Can a Socialist be Social Conservative ?

[Tupolite]

Social liberalism is pretty bourgeois as well.

What does it mean to be petty bourgois?

It is a term used by Marxists to describe the long-suffering middle-classes, as well as to group the middle-classes' economic interests together with those of the bourgeoisie proper on the basis of property ownership and ownership of shops and small businesses, rather than to admit the truth of developing historical conditions that the middle and lower classes are in the same boat and both being systematically crushed by an ascendant plutocracy

[Great Minarchistan]

@OP, you might be looking for the word tankie, kek

[Crylante]

The core principle of workers owning the means of production could in theory be mixed with respect for tradition, family values and similar things, without any conflicts.

But to me, socialism is also about liberty and equality; I feel many traditional structures impede on both of these and thus there is definitely a conflict between a large amount of socialists and social conservatives.

When the idea of “support for hierarchy” is mentioned in the OP, I cannot see how that can really be reconciled with socialism even at its most basic definition.

[Cappuccina]

The core principle of workers owning the means of production could in theory be mixed with respect for tradition, family values and similar things, without any conflicts.

But to me, socialism is also about liberty and equality; I feel many traditional structures impede on both of these and thus there is definitely a conflict between a large amount of socialists and social conservatives.

When the idea of “support for hierarchy” is mentioned in the OP, I cannot see how that can really be reconciled with socialism even at its most basic definition.

It would depend on how one views socialist theory. Not all varieties of socialism seek to completely do away with hierarchy, that's more or less the realm of libertarian socialism, anarchism, and communism. Socialism can be viewed as collectivist or individualist depending on the branch one favors, the former would not have too much of an issue with meshing with more conservative leaning, which are ultimately collectivist as well.

[Major-Tom]

The whole labour movement in many Western countries is rooted in these kinds of people. New Zealand's principal left wing party, Labour, was founded by coal miners in the West Coast, one of the least socially liberal places in the country.

Same goes for the Labour Heartland in Britain, the formerly staunchly Democratic parts of the US (IE WV, TN, KY, AL, etc). Since socialism refers primarily to economic theory and its' respective processes, I'd say that a socialist can hold socially conservative views and still be a socialist.

It's not my cup of tea, but it's possible.

[East Gondwana]

There are plenty of examples of socially conservative socialists littered throughout history and the present day. Most if not all socialist leaders and governments of the 20th century were conservative, and although many modern socialists are much more progressive, such as many in the Americas and western Europe, many are still social conservatives.

There are some who maintain that socialism must include equity and liberation for social minorities as well as the workers by definition, and while I personally believe that it should include that, most people of all political persuasions would agree that socialism in general is about economics.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Sure you can. Plenty of socialists were, and a few still are. But if you are one, expect a certain hostility from other socialists. I'm not one, but I have encountered quite a few socially conservative socialists in the past, and i'll admit, not every social conservative position is that much at odds from a socialist standpoint. So long as you can come up with a socialist analysis based in material reality, social conservatism is permissible.

[West Leas Oros 2]

The core principle of workers owning the means of production could in theory be mixed with respect for tradition, family values and similar things, without any conflicts.

But to me, socialism is also about liberty and equality; I feel many traditional structures impede on both of these and thus there is definitely a conflict between a large amount of socialists and social conservatives.

When the idea of “support for hierarchy” is mentioned in the OP, I cannot see how that can really be reconciled with socialism even at its most basic definition.

It would depend on how one views socialist theory. Not all varieties of socialism seek to completely do away with hierarchy, that's more or less the realm of libertarian socialism, anarchism, and communism. Socialism can be viewed as collectivist or individualist depending on the branch one favors, the former would not have too much of an issue with meshing with more conservative leaning, which are ultimately collectivist as well.

I've noticed that when it comes to communism and socialism, opinions on social conservatism are mixed, just as views on hierarchy are.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Has anybody found it weird that people said that you can't be a socialist if you:

1.are Pro-Life

2.Support controlled immigration and borders

3.reject prostitution

4.rejects the ideals of "Free" love or libertine ideals


5.Support Militarism

6.reject Non-medical use of drugs

7.value Police enforcement

8.believe in Distinctions between sexes

9.reject environmentalism

10.or some kind of Hierarchy

.

1. Some socialists, especially religious socialists, are very pro-life

2. A lot of socialists do, and plenty of historical socialists have.

3. This one is probably one i've seen most. A lot of socialists consider prostitution a form of capitalist exploitation.

4. A lot of socialists reject this as well, though I haven't generally found the reasoning behind it.

5. What do you mean by "militarism"? Socialism is often very militant and relatively few socialists advocate peaceful revolution or reform.

6. Many socialists do, especially when one considers potential health risks.

7. This one is (obviously) rare among anarchists, but a lot of socialists are not averse to law enforcement as a concept, especially from a pragmatic view.

8. Define "distinctions". Biologically, humans are different based on biological sex. This is just fact. Otherwise, there isn't really many important distinctions, especially because that would likely be detrimental to survival.

9. While environmentalism is an issue for many socialists, a lot of socialists place the environment relatively low on their priority list. However, I wouldn't necessarily consider environmentalism to be socially liberal or socially conservative.

10. Unless you're speaking with an anarchist or someone close to such opinions, plenty of socialists do not reject hierarchy completely. Even plenty of anarchists only oppose hierarchies they view as unjust or exploitative.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

Marxists have always warned that there are pseudo-socialists. Marx already in the Manifesto wrote about such pseudo-socialists, in the chapters "feudal socialism", "Christian socialism". Then came the "national socialists", the "national bolsheviks", the conservative etatists of Zyuganov, etc.

Why are these "socialists" not authentic? Because socialism sets as its task the total liberation of man — not only from the capitalists, but also
- from bureaucracy
- from blind faith in gods, dogmas, authorities
- from patriarchal despotism in the family
- from excessive taboos, from alienation, from petty regulation and manipulation
- from weakness before the elements of nature (this is achieved by the development of technology).

That is, genuine socialism borrows from the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution the ideal of freedom. And the conservative pseudo-socialism rejects this legacy.

[Communal concils]

Marxists have always warned that there are pseudo-socialists. Marx already in the Manifesto wrote about such pseudo-socialists, in the chapters "feudal socialism", "Christian socialism". Then came the "national socialists", the "national bolsheviks", the conservative etatists of Zyuganov, etc.

Why are these "socialists" not authentic? Because socialism sets as its task the total liberation of man — not only from the capitalists, but also
- from bureaucracy
- from blind faith in gods, dogmas, authorities
- from patriarchal despotism in the family
- from excessive taboos, from alienation, from petty regulation and manipulation
- from weakness before the elements of nature (this is achieved by the development of technology).

That is, genuine socialism borrows from the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the French Revolution the ideal of freedom. And the conservative pseudo-socialism rejects this legacy.

I wouldn't describe myself as a Conservative, but I see that authority in lifestyle and human behaviors as essential. We should intervene in people's lives, and we should morph the individual. I am a true socialist, that is because I want economic equality for people across groups, and I want to eradicate significant difference between groups. However, I think that the true Pseudo-Leftist are the Libertarian socialist. As they have only a few societies to their names, and they drift away from any meaningful demographic to pander to those that would not help with any revolution.

[The New California Republic]

Marxists have always warned that there are pseudo-socialists.

Why are these "socialists" not authentic? Because socialism sets as its task the total liberation of man — not only from the capitalists, but also

- from excessive taboos, from alienation, from petty regulation and manipulation

I wouldn't describe myself as a Conservative, but I see that authority in lifestyle and human behaviors as essential. We should intervene in people's lives, and we should morph the individual. I am a true socialist, that is because I want economic equality for people across groups, and I want to eradicate significant difference between groups.

Your desire to ban non-reproductive sex qualifies as an "excessive taboo", so even according to Marx you are a pseudo-socialist.

However, I think that the true Pseudo-Leftist are the Libertarian socialist. As they have only a few societies to their names, and they drift away from any meaningful demographic to pander to those that would not help with any revolution.

As opposed to you, who seeks to alienate everyone by wanting to ban non-reproductive sex...

[Communal concils]

I wouldn't describe myself as a Conservative, but I see that authority in lifestyle and human behaviors as essential. We should intervene in people's lives, and we should morph the individual. I am a true socialist, that is because I want economic equality for people across groups, and I want to eradicate significant difference between groups.

Your desire to ban non-reproductive sex qualifies as an "excessive taboo", so even according to Marx you are a pseudo-socialist.

However, I think that the true Pseudo-Leftist are the Libertarian socialist. As they have only a few societies to their names, and they drift away from any meaningful demographic to pander to those that would not help with any revolution.

As opposed to you, who seeks to alienate everyone by wanting to ban non-reproductive sex...

So what? If Marxism is a Science, then it should not be static. The Greatest thing in western society that isn't a Taboo is the Market. Would Marx want Markets to be prohibited. A socialist state would definitely try to remove the practice of complete market control and the discussion in favor of it. Honestly, it is likely that Marx himself was fine with Victorian morality.

[The New California Republic]

Your desire to ban non-reproductive sex qualifies as an "excessive taboo", so even according to Marx you are a pseudo-socialist.


As opposed to you, who seeks to alienate everyone by wanting to ban non-reproductive sex...

So what? If Marxism is a Science, then it should not be static. The Greatest thing in western society that isn't a Taboo is the Market. Would Marx want Markets to be prohibited. A socialist state would definitely try to remove the practice of complete market control and the discussion in favor of it. Honestly, it is likely that Marx himself was fine with Victorian morality.

Nice strawman that you have created there buddy.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

And now the points:

1. Pro-life is an anti-socialist idea, because here comes the coercion of man to childbirth. This manipulation, the use of man as a resource, the extreme degree of alienation of the individual from the choice of his destiny.

2. Immigration. Socialists for the right of immigration only for progressive people, and against the immigration of carriers of reactionary ideology (for example, religious). Ideology, unlike race, is a personal choice. If a migrant is religious, socialists have every right to refuse him entry into a socialist country.

3. Prostitution. This is a type of operation, because going for the money. Socialists against

4. Free love. Socialists support it, because a person has the right to dispose of his body. Otherwise, there is alienation, manipulation and suffering of people.

5. Militarism. Socialists condemn wars, but are forced to defend themselves. Under communism, there will be no wars, nations and borders will disappear, humanity will become one on a global scale. But up to this point, socialist enclaves are forced to protect themselves, including by developing military technology. There is no militarism, no worship of war. For a socialist, war and the army is a temporary evil.

6. Drugs. Socialists believe that drug addiction has social roots, so it is impossible to simply ban it. Pharmacology must create effective antidepressants and harmless recreational substances, and drive out harmful drugs.

7. Police. For a socialist, this is a temporary evil, as is the state. Under communism there is no police, the state is dying off. Instead of the state - self-government. Instead of the police - conscious armed citizens who can repel robbers.

8. Differences between the sexes. This idea easily translates into the idea of ​​the superiority of men and the subordinate position of women. And inequality in the family teaches inequality in society. Such a family, such upbringing prepares a submissive mass for the exploitation of the masters. Therefore unacceptable.

9. Ecologism. If ecologism is directed against the development of advanced technologies, it is unacceptable for a socialist. Problems should be solved not by passive protection of nature, but by the development of new technologies. Invasion of nature for its conscious change, including cleaning from pollution, etc. Socialists - progressives, advocate the development of technology, the conquest of nature.

10. Hierarchy is bad. This division into oppressors and oppressed. For a socialist, this is unacceptable.

[Vadterland]

Strasserists and Nazbols exist. So, yes.

[Communal concils]

And now the points:

1. Pro-life is an anti-socialist idea, because here comes the coercion of man to childbirth. This manipulation, the use of man as a resource, the extreme degree of alienation of the individual from the choice of his destiny.

2. Immigration. Socialists for the right of immigration only for progressive people, and against the immigration of carriers of reactionary ideology (for example, religious). Ideology, unlike race, is a personal choice. If a migrant is religious, socialists have every right to refuse him entry into a socialist country.

3. Prostitution. This is a type of operation, because going for the money. Socialists against

4. Free love. Socialists support it, because a person has the right to dispose of his body. Otherwise, there is alienation, manipulation and suffering of people.

5. Militarism. Socialists condemn wars, but are forced to defend themselves. Under communism, there will be no wars, nations and borders will disappear, humanity will become one on a global scale. But up to this point, socialist enclaves are forced to protect themselves, including by developing military technology. There is no militarism, no worship of war. For a socialist, war and the army is a temporary evil.

6. Drugs. Socialists believe that drug addiction has social roots, so it is impossible to simply ban it. Pharmacology must create effective antidepressants and harmless recreational substances, and drive out harmful drugs.

7. Police. For a socialist, this is a temporary evil, as is the state. Under communism there is no police, the state is dying off. Instead of the state - self-government. Instead of the police - conscious armed citizens who can repel robbers.

8. Differences between the sexes. This idea easily translates into the idea of ​​the superiority of men and the subordinate position of women. And inequality in the family teaches inequality in society. Such a family, such upbringing prepares a submissive mass for the exploitation of the masters. Therefore unacceptable.

9. Ecologism. If ecologism is directed against the development of advanced technologies, it is unacceptable for a socialist. Problems should be solved not by passive protection of nature, but by the development of new technologies. Invasion of nature for its conscious change, including cleaning from pollution, etc. Socialists - progressives, advocate the development of technology, the conquest of nature.

10. Hierarchy is bad. This division into oppressors and oppressed. For a socialist, this is unacceptable.

1. I do not simply seek to remove abortion, I want to remove the need for it. It would be best to have social programs like maternity leave, and childcare should also be funded. I think that we should punish rapist with the death penalty and we should remove all forms of media that support the sexualization of women. I think that's the real solution.

2. It is not reactionary. That is because borders are needed to protect our selfs from contraband, diseases and counter-revolutionary infiltration. Immigration is no different, I suppose that we should select people that pose no threat, and their religion should not be the main factor.

3. agree

4. I strongly disagree. I believe that Capitalist society has helped libertine behaviors. It has encourage reckless behavior. In fact, I believe that Individualism leads to a Bourgeoisie mindset. If people think beyond mindless pleasure, then STDs ,rape and other problems would be more rare.

5. To me, a Military is only a tool.

6. agree.

7. It is only a tool. However, I agree that police may eventually not be needed.

8. I mean recognizing the existences and differences of certain aspects of Biological sex. Though, I think man and women can do the same thing(except in sexual reproduction).

9. I believe that nature is a tool for use, and we should keep it alive for the sake of continued use.

10. Hierarchy is useful. In a communist society, the rule of people would just turn to the administration of things. When all negative aspects of society are permanently purge, the the consolidation of the vanguard can finally allow for the creation of a non-coercive state. People just do things, the masses become their own police enforcement, their ideology becomes the removal of deviancy.

[The New California Republic]

I believe that Capitalist society has helped libertine behaviors. It has encourage reckless behavior. In fact, I believe that Individualism leads to a Bourgeoisie mindset. If people think beyond mindless pleasure, then STDs ,rape and other problems would be more rare.

And you are entirely wrong, considering that various types of sexual freedom have existed for millennia before capitalism ever appeared on the scene.

And banning non-reproductive sex still isn't the solution.

[Diopolis]

I wouldn't describe myself as a Conservative, but I see that authority in lifestyle and human behaviors as essential. We should intervene in people's lives, and we should morph the individual. I am a true socialist, that is because I want economic equality for people across groups, and I want to eradicate significant difference between groups.

Your desire to ban non-reproductive sex qualifies as an "excessive taboo", so even according to Marx you are a pseudo-socialist.

However, I think that the true Pseudo-Leftist are the Libertarian socialist. As they have only a few societies to their names, and they drift away from any meaningful demographic to pander to those that would not help with any revolution.

As opposed to you, who seeks to alienate everyone by wanting to ban non-reproductive sex...

Not everyone.

[Communal concils]

I believe that Capitalist society has helped libertine behaviors. It has encourage reckless behavior. In fact, I believe that Individualism leads to a Bourgeoisie mindset. If people think beyond mindless pleasure, then STDs ,rape and other problems would be more rare.

And you are entirely wrong, considering that various types of sexual freedom have existed for millennia before capitalism ever appeared on the scene.

And banning non-reproductive sex still isn't the solution.

I don't believe that it started with capitalism. I said that Capitalism helped with it.

It's a transition into other policies. It is really just suppression, I think that economic policies and state programs may redirect the urges of individuals.

[The New California Republic]

And you are entirely wrong, considering that various types of sexual freedom have existed for millennia before capitalism ever appeared on the scene.

And banning non-reproductive sex still isn't the solution.

I don't believe that it started with capitalism. I said that Capitalism helped with it.

And you have given no evidence of that thus far, hence why I am not putting much stock in what you are saying.

It's a transition into other policies. It is really just suppression, I think that economic policies and state programs may redirect the urges of individuals.

A shitty justification that does nothing to address the point that banning non-reproductive sex is a downright stupid policy in the first instance. Saying that "oh but it will be replaced by something better!" is fucking awful as far as justifications go.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

And now the points:

1. Pro-life is an anti-socialist idea, because here comes the coercion of man to childbirth. This manipulation, the use of man as a resource, the extreme degree of alienation of the individual from the choice of his destiny.

2. Immigration. Socialists for the right of immigration only for progressive people, and against the immigration of carriers of reactionary ideology (for example, religious). Ideology, unlike race, is a personal choice. If a migrant is religious, socialists have every right to refuse him entry into a socialist country.

3. Prostitution. This is a type of operation, because going for the money. Socialists against

4. Free love. Socialists support it, because a person has the right to dispose of his body. Otherwise, there is alienation, manipulation and suffering of people.

5. Militarism. Socialists condemn wars, but are forced to defend themselves. Under communism, there will be no wars, nations and borders will disappear, humanity will become one on a global scale. But up to this point, socialist enclaves are forced to protect themselves, including by developing military technology. There is no militarism, no worship of war. For a socialist, war and the army is a temporary evil.

6. Drugs. Socialists believe that drug addiction has social roots, so it is impossible to simply ban it. Pharmacology must create effective antidepressants and harmless recreational substances, and drive out harmful drugs.

7. Police. For a socialist, this is a temporary evil, as is the state. Under communism there is no police, the state is dying off. Instead of the state - self-government. Instead of the police - conscious armed citizens who can repel robbers.

8. Differences between the sexes. This idea easily translates into the idea of ​​the superiority of men and the subordinate position of women. And inequality in the family teaches inequality in society. Such a family, such upbringing prepares a submissive mass for the exploitation of the masters. Therefore unacceptable.

9. Ecologism. If ecologism is directed against the development of advanced technologies, it is unacceptable for a socialist. Problems should be solved not by passive protection of nature, but by the development of new technologies. Invasion of nature for its conscious change, including cleaning from pollution, etc. Socialists - progressives, advocate the development of technology, the conquest of nature.

10. Hierarchy is bad. This division into oppressors and oppressed. For a socialist, this is unacceptable.

1. I do not simply seek to remove abortion, I want to remove the need for it. It would be best to have social programs like maternity leave, and childcare should also be funded. I think that we should punish rapist with the death penalty and we should remove all forms of media that support the sexualization of women. I think that's the real solution.

2. It is not reactionary. That is because borders are needed to protect our selfs from contraband, diseases and counter-revolutionary infiltration. Immigration is no different, I suppose that we should select people that pose no threat, and their religion should not be the main factor.

3. agree

4. I strongly disagree. I believe that Capitalist society has helped libertine behaviors. It has encourage reckless behavior. In fact, I believe that Individualism leads to a Bourgeoisie mindset. If people think beyond mindless pleasure, then STDs ,rape and other problems would be more rare.

5. To me, a Military is only a tool.

6. agree.

7. It is only a tool. However, I agree that police may eventually not be needed.

8. I mean recognizing the existences and differences of certain aspects of Biological sex. Though, I think man and women can do the same thing(except in sexual reproduction).

9. I believe that nature is a tool for use, and we should keep it alive for the sake of continued use.

10. Hierarchy is useful. In a communist society, the rule of people would just turn to the administration of things. When all negative aspects of society are permanently purge, the the consolidation of the vanguard can finally allow for the creation of a non-coercive state. People just do things, the masses become their own police enforcement, their ideology becomes the removal of deviancy.

> If you think outside the world of mindless pleasure, then STDs, rape and other problems

I doubt very much, because unmet need causes an accumulation of tension, and it then manifests itself in forms that are dangerous to people. Jack the Ripper - a product of the Victorian era. Rape is the flip side of ascetic repression. If people have a harmless surrogate, a "lightning rod", the ability to quickly satisfy themselves without harm to others, using contraceptives - this reduces tension, reduces people's obsession with sexuality, and reduces the level of aggression and rape.


> Hierarchy is useful.

It is useful as a temporary tool when the vanguard leads the masses to communism. But even this temporary hierarchy is always fraught with the degradation of the avant-garde - after the revolution people go to the Communist Party for privileges, for the sake of greed and lust for power, for the bureaucracy the end in itself becomes the preservation of their power and privileges. And then people like Yeltsin, Dudayev, Turkmenbashi, who destroy the gains of socialism and abandon the socialist course, lead in it. That is, the hierarchy is dangerous even when there is a temporary need for it.

> agree
> It is only a tool

Here, in some points there is a coincidence of views. But we have a different idea about the extent of permissible emancipation of the individual. This is the main disagreement.

[Communal concils]

1. I do not simply seek to remove abortion, I want to remove the need for it. It would be best to have social programs like maternity leave, and childcare should also be funded. I think that we should punish rapist with the death penalty and we should remove all forms of media that support the sexualization of women. I think that's the real solution.

2. It is not reactionary. That is because borders are needed to protect our selfs from contraband, diseases and counter-revolutionary infiltration. Immigration is no different, I suppose that we should select people that pose no threat, and their religion should not be the main factor.

3. agree

4. I strongly disagree. I believe that Capitalist society has helped libertine behaviors. It has encourage reckless behavior. In fact, I believe that Individualism leads to a Bourgeoisie mindset. If people think beyond mindless pleasure, then STDs ,rape and other problems would be more rare.

5. To me, a Military is only a tool.

6. agree.

7. It is only a tool. However, I agree that police may eventually not be needed.

8. I mean recognizing the existences and differences of certain aspects of Biological sex. Though, I think man and women can do the same thing(except in sexual reproduction).

9. I believe that nature is a tool for use, and we should keep it alive for the sake of continued use.

10. Hierarchy is useful. In a communist society, the rule of people would just turn to the administration of things. When all negative aspects of society are permanently purge, the the consolidation of the vanguard can finally allow for the creation of a non-coercive state. People just do things, the masses become their own police enforcement, their ideology becomes the removal of deviancy.

> If you think outside the world of mindless pleasure, then STDs, rape and other problems

I doubt very much, because unmet need causes an accumulation of tension, and it then manifests itself in forms that are dangerous to people. Jack the Ripper - a product of the Victorian era. Rape is the flip side of ascetic repression. If people have a harmless surrogate, a "lightning rod", the ability to quickly satisfy themselves without harm to others, using contraceptives - this reduces tension, reduces people's obsession with sexuality, and reduces the level of aggression and rape.


> Hierarchy is useful.

It is useful as a temporary tool when the vanguard leads the masses to communism. But even this temporary hierarchy is always fraught with the degradation of the avant-garde - after the revolution people go to the Communist Party for privileges, for the sake of greed and lust for power, for the bureaucracy the end in itself becomes the preservation of their power and privileges. And then people like Yeltsin, Dudayev, Turkmenbashi, who destroy the gains of socialism and abandon the socialist course, lead in it. That is, the hierarchy is dangerous even when there is a temporary need for it.

> agree
> It is only a tool

Here, in some points there is a coincidence of views. But we have a different idea about the extent of permissible emancipation of the individual. This is the main disagreement.

1. I believe that people should redirect sexual desires and behaviors to other things. Perhaps to leadership or Labor( which is actually propose by utopian Socialist Charles Fourier). Honestly, I think most sexual relationships should be focus on biological reproduction. I still think that people should limit themselves, and should teach themselves self control.

2. I agree with this. That is why I think Populism is useful. anti-elitism should be promoted, and many policies of the state should appeal to the masses. In terms of corrupt Government officials, I think that the Spoiled should be purge. If you don't remove them, they will ask for more. Even the current Chinese Government realize this.

3. We do have different ways of implementing our beliefs, but also in how far they should be. I totally agree with you on that.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

> If you think outside the world of mindless pleasure, then STDs, rape and other problems

I doubt very much, because unmet need causes an accumulation of tension, and it then manifests itself in forms that are dangerous to people. Jack the Ripper - a product of the Victorian era. Rape is the flip side of ascetic repression. If people have a harmless surrogate, a "lightning rod", the ability to quickly satisfy themselves without harm to others, using contraceptives - this reduces tension, reduces people's obsession with sexuality, and reduces the level of aggression and rape.


> Hierarchy is useful.

It is useful as a temporary tool when the vanguard leads the masses to communism. But even this temporary hierarchy is always fraught with the degradation of the avant-garde - after the revolution people go to the Communist Party for privileges, for the sake of greed and lust for power, for the bureaucracy the end in itself becomes the preservation of their power and privileges. And then people like Yeltsin, Dudayev, Turkmenbashi, who destroy the gains of socialism and abandon the socialist course, lead in it. That is, the hierarchy is dangerous even when there is a temporary need for it.

> agree
> It is only a tool

Here, in some points there is a coincidence of views. But we have a different idea about the extent of permissible emancipation of the individual. This is the main disagreement.

1. I believe that people should redirect sexual desires and behaviors to other things. Perhaps to leadership or Labor( which is actually propose by utopian Socialist Charles Fourier). Honestly, I think most sexual relationships should be focus on biological reproduction. I still think that people should limit themselves, and should teach themselves self control.

2. I agree with this. That is why I think Populism is useful. anti-elitism should be promoted, and many policies of the state should appeal to the masses. In terms of corrupt Government officials, I think that the Spoiled should be purge. If you don't remove them, they will ask for more. Even the current Chinese Government realize this.

3. We do have different ways of implementing our beliefs, but also in how far they should be. I totally agree with you on that.

We had a productive discussion. Even if we give different answers to some questions, it’s good that you raised these questions. Thank you for that.

[Communal concils]

I don't believe that it started with capitalism. I said that Capitalism helped with it.

And you have given no evidence of that thus far, hence why I am not putting much stock in what you are saying.

It's a transition into other policies. It is really just suppression, I think that economic policies and state programs may redirect the urges of individuals.

A shitty justification that does nothing to address the point that banning non-reproductive sex is a downright stupid policy in the first instance. Saying that "oh but it will be replaced by something better!" is fucking awful as far as justifications go.

1. https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... ing-crisis

2. I will say that blind pleasure is more stupid.
also, your response to my justification looks like what people will say about Marxism.