[Vulkanevsel]

Edit: wow triple post

[strongjannabiz]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


because you posted in it

[timgillmoreeztf]

Sex under patriarchy is rape in the sense that power differentials make meaningful consent impossible. People do not freely choose their sexual partners; their choices are limited by patriarchy and capitalism. There is also unequal access to sex, thanks to political and economic factors. People tend to see sex as a purely persynal matter, but a little reflection will reveal its social character, which bears the hallmarks of patriarchy and capitalism.

Excessive indulgence in sex is a manifestation of petty-bourgeois individualism. The best practice at this time is celibacy. Original post

The obvious conclusion is that this persyn is barking mad. One wonders what they do for fun.

[houkbsdov]

Sex, and relationships, that I observe is often highly coercive.

JM

[favwebbb]

Originally posted by Sandman
The obvious conclusion is that this persyn is barking mad. One wonders what they do for fun. You don't remember Imran's women = womyn phase?

[b7RKli4l]

Was he "Imryn," then? Or "Imron?"

[Flieteewell]

Originally posted by Elok
I was being facetious, but okay. Spiffor, please enlighten me: what does the term "reactionary," as used by Marxists/Maoists/Communists in general, typically imply? With pleasure

Commies of all breeds believe in social progress, i.e. the idea that society can advance to become better socially. This comes from the Marxist view of history, and is one of the most shared ideas among Commies. This is why almost every commie calls himself a progressist or progressive.

Commies might disagree what exactly constitutes a progress (for example, the maoists we're talking about believe that Mao made the most advanced society in the world, an idea most commies here would find amazingly stupid). But they pretty much all agree on the idea that social progress is possible, has already happened in human history, and is due to continue when the conditions will be met (many consider that a revolution is one of those conditions).

There are two enemies to progress: conservatism and reaction.

Basically, "conservatism" in this meaning is the support of the status quo. Many ordinary citizens, as well as quite a few leaders actually believe the status quo is something that deserves to be kept this way, with only minor changes as time passes by. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This idea prevents further progress, but at least it doesn't go against the progress that has already been made.

The reactionaries, however, go beyond simple conservatism. They want to go back to yesteryear, to undo previous social progresses. Examples are:
In a socialist country that had a successful revolution, a counter-revolutionary is labelled as a reactionary.
In a democratic country that freed itself from tyranny, a pro-tyranny is considered a reactionary (IIRC, "reactionary" was a term first used to depict French anti-revolutionaries in the early 19th century, i.e. after the revolution took place and ended).
In a social-democratic country where the workers enjoy legal protections, a hypercapitalist who wants to go back to a 19th-century-like system will be labeled a reactionary.
In today's US, someone who advocates Jim Crow laws would be called a reactionary as well.
According to these Maoists, post-Mao China became capitalist again, and thus made a step back. Those responsible (Deng and the Dengists) are thus reactionary.

Che, you correct me if I say something stupid.

[shinesw]

Why isn't he in Gitmo yet?

[nilliraq]

Originally posted by Saras
A thread done by Serb clones

http://www.irtr.org/archive/marxleni...ead=1129515610 Èäè òû â æîïó, äîñòàë áëÿòü óæå.