this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

GenZedong

4302 readers
6 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Happens about February-March of every election year (the, ahem, independent media goes out of its way to induce it). Get ready for the next lib wave, and a bunch of iterations of the following script, which they've been practicing since like 1999:

    1. "Eh, I disagree with [Democrat candidate] on a lot of things, but to pretend he's not better than [Republican candidate] is just delusional."
    1. "Yeah, I know [Democratic candidate] is a war criminal and complicit in a genocide, but have you considered that [Republican candidate] is a war criminal as well, plus he said rude things about [minority group]? In the interest of harm reduction for Americans only, I have a duty to vote Democrat."
    1. "Your vote actually does matter."
    1. "The only reason the Democrats aren't Wholesome Progressive Scandinavian Model Chungus is because they have to play politics with the Republicans. You have to recognize the reality of a two-party system."
    1. "We can push the Democrats left."
    1. "Such-and-such Democratic policy (usually the Affordable Care Act) was actually really progressive."
    1. "My [minority group] partner, whom I've never mentioned up to this point and very possibly just made up, is voting Democrat." (This tactic also gets used by libs defending porn and/or prostitution, e.g. "my totally-real girlfriend loves it when I post videos of us having sex online").
    1. "If even one less person dies because [Democratic candidate] is in office, it's my moral duty to vote for [Democratic candidate]. I am a mature, compassionate person who absolutely understands socialism."
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (21 children)

Not a bad post except for that you just had to throw in some sexist SWERF garbage in #7. margot-disgust

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (17 children)

Not a bad response, except you had to throw in some western liberal garbage about SWERFS and SWERFiness. Opposition to the sex trade is the standard line of every Marxist-Leninist country; perhaps anarchists have a different perspective, but since their most successful revolutionary efforts to date have been CHAZ and that one commune in Catalonia that lasted all of two weeks, we can safely disregard their opinion as irrelevant. We Marxists support sex workers, in that we see them as hyper-exploited by capitalism and wish to remove their exploitation. We do not support sex work as such. We aim to do for sex workers what the CPC has done: namely, give them jobs and vocational training, and extend to them the opportunity for a dignified, human life. Orgasms do not increase the productive forces.

The disingenuousness of the liberal defense of sex work lies in the fact that the average woman involved in the trade is not a middle-class kinkster selling videos on OnlyFans. The average sex worker is much more likely to have been trafficked, to have been raped, and if she has actually taken up prostitution of her own free will, to have done so because she had (or felt she had) no other options. Working-class people know the reality of the sex trade, that it is an ugly, horrible thing. I challenge you to defend prostitution to the typical worker. You will not get very far. Liberals know this, which is why they don't even try; rather, they are content to smugly call the average worker "patriarchal," "sexist," "traitor to women," and so on, when all that worker wants is not to be trafficked, or to keep their wife, girlfriend, mother, sister, friend, out of the clutches of a predatory industry.

But seriously, I thought we had left this debate behind on reddit? Fix your attitude toward women, and get a girlfriend, ya horny losers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

their wife, girlfriend, mother, sister

get a girlfriend, ya horny losers

Orgasms do not increase the productive forces.

This is the crux of my problem with the language around this topic on this site. I don't think you'll find anyone here that disagrees with empowering workers and fighting workplace exploitation. I do disagree with the idea that women's "sexual purity" is something to be owned and protected by men, and it's very easy to infer that motivation from some of the emphasis often used around this topic.

I'm not accusing you of that motivation, but I think people are right to be sensitive to it. You can very easily find "real workers" and "real Marxists" whose hatred of "prostitution and pornography" specifically manifests as a hatred of women that have sex outside of a heterosexual monogamous relationship for the purpose of procreation. From there, it's a pretty short jump to "the LGBTQ movement is Western liberal bourgeois decadence", "abortion is antinatalism depriving the Party of future revolutionaries", and other reskinned conservative opinions.

Just as it wouldn't be fair of me to assume the worst of you, I don't think it's fair of you to assume that anyone sensitive to language that most often precedes a call for more police are straight men that want a Revolutionary People's Prostitution office.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You seem to be arguing in good faith, so I'll provide I detailed breakdown.

I do disagree with the idea that women’s “sexual purity” is something to be owned and protected by men.

I hear this language from a lot of leftists who are pro-sex work, and it always seems to me a little nebulous. There are societies where men "owning and protecting a woman's sexual purity" means something; they are generally pre-industrial societies, or societies ruled by a religious authority, not modern western societies. There is certainly sexism in the modern west, but it expresses itself in a different form: often as women experiencing social pressure to become, as it were, common sexual property. The women who give in are then shamed for not being the ideal autonomous individual of liberalism. This, not religion or any leftovers of religion, is the real root of the modern phenomena of "slut-shaming."

I am suspicious for this reason even of things like OnlyFans. While they provide some agency for sex workers, and some modicum of protection, their long term tendency or goal seems to be turning women into luxury commodities for the wealthy. This is not liberation.

Please note also that, when I spoke of workers' concern that their "wife, girlfriend, mother, sister" fall into the clutches of a predatory industry, I spoke also of the workers concern for themselves -- i.e., I was including female workers. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently patriarchal about a straight male worker being concerned that a female worker is being sexually exploited. It is class solidarity, though it may be expressed in terms that we as Marxists should strictly speaking disagree with -- most workers have not gone to college, and do not know the latest trendy lingo.

You can very easily find “real workers” and “real Marxists” whose hatred of “prostitution and pornography” specifically manifests as a hatred of women that have sex outside of a heterosexual monogamous relationship for the purpose of procreation.

In Marxists, this is the result of bad education; in workers, it is false consciousness. (Though in my experience, the number of Marxists who hold such views is minimal, and dwarfed by the brocialists whose idea of women's liberation is "shut up and suck my dick while I talk to Tyler over here about Trotsky"). But this false consciousness is not totally at odds with reality, in that it reflects, as if in a distorting mirror, certain mechanisms of capitalist oppression. Abortion in capitalist societies is often a tool of eugenics. Western governments often "pinkwash" austerity policies, thus throwing queer people under the bus, but also deliberately presenting to workers the LGBTQ+ movement as something opposed to their interests. And so on.

Just as it wouldn’t be fair of me to assume the worst of you, I don’t think it’s fair of you to assume that anyone sensitive to language that most often precedes a call for more police are straight men that want a Revolutionary People’s Prostitution office.

This is fair criticism, though I have run into a whole lot of pro-prostitution brocialists in real life.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Didn't have the sense to save it but there was this hilarious meme where it was like the IQ bell curve with conservatives on the low IQ end "Sex work is bad because it is deg----ate" then the top of the curve were the liberal "No sex work is good" and at the end were the high IQ marxist "Sex work is bad because it is work"

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)