident movement in the 60s-80s and the world context around it. Debunking the most egregious Sovietologists (Robert Conquest, Brezeninski, etc), and putting both purges and the Ezhovshchina in perspective without just finding individual people to scapegoat. I do wish he had access to Soviet archives that had been opened later in the 90s though. That would help elucidate even more events.

Still. Even with what he had to work with it’s a very good book. Up there with Humans Rights In The Soviet Union and Is The Red Flag Flying? as one of my favorite sociological dives into the USSR… well. So long as the author sticks the landing. The rest of the book could suck for all I know lol.

The Russians Are Coming: The Politics Of Anti-Sovietism Pages. 133-135

[carlosmarcosapproved]

[kneedeepincynade]

After you get a gun and know how to use it, this is the next step, be sure to be in an organization that has as a bare minimum all of this spots covered or at least plans to cover them

Real guerrilla and war will most likely require more than this simple jobs, but this is the bare minimum to have covered

[juegosintiperojuegocontigo]

[neometrocosmopolitan]

All I can say is there's a reason why the CIA is always infiltrating leftist movements by posing as anarchists, by being accepted by anarchists and blending in with anarchists so well... almost like they are counter-revolutionary.... and not educated on Marxism enough to know that the state is not always an oppressive structure, as it only arises from irreconcilable class antagonisms, and not having a state structure to protect the revolution after it has happened basically guarantees it's reversal.... which is exactly what the bourgeoisie wants...

[lemon-etiquette]

[thespectrehauntingfodlan]

Once again Lenin was right. About almost everything but especially this

[phobic-human]

“Marxism as a revolutionary theoretical weapon depends on the manner in which it is understood on the one hand and its correct application to a particular circumstance or particular stage on the other. The essence of Marxism is the method that it represents in viewing and analyzing things and in determining the direction of their motion. Consequently, the revolutionary understanding of Marxism is the understanding of it as a working guide and not as a fixed, rigid, doctrine. Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung, and before them Marx and Engels, have recorded on more than one occasion the need for the Marxist view as a working guide and not as a rigid doctrine.”

- ‘Strategy for the Liberation of Palestine’, PFLP

[stillnaomi]

why do marxists insist on using old language? why say proletariat instead of working class?

marxism is a technical field. we need to use precise language to convey exactly what we mean. saying proletariat communicates a person's relationship to the economy: they have to work for someone else for a wage in order to live. saying that someone is working class only conveys that they work for a living. what if they own the business too? do you think that they might have a different world outlook to somebody who lives off their own wage alone?

it's important for us to make these distinctions, and learning all the jargon is thankfully very doable

[read-marx-and-lenin]

There is no magic "abolish the state" button, which is why I'm an anarchist, as "when the state has socialismed enough it will just magically poof away in a cloud of smoke" is the leninist position.

That is not the Leninist position, the Leninist position is and always has been that the state cannot disappear until the material conditions for its disappearance are achieved. The withering away of the state, first outlined by Engels, is not a magic process but one that proceeds from the abolition of class and the dissolution of the bourgeoisie.

How are you going to get rid of the bourgeoisie without a state? Are you going to simply ask them nicely to leave you alone? If you are organized and if your organization is suppressing the bourgeoisie as a class, then you have created a state, you have created an authoritarian imposition on the free organization of some section of the people. If you are not doing any of this, then the bourgeoisie who you have left unmolested will invariably come to dominate you once more.

Anarchists have always played word games to get around these simple facts. There are the practical anarchists who will admit to some amount of authority, but always with the caveat that theirs is *just* authority, *necessary* authority, and that is is the *unjust* authority that they condemn. Just authority is not the State, because the State is unjust, and so if they see an authority as just then it cannot be the State. Fair enough, you can call things by whatever names you like, but if you put these ideas in practice you basically end up with Leninism. You want to create dual power? You want to abolish the bourgeois state and replace it with a democratic organ of the working class? Well so did Lenin, and now you know why the Mensheviks accused him of anarchism.

Then there are the quite impractical capital-A Anarchists, who are adamant that anarchy means anarchy and that even voluntary hierarchy and submission to democratic authority is impermissible. Whether pacifistic or militaristic, they are generally unremarkable and ineffective at their goals because they eschew most effective forms of organization as ideologically impure. Even the most advanced anarchists, the CNT in Spain and the Maknovists in Russia, were plagued by economic confusion and disorganization. Their lack of discipline led to their downfall.

If you want to read more, here are some pertinent links:

[poder--popular]

i don't think china necessarily functions as the "lighthouse of the world proletariat" like the USSR did, serving as a supplier, supporter and base for working-class movement worldwide - however, it'd be ingenuous at best to assume that this is because china is intrinsically isolationist, nationalist or even capitalist. the thing is - the context of the USSR during the cold war serving as this world lighthouse is much, much different than the modern context of china, where socialism, despite seeing growing recoveries, is still inflicted with the pains of three to four decades of defeats and recession. expecting ideological purity and avid comintern-esque actions is to ignore the material realities that china and the world face today