Does the abolishment[sic] of private property extend to pet ownership?
Just what it says on the tin. At current I own a lovely cat who essentially acts as an emotional support animal for me, and I was wondering whether an ancom society would frown upon pet ownership, or perhaps if domesticated animals like cats and dogs would be "owned" (taken care of) by the community in which they live?
It does indeed apply to all kinds of ownership. The Communists seek the abolition of private property as such.
What, however, are the implications of the abolition of every and all kinds of ownership?
That one owns nothing, that 'ownership' in fact as a word becomes purely colloquial and in reference to an individual's particular USE of an object for whatever period of time, whether it is until this individual is dead or otherwise.
The Communists destroy any and all kinds of ownership, for the Communists this notion becomes redunant, for what does humanity own vis a vis to? Nature? God? Wherein not only private property but the private individual as such ceases to exist, what can it MEAN to "own" if not only TO USE? Without this juxtaposition to the other, ownership ceases to mean anything.
One no longer "owns" even their own clothing - instead, they wear them, or even the paper they use to wipe their ass - instead, they use it to wipe. Objects cease to be meaningful outside of their utility. Only man endures as meaningful in and of himself.
That is not to say that the products of man's labor, or the objects he uses, escape him, escape the world of man as soon as they materialize. That is not to say in other words that they cease to externalize the inner essence of man. The products of man's labor for the Communists now are forged in his image, are reminders to him of his own mastery of the outside world, his inner-essence and cements like iron the unbreakable unity of all men, of the universality of this new order.
It is not that all individuals like a pious community of monks forsake ownership in the vein of humbling themselves to god. It is that their ownership is in a sense a given, therefore becomes redunant, because no longer do any men own vis a vis other men, at the same time those objects othereise own become testament to the endurance and strength of the new order, they become finally mere semblances, vanishing apparitions of man's wider conquest of all nature and his expansion to all corners of space, i.e. they are recognized as disposable and useful only in the context of a now infinite conquest of nature, of an infinite revolutionizing of the means of production that never ends.
To possess anxiety over the idea that in this hypothetical context an other may steal, may therefore deprive you of your use of an object... Is to betray that one has failed to grasp the most basic and elementary understanding of the essence of Communism.
That is, it is this anxiety itself (over the other) which is the root cause of actual theft in the first place. If you wish to insist on that anxiety, do yourself a favor and admit that you insist that Communism is impossible, forget about such silly questions (of ownership in a future society) and enjoy your life, for you have already admitted that you insist such a future society cannot exist in the first place.
I think that your post was an excellent reply until we get to this point I have quoted above. I think you're being a bit harsh since the question isn't similar to asking about an iPhone and there's a great deal of emotional attachment to one's animals.
To, Timekempt, I would say this: I have a dog and a cat that I love very much as well, but as a communist I don't view them as my property. Instead, we are partners who have chosen each other to experience life together with. Sure, I feel that they're almost like my children, but an emotional connection to a dog or cat is natural and the domestication of dogs and cats will well continue into the communist world.
Holy shit, honestly, users should actually read through the forum before even thinking to join or post. You should know by now that this disgusting shit belongs in the dustbin of the website along with the rest of it, this disgusting ecologist trash. As I said, no matter how, no matter the circumstances, no matter where it rears its head and no matter how innocent the forms, if there is any duty I have on this forum it is to smash, destroy, expel any and all sorts of ecologism, of pseudo-scientific assertions of the animalization and ecologization of man, this putrid, anti-democratic filth.
In droves these ecologist scum, these peddlers of reactionary garbage, of evolutionary psychology and other such abominations, they won't fucking stop from coming on this forum and insisting on what is 'natural' and what is not. You know this perfectly characterizes the passive-aggressive male hipster subject of today. That's all they fucking do. They come and remind us of the master's injunction, of our limitations. Think of it like the 'hysterical' woman who is going on and on about something, and her male counterpart telling her 'how it really is', i.e. 'well, that's all very fine, but you should remember, this is how it is and how it must be'. That is the role the reactionary pseudo-leftist ecologists, the 'i Fucking Love Science" leftists who manage to crawl their way onto the forum are. They are here to remind us of the 'truth' of expert knowledge, that we ought to humble ourselves for the big Other.
The aristocratic-masculine subject of the 21st century does this, except they don't take responsibility for themselves, they consign this responsibility unto the unknown, to some big Other - in this case, to nature. The male subject of the 21st century, he is a' nice guy', he is a 'nice, sensitive guy', who is just saying 'hey, you know what, that's nature! That's mother nature, bro! it's
natural, it's beyond any of our power, so just deal with it!' We are at a level of alienation Marx could not even have imagined today.
It is natural, you so diligently, almost righteously proclaim. "Enough of this nonsense, it is natural". And so it is. And so the world returns to peace, and so the sun will rise in the morning and rest in the night, and it will go on, things, bless us,
will go on.
isn't similar to asking about an iPhone and there's a great deal of emotional attachment to one's animals.
The stupidity is actually shocking. To one's animals. What? What the fuck are you talking about, to one's animals? Like where do they get this shit, "I fucking love science"? To one's animals? The absurdity is actually baffling. The barren truth of the animalization of man is revealed: As though one's animals are the living proof of one's own animality, i.e. as though animality alone elicits the imaginary and alleged animality of man. "One's animals", the logic follows, "Elicit a great deal of emotional attachment because they remind humans of their own animality". If anything this demonstrates the actual proof that humans are nothing like animals and have no animality, the notion of animality as ascribed to humans is an abstract perversity with no actual basis in humanity, because if any fucking mammal (I will give you the benefit of the doubt of not thinking we are 'hard wired' to start crying over dead cockroaches) is a substitute for this 'animal' that 'naturally' elicits emotional attachment, why is this only true for humans? You are telling me that a grizzly bear and a wolf are naturally predisposed to get along?
You are telling me that a lion and a wildabeast[sic] are the best of friends? You are telling me that a dog naturally elicits an 'emotional attachment' on part of the hungry hippopotamus, or what?
The outrageous stupidity of your thinking is that you admit as a human perversion the grouping of all mammals together as being capable of eliciting an 'emotional attachment' (purportedly 'naturally') by humans, and you don't even think to admit that the reason for this is becasue in a perverse way individuals project certain characteristics onto animals WHICH IS STRICTLY NOT NATURAL AT ALL, which furthermore doesn't even need to ever be explained in a natural way but can be explained in a very simple and rational way, i.e. that such animals may remind individuals of something strictly human.
I should just fucking say it: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS so-called "emotions". It is a meaningless, superstitious and purely ideological fucking word used to designate various modes of thinking, various attitudes, that one should want to exempt from the critical and conscious use of reason. There are no 'feelings' which are outside of rationality, instead, some 'feelings' you - like a slave, exempt from your own conscious use of reason. They still, however, follow a rationality, they in other words are still meaningful, they are existing for a reason, and that reason is not
natural anymore than it is divine. The way the fucking word nature is thrown around is purely superstitious. It is purely a category of superstition to think that something you have ot go out of your FUCKING way to exempt from the conscious use of reason is 'natural'. Such barbarism never ceases to be a source of depression - that this stupidity is among leftists is simply unforgivable and unacceptable.
As if there is no reason as to why one has a so-called 'emotional attachment' to their pet. First and foremost, what should be made clear is that there is no such thing as being 'unemotional'. there is no such FUCKING thing as not having an emotional attachment to an object. When you wipe your ass, with toilet paper, you too have an emotional attachment to your paper in a sense. To be unemotional is impossible, because emotions
as such don't even exist in the first place - every and all kinds of human activity are marked with the intensity of humanness, are marked with human subjectivity and the fundamental experience of being a subject, there is no way of being around that, so for instance, the idiot who says they are not being emotional, who has a clam and blank face, is in a sense in a 'different emotional state' just as much as a hysterical, screaming and crying baby. It's so FUCKING stupid how people play these games talking about "Well, it's highly emotional". Excuse FUCKING me? It's 'emotional', and that is supposed to tell us that it is natural? When one is brought to tears by Beethoven's masterpieces, when the architect is overcome with an immense feeling of pride in his great sculpture, you are telling me these are responses that were selected for 150,000 years ago? Are you stupid, or what? So-called EMOTIONS are RATIONAL, they follow a rationality and are elicited for actual reasons that relate to actual, active, subjects, god forbid. No one fucking cries when they see Syrian refugees dying in the water because it is natural, they cry and shed tears because they see an actual tragedy in relation to the universality of human practice, they cry in the vein of witnessing actual, world-shaking injustices, things that are irreducible to the barren spiritual wasteland that is nature.
The intensity of the human experience is that THE VERY EMPIRICAL WORLD THAT IS REPRESENTED IN THE FIRST PLACE becomes precarious and is SHAKEN, in other words, a genuine human 'emotion' is that IT CANNOT be reduced to anything natural, because it shakes the foundation of any and all kinds of representations of the natural world in the first place, it SHAKES the very foundations of the ethical imperative and injunction to reduce it to something natural, human subjectivity is irreducible and shakes the very foundations of what can be perceived to be the entire universe, because the world of man is irreducible to nature, it alone is the only arbiter of meaning that which nature becomes meaningful, it alone is the only medium by which nature can find absolution, meaning, so to reduce it to the barren objects which are objects for subjects alone is so fucking absurd and disgusting it cannot even be exaggerated: To say the world of man is natural, is to enslave man not simply to nature but to man himself, to keep this world of man static and unchanging, insofar as it becomes
to its own objects of representation.
The disgusting bloodsuckers tell us this or that is natural, they tell us, that out of their 'empathy' do they sympathize with the damned of the world: Ladies and gentlemen, he who uses the word 'empathy' in this ecologist sense should be carried off to the guillotine immediately!
Only the aristocrats of the 21st century, and their mouthpieces speak of 'empathy', whereas the Communist speaks of SOLIDARITY, speaks of the ENNOBLING, of the EMPOWERMENT and the ELECTRIFICATION of the AGENCY of the subject to whom they have solidarity
with. The damned of the world don't need your fucking empathy, they need you to get up and fight, out of duty, out of solidarity! We do not say it is natural to have solidarity, we say we have solidarity OUT OF DUTY, not nature, but DUTY. That which FORCES us to have solidarity, IS OUR OWN ethical practice,
the weight of what we recognize as OUR OWN ethical injunction, which we take responsibility for and which we would rather choose death before disavowing. It is not nature that forces us to attack injustices, for NOTHING outside of ourselves forces us to do it - NOTHING outside of ourselves FORCES us, we are forced BY ourselves, BY the universality we relate to, BY our own commitment to the cause of Communism and ethical duty.
But let us play the devil's advocate. Individuals do in fact have an 'emotional connection' to their iphone, just like they do all objects. So what you mean to say is not that individuals lack an emotional attachment to their iPhone, like they do with dogs, what you are trying to cover up is your own ideological and perverse elevation of your pet, your fucking animal, into being like a subject. IT is not a coincidence that we live in a day and age wherein both animals as well as purely digtialized representations, such as cartoons, are treated like people, are accorded the same relation. It is becasue we live in the most intense period of alienation wherein individuals themselves are reduced to being animals, and the difference between the individual and society's representation
of individuals (i.e. by the university discourse) is narrower and narrower. What does it mean? This obsession of things which resemble subjects but which are not actually subjects, relates to an increased hyper-estrangement of man from himself. Zizek tells us that the prevailing rationality of today is coffee without caffeine. He should add, it is also: Humanity without humanity, the superficial aspects of humanity without the actual subjectivity that is human, the appearance of a subject without its agency. Why is this? Because today, man is increasingly revoked of his own subjectivity, is at every turn subject to domestication by the university discourse and by capital, so that the only aspects of man which remain, of man's essence that is, are those aspects which can be commodified, which can be in other words estranged from him. This is why we live in a society of animal-fetishization: MAN HIMSELF is denied of his ESSENCE, so the superficial aspects of himself that can be estranged from himself which border along the contours of his actual essence and cogito, are abstracted and conflated with man himself. What
Even the word humanism today denotes and carries the meaning of a disgusting misanthropy, of the animalization of man as the human species, just like any other. (As a side note: Humanism today can only be inherited by trans-humanism, i.e. so that all of the superficial aspects of humanity are destroyed, and all that remains is the pure, irreducible subjectivity).
Sorry, no one is going to scold you for having a pet or for doing all of the normal motions of having one, but we will scold you if you attempt to justify it
as though it is inevitable or natural, as anything more than "Whatever, I know very well that it is a stupid object no different from a machine, but fuck it, I'll pretend anyway". This is a far more respectable position than actually trying to tell us that it is natural to think your fucking dog actually is a human subject who secretly cares about you. Your dog doesn't fucking care about your or anything else, it is a biological MACHINE, it elicits human-friendly responses because those physiological responses were selected over the course of when humans domesticated them. In other words, your dog is literally just as meaningful as a rock - it IS an object, it only seems otherwise becasue it again is able to have certain responses elicited from it that were selected for during the process of domestication, but that doesn't mean it understands those responses, thinks they are meaningful, because it doesn't understand or think anything, it is literally like a fucking machine, a robot. If humans were to create a robot that in the same way elicits certain responses by human interaction, there wouldn't be a difference as far as the 'emotional' attachment to it than a dog.
Humans on the other hand are active agents, they have agency, meaning, they aren't products of the mere physiological elicitation of responses, but are the willful creators of the elicitations in the first place, in other words, man can fashion any old stupid animal in his image all he wants, but the active, creative entity is man himself and always will be, a dog for instance could only ever be a mere snapshot, a caricature, which doesn't 'keep up' with man. Hence dogs have no history, outside of how people have historically used them. Dogs could never have created iphones, because in a sense they are no more human than an iphone is.
Dogs didn't domesticate humans, the reverse is true. Please, sit the fuck down and tell me HOW IT IS FUCKING NATURAL when DOGS and CATS didn't even FUCKING exist as pets until way after humans existed? Were humans hard-wired to domesticate dogs at the outset that which humanity entered into existence? Why do I have to ask such questions for you, why can't you just FUCKING think critically on your own and spare us all of the effort of doing it for you? Why do you INSIST on saying things like this, that "It's natural'? WHY? Tell us, WHY you find it necessary!
Instead, we are partners who have chosen each other to experience life together with.
I see, you are
partners. Like a disney movie, how cute. It is the fantasy-land of pokemon, no?
Except someone should tell the stupid animal who isn't partaking in this fantasy, this dog who is actually only by your side not for any actual reason as such but because it is physiologically conditioned to elicit certain responses in relation to certain physiological stimuli. Of course, in our philistine, proto-Fascistic age, certain scum (probably yourself included) would insist that this holds true for man as well. The difference of course is that the absurdity of this notion is that - if it is true that humans are animals, just like a stupid dog, why is it that humans must enunciate consciously and with the use of reason their alleged 'animality'? Why is it in other words that humans can know this, are they also physiologically conditioned to know? What is that space which allows them to do this, to abstract some aspect of themselves and be 'in the know' about it? The disgusting philistine will get on his knees, "Oh spare me, how can I know! Is it the soul? Is it god?", and they will retreat into their new age fuckery. "I fucking love science" indeed.
You don't get what a fucking clown you look like when you talk about this or that being natural. Do you know how stupid you look? The POSITION YOU ASSUME, the SUBJECT you ASSUME, the AGENCY you assume, is some alien, inhuman, abstract rational being who knows 'the truth' about humans and what is 'natural' about them. WHAT FUCKING PERSPECTIVE OR POINT OF VIEW ARE YOU TAKING WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO ABSTRACT YOURSELF FROM YOUR OWN HUMANITY AND HUMANNESS? Once upon a time, the bourgeois ideologues were honest enough to admit that this perspective is none other than god's, and that men are forever humble to it. Nowadays, with pseudo-scientific jargon, they purport this to be pure, abstract, 'unbiased' scientific thinking, i.e. the thinking of objects in and of themselves and at the expense of the subjective position, practice, that is thinking in the first place. Holy shit.
There is no difference from a non-human animal and any old object. A rock is just as meaningful as an animal in and of themselves. All are necessarily objects which relate strictly to human practice. We have been over this so many fucking times on this website, honestly, every possible argument has already been brought up here. But yet you insinsit on saying this shit, lazily, like a loose-handed philistine who can't contain their stupidity, because you lack the decency of even being aware that this position of yours is controversial. You don't even think to ask whether this idea of 'naturalness' can be questioned or not, it's not even up for critical thinking, you blindly assume it is a given and just go as follows from there.
You want to go into this? Fine, we can go into this. If the 'connection' you feel to your pet is natural, so too is racism natural, so too is war natural, so too is rape natural, and so too is just about every and all human activity natural - and what do you know, what a happy coincidence,
the present order of things as it exists is then natural. BY THE SAME FUCKING REASONING YOU ARE EMPLOYING, why don't you admit that capitalism is natural? You cannot pick and choose which experiences of spiritual intensity that escape symbolization are natural or not. You can't fucking pick and choose what is, and what isn't natural. That's the end of story.
but an emotional connection to a dog or cat is natural
Holy shit, kill me. Literally kill me. I am so sick of these motherfuckers, the postmodern subject, who calmly takes a distance from their rabid, disgusting injunctions, i.e. the postmodern subject who rather than assumes the position of the master who sais 'that's it', points to bare, dead 'facts' as means of signification, of 'that's it'. WHO sais it's FUCKING natural? God? WHO decided this, that it is 'natural'? Certainly not men, who by your own admission are bound by nature, are enslaved by it, feel and exist as meager humans only as stupid fucking animals in your mind. I can't believe what kind of disgusting fucking crocodile can talk about this or that feeling of intensity being 'natural'. These scum are incapable of love, these are the types of predators who at every turn attempt to de-sensitize and above all domesticate the intensity of the subjective experience to being 'natural', so that, insofar as they represent their own relation to their 'loved ones', their family, or their beloved, they will do so in an ecologist way... "Well, we mammals are hard-wired for this..." and so on, thereby proving that they are incapable of genuine love, are in fact even thinking that it is dangerous, they are like crocodiles who now subject even the most elementary experience of being a subject to the big Other, ultimately, to
That is the function of the master. The master that is the master of university discourse cuts the process of what in psychoanalysis we might call hystericization of knowledge, of a kind of incessant and ruthless criticism wherein every single thing is critiqued, that unquenchable and unhappy thirst for knowledge which is restless and which is ever-enduring (the basic modus operandi of any genuine Communist), they attempt to cut this process short, with their 'that's it'. In our postmodern epoch, what does 'that's it' mean? The injunction of
enough, that's it, today takes the form of
don't worry, relax, and enjoy. Such is the nature of our consumerist and hedonistic epoch. The old master used to say: Forget about it, that's it,
because I said so. This doesn't happen today: No one takes the form of this old traditional master, today, it's all about,
it is this way because it must be, because it is natural. At the very least this older master found some accountability in an individual. Now, the domination and enslavement of men is the most acute, the most exaggerated and severe than it ever has in all of human history.
Today, the injunction is, don't worry, it's natural, that's just how it is and how it always has been, and we are powerless before it. This perfectly characterizes the present epoch of barbarism: The master discursive message of that's it, which used to find some accountability in an authoritarian subject who prolonged further questions and who ruled by their own power alone which they took some accountability for, now finds no accountability in any individual, and they shift the blame to the big Other. To a certain extent this was always true, but at the very least with the old, traditional master confrontation with this big Other was prolonged, so there was some room for ambiguity... Now, the old master is dead, and the master discourse as well as the university discourse converge, so that today,
the means by which individuals are dominated, is by means of the fucking coward, the ever-elusive postmodern subject, who shrugs their arms and tells us,
it's natural. Honestly shut the fuck up. I know what you are thinking, even if secretly. "These crazy leftists, let me tell them, this is natural, so let it be!" - NO, NOTHING is going to FUCKING escape our craziness, YOU shut the fuck up and stop trying to protect your precious world from our ruthless criticism, for insofar as we Communists exist, we are going to rip it apart
in every possible way! Don't you dare attempt to cut this 'craziness' short with your
about 'nature'. Neither nature or god is going to save you. If you think Communism is scary, which for the petty bourgeois ideologues it is, kindly fuck off because this is not the place for you. Stop trying to find comfort and stop trying to avoid confrontation with this ultimate, terrorizing and horrifying nature of Communism: IT IS scary, either own it, or leave.
The abject absurdity of the notion that an 'emotional connection to a dog or cat is natural' is literally sickening. In times of revolution, saying such a thing would be enough to warrant an individual to be designated not only as a counter-revolutionary but also as literally a fascist. You have an 'emotional connection' to cats and dogs not because it is natural but because they remind you of a semblance of people, of having a connection to actual people which you lack,
and finally of in a perverse way being pure objects of your projection, i.e. 'people' who don't 'talk back' or resist being the objects of your fantasy.
the domestication of dogs and cats will well continue into the communist world.
Your notion of Communism is a perversity, it is a fantasy, it is nothing more than the world as it exists today minus or plus a few quantitative attributes, it is capitalism without capitalism, it is you wanting your cake and eating it too. It is as Marx knew a snapshot of capitalism without the ugly shadows. You want capitalism without that which makes it necessary, you want your normal life guaranteed by the big Other without those 'bad' aspects.
Well into the Communist world, all life will cease to exist, in other words, only two outcomes are possible: Either man will fully conquer all kinds of biological life by means of bio-engineering, which he already to an extent is on the road to doing today (and therefore, to oppose this scientific pursuit in and of itself is reactionary), or, biological life will cease to exist and man will 'upload' his essence as man into machines, i.e. what we are generally acquainted with as trans-humanism, i.e. man will be able to replicate processes otherwise only biological by means of nano-technology, a highly sophisticated computerization, not only becomes the mastery of biological life as such but its perfection even at the atomic level. This is the only possible conclusion of Communism, this is the only possible logical conclusion of Communism, it is the overcoming of the Promethean shame, that men are born rather than manufactured.
Man did not choose his body, his stupid and ugly natural body, he inherited it from the animal kingdom. At the outset that which history began, that which humanity entered into existence from the animal kingdom, it found itself stuck with its physical, biological bodies, with the humiliating shame of having to urinate, defecate, having to take care and maintain our bodies in all sorts of ways. With Communism, for the first time it becomes possible that man's physiological existence which is pre-discursive, pre-symbolic can be conformed to his cogito, his logos, his subjectivity, so that nothing escapes the symbolic order, the world of man, not even man's own body (And all of those physiological processes which sustain the symbolic order which is irreducible to them, are merely replicated artificially). Pure subjectivity
emerges, shameless and true, survives the highest conquests of the frontiers of nature.
In such a world, and I am talking about well into this world, well after the social antagonism is obsolete, insofar as we can conjecture about it
there is no room for stupid animals, animals would cease to exist, those functions previously occupied by animals would either be functions which are no longer necessary (buttressing the alienation of life in capitalism, that is the companionship of a dog or cat), or taken over by machines (i.e. animals as they are concerned in production). Not only would dogs and cats cease to exist, it is likely that all biological life
as it presently exists
would cease to exist. All that would remain is the essence of man, which is irreducible to biological processes, which in fact subsumes those processes.
Rafiq, all I can say to you is that there is much fury in you. I am astonished that you would call me a proto-fascist and insist that I be one of the first to the guillotine. Your idea of the communist world is a warped one. Your disregard for other forms of life is disturbing and I reject categorically your vision of the future. Sure, I may have been incorrect in saying the domestication of animals is natural, but this polemic of yours was unnecessary and counter-productive. We are comrades and not enemies. I have spent the last 9 years of my life as a Marxist and should the need arise I would give my life for what I believe in. If you'd like to have a genuine conversation and not an exchange of polemics I'd be happy to continue this dialogue.
Again, I'm so fucking sick of the mass and rampant stupidity on Revleft. I know how this works. Every-time I leave the forum for a week, we get this fucking epidemic of filth. And people, because they do not want to think critically, INSIST ON FUCKING FORCING MY HEAD TO EXPLODE, that I have to type SO MUCH AND FUCKING HOLD THEIR HAND IN EXPLAINING SO MUCH all because they don't want to FUCKING get off their ass and think critically. I am literally so SICK of this SHIT, getting into a FUCKING lecture of having to explain the essence of Communism and Marxism IN ITS ENTIRETY, to go into all of this SHIT, all because some fucking idiot doesn't want to keep their mouth shut and accept the full and complete consequences of what they say.
And the worst fucking part is that I have to keep doing it! I HAVE TO, out of duty alone, keep doing this SHIT, so these STUPID fucking people will keep responding and I will keep having to waste time on them, well fuck me, someone actually find me and kill me, put me out of my misery, there isn othing which is invoking of more anger and frustration than this, becasue the sheer depth of their ignorance, their casual and lazy philistinism, where there is literally a thousand different layers of stupidity, of wrongness, and that you have to go to such lengths to just give a picture of a fraction of what is wrong with what people say. Like shit, this is so fucking
exhausting. I am not kidding or exaggerating when I say we are literally dealing with probably thousands if not more layers of actual, abject stupidity here. These petty bourgeois ideologues, these rodents, like children, they keep on coming and they don't stop.
I'll just have to keep at it.
Your idea of the communist world is a warped one. Your disregard for other forms of life is disturbing and I reject categorically your vision of the future.
And nobody actually cares what you proclaim to categorically reject or accept. You ought say the same thing of the abolition of private property in general, of in other words Communism in general and it would not make an iota of a difference: You fail to justify, by the conscious use of reason, your ethical opposition, you instead choose to insist on your superstitions and therefore you admit you are an enemy ideologue. You fail to actually think things through, to think critically, and think things in terms of their highest conclusion...
You are a petty bourgeois ideologue and out of this pathetic, frankly reactionary and romantic sentimentality you fear the actual and true implications of the overthrow of the existing order. YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TO. For you Communism is a fantasy, plain and simple, it is the 'good' of capitalism minus 'the bad'. What you fail to understand is that the overthrow of capitalism entails just that - both what you perceive the 'good' and the 'bad' are sublated, because both are conditions of the other's existence. You fail to actually think things through critically: So stupid are you, that you have convinced yourself that the prevailing sense of normality, of comfort, of faith and guarantee in a big Other, can survive the overthrow of the prevailing order.
Finally, dear child, as it concerns "other forms of life" (I literally just vomited in my mouth, holy fuck), we have been over this thousands of times on this forum, you are free to use the search engine, we have been over anything, from arguments about how Rafiq's assertion that 'other forms of life' are not sacred and in fact just as meaningful as a rock is actually secretly a reflection of Rafiq's own sociopathic disposition towards human life (i.e. psych. 101 wisdom), to the argument that 'other forms of life' are actually qualitatively 'human', but just in a quantitative sense are of 'lesser' intelligence. We have literally been over it all.
What a beautiful disney-like narrative of the world you have,
other forms of life, excuse me while
I laugh myself to death. "Other forms of life", strange, such an image evokes science-fiction fantasies, like star trek, a universe wherein there is a plurality, a diversity of different 'forms of life', so that a fucking hermit-crab is like the klingon or whatever. Or perhaps we might imagine this in the vein of new-age trash, like James Cameron's avatar, i.e. where all life is magically connected, i.e. that there is some kind of meaning to
in and of itself even in its pre-discursive being, in other words, a kind of animism. Sorry, that juvenile SHIT isn't going to pass off here. You can sit here and try to explain to me all you want that the death of a cockroach is any different from me smashing a rock, or computer, on the ground and breaking it in half, but you will be hard-pressed to find an example of someone on this forum who brought up the same argument who was not thoroughly crushed. You can argue that a cockroach is not the same as a beautiful animal like a lion, but that's a completely arbitrary and frankly quantitative distinction: Why is a cockroach less of a 'form of life' than a lion? Again, all the arguments have already been used before... "Because lions are more like people than cockroaches, because lions are more intelligent", all arguments that were addressed and crushed long ago.
it's the current capitalist concept of ownership that will be abolished under communism, not the idea of personal possessions.
And thus, our master, the returner of sanity and normality admits all the madness, has graced us with the revelation that the problem is the current
of ownership, that, bless us, the idea
of personal possessions will remain. What does our resident master, our "Okay guys, let's return to sanity, let's let things go on normally", what does he admit in this revelation? That for him, he fails to distinguish the object of representation from
its representation, and he therefore admits that in his conception of Communism THERE IS SOMETHING HE IS FUNDAMENTALLY ACTUALLY LEAVING OUT, and it is the wholeness
of human practice, and not in any trivial sense: The wholeness of human practice wherein one not only knows that god is dead, but that god himself knows he is dead, where all aspects of life, even those you reserve and exempt as sacred, are subject to critique, are actually
transformed. You assert that the idea of personal possessions endure, only because you want to proclaim yourself a person who believes
they should endure in practice. And why? Because you possess fear and anxiety over the other, who you suspect wants to deprive you of your humanity, deprive you of your enjoyment and life essence. You find it NECESSARY to, in this comforting way, re-assure everyone that, god bless us, "Oh yeah, personal possessions remain", the function of doing this is that you guarantee this suspicion and anxiety over the other, that it will not be suspended but that it will endure... The same fears and anxieties which reproduce capitalism in the first place, in other words.
It is one thing to proclaim the defeat of private property in your own head, the concept of ownership and private property defeated, it is another thing all together for the big Other to know it too, for the big Other to also
be aware that private property is defeated... That is when it is 'scary'. You secretly rely on a sense of guarantee that your 'Communism' is in vain, it only serves to absolve you of the guilt you yourself feel in the present order and frankly the inconsistency of bourgeois ethics.
Had you actually read my post, you would understand that all private property is abolished, and not only the concept of it, but it itself, in its wholeness, is abolished, is overthrown, any and all kinds of private property disappear, including 'personal possessions', which one no longer owns but uses, and furthermore, the rationality that underlies their use is consciously understood as universal. This is for the reason that in a post-capitalist society, man's estrangement ceases to be produced in the products of his labor, he therefore doesn't have to fucking own anything because for the first time in history he is actually capable of owning himself, i.e. taking full and complete responsibility for himself as a subject, for the universality he relates his particular subjectivity to. People no longer have 'things' for the sake of it, all personal possessions again become fluid, temporary, and only within the context of an incessant conquest of nature, not for any arbitrary reason, but because if capitalism is indeed overthrown, all that remains, the only antagonism which remains, is the one between man and nature. Nothing else, if all superstitions are indeed disavowed, could sustain the new society - it would only exist by this rationality.
What you fail to understand which was the underlying point of my previous post is that private individuals, not only private property, cease to exist - people do not want things any longer for 'private' reasons, but for reasons that relate to the universal prerogatives of the Communist order. In capitalism, this is just as much true, but people do not know it - they insist otherwise - in capitalism, people do not want things because they exist in a vacuum, they want things becasue of teh relationship between the thing and the universality of human practice, they want things in other words to cope with life in capitalism. Personal possessions in the last instance are desired not in and of themselves for 'private' reasons but for reasons that relate to the individuals' situation and position, immersion in the capitalist mode of production. Pure utility does not exist in capitalism, abstracted from the utility of the reproduction of capitalism. All things are useful beaus they are useful in reproducing the prevailing order, and that is it, that is the only actual standard of use. A post capitalist society, would take full and actual conscious responsibility for its universal prerogatives and therefore personal possessions could not exist as such, as forms of ownership - thing would be used in relation to universal standards of use, for actual reasons, i.e. which are universal.
a bunch of naked people going around screwing each other freely, with no family and no possessions and that's just ridiculous. "No state" does not imply "no government", and "no private property" does not imply "no personal possessions".
And here we have it, the perverse fantasy of the bourgeois subject: If there is no god, then man is doomed to sheer, utter, pure irrationality and chaos. What you fail to understand is that irrationality lies only in he who asserts extra-human conditions of rationality, i.e. who asserts that the conditions of rationality are in other words unknowable, sacred, and should not be touched, lest we be consumed. There is so much fucking stupidity here I don't even know where to start, holy shit. First and foremost, you conflate the destruction of the family, property, the state, government, with arbitrariness and randomness. Yet every fucking idiot who understands the actual meaning, as far as Marx was concerned, of for instance the abolition of the state, it is that - it is not becasue the 'freedom' which is not tolerated by the state is unleashed, it is becasue men and women no longer require a state, no longer require a 'government' to rule over themselves, no longer require a master to discipline themselves where they take their own lives by their own hands, where they in other words exercise the highest self-discipline and fulfillment of ethical duty by their own free, individual dispositions. The first abject fucking stupidity is to think that freedom and arbitrariness coincide, when the reality is that freedom coincides with the highest self-dictatorship, for the space that guarantees people arbitrariness is a space, a 'wiggle room' only allowed and guaranteed by a master which otherwise performs of them the injunction of fulfilling ethical duty, which in societies where there exists a class antagonism (i.e. all societies before Communism) exists insofar as the interests of the ruling class are not immanently the interests of all of the classes existing in society. Your perverse fantasy of a bunch of naked people running around, and furthermore your even more unforgivable, fucking IDIOTIC association of this image with the gradual destruction of government and family as such, just goes to show what a piss-poor, juvenile and child-like failure to understand the most basic and elementary point of Communism.
Let's get fucking down to it, shall we? THE ONLY BASIS BY WHICH ONE CAN ASSERT THAT THE FAMILY, GOVERNMENT, OR "PROPERTY" WOULD NECESSARILY CONTINUE TO EXIST, is if one asserts it is INEVITABLE and NECESSARY. In other words, that these things are NATURAL. Please just admit, openly, that you think the family, the governance of men by other men, and property are natural, so we can proceed from there to expose you as a reactionary ideologue before everyone. Admit it. Admit you think something outside of the subjectivity, cogito, logos of men and women necessitates the persistence of the family, governance over men by men, and property, whether that is god or nature. Admit it so we can crush you more thoroughly and precisely.
I literally can't believe I'm fucking reading this shit on Revleft, like holy shit, the voice of sanity, the one who comes here to tell us 'how things are', and 'how it is', i.e. "Come on guys, you're getting a bit crazy here". Yes, we are, and we will consume you
too! Again, do you fucking think your god is going to save you? Do you think nature is going to save you? Do these things give you a sense of safety or comfort? You know why we despise you, Location C? Because you are quite comfortable with the prevailing order of things and therefore posses the elementary experience of normality, meanwhile, for the actual damned of the Earth, life is a never-ending trauma. You are scared of the uprooting and destruction of normal, good, philistine ways of living, the qualified psychosis which is normality, for the same reason that the capitalist is scared of the abolition of private property: All of the primordial demons which underlie its existence, you fear are going to be unleashed by its abolition.
The damned of the Earth cannot, and fail to be normal, just as they fail to own property. This petty bourgeois ideologue articulates this not as the failure of normality or the reign of property, but as the result of a certain intruding excess that can be wished away. Just as the proletarian finds freedom not in the ownership of property but the abolition of private property as such, so too does the spiritual proletarian, the everlasting traumatic subject for whom life is a never-ending nightmare, finds freedom in the abolition of normality itself, finds freedom only insofar as freedom is not free, only insofar as they now take full responsibility for all aspects of life, under their control. This philistine piece of shit, this petty bourgeois ideologue, is so comfortable and content with his precious normality, like a pathetic creature, "Oh, don't worry, we're all in the same boat here, I don't want to touch that shit, I don't want to risk affecting it" - no, sorry, NO ONE is winking back at you, we are not in the same boat, you filthy petty bourgeois scum, you are an enemy ideologue and a reactionary as far as you cling to these.
Normality DIES in Communism, and the anxiety of freedom remains as indefinite, as ever-lasting, because human society ceases to be static and only now exists in the conquest of its ever incessant conquest of nature and internal revolutionizing of the means of production. Life is never taken for granted, nothing is any longer considered 'normal', instead, the very raw contingency, the very exact and precise conditions of existence of human ethical activity, MEN AND WOMEN ALONE now take full and complete responsibility for - no longer are their lives guaranteed by external processes, now, for the first time, the lives of men and women belong to men and women alone.
Damn us, it is ridiculous
that god, or the big Other, dies with Communism, surely the bad idea
of him dies, but that he actually dies in practice? Ridiculous, ridiculous! It is
that at the outset of the destruction of the basis of any and all private property, of the family, of the state, that this would actually in the practical sense go on with and entail the abolition of private property, the family, and the state, in their actual practical expression."No state, doesn't mean no government", bless you dear, of course it doesn't. Government? That's normal! It's
the bad idea
of government, the state, which we want to exercise from the good. And the family, bless us, it is not the family we seek to abolish, but the bad idea
of the family. We want our cake and we want to eat it too. We want our coffee, but without caffeine, we want beer, yes, but without alcohol.
And why end it there? We don't want to abolish capitalism, silly, it is the bad
capitalism we want abolished, it is crony capitalism
we want to get rid of, capitalism, markets, these are all well and fine and natural!
The fact of the matter is that for all of the pretense to authority, to speaking for the master, you talk out of your ass and don't have the slightest fucking idea of what you are talking about, or what you are getting yourself into, when you speak of Communism. The fact of the matter is that one is met with actual shock, really (which there is no shortage of in this thread), not only out of the abject FUCKING stupidity of your baseless assertions, but the fact that you actually keep up the appearance of speaking by some authority, i.e. "Oh, come on guys, that's ridiculous". Ridiculous, is it? No, what is ridiculous is that you want your fucking cake and you want to eat it to, what is ridiculous is that you actually fail to take responsibility for and appreciate the over-reaching implications of the actual overthrow of the existing order, WHAT IS SO FUCKING RIDICULOUS IS THAT YOU TAKE OF THE PRESENT ORDER OF THINGS SO MUCH FOR GRANTED THAT YOU ASSUME WHAT YOU EXPERIENCE AS NORMALITY WILL SIMPLY AND SMOOTHLY GO ON EVEN AT THE OUTSET OF A FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE ACTUAL BASIS OF HUMAN LIFE AND PRACTICE, THAT is what is FUCKING ridiculous, THAT is what is
mind-boggling to the point of actual depression.
This petty bourgeois ideologue, this rodent, tells us, explains to us, that we needn't fear or posses anxiety about the future, for life will go on as it is, without the bad aspects. Again, what you describe IS NOTHING MORE than society as it presently exists, without what you perceive to be the 'bad aspects', it is nothing more than a snapshot present day de-industrialized and increasingly digitized capitalism, minus the shadows.
You fear the actual death of god and assume that at the outset of a Communist society, the question of prolonging confrontation with him, will endure, i.e. god's death will be prolonged, and the ambiguity of life will go on, and history's actual absolution will be prolonged.
It's the capitalist conception of these things, and consumerism, that is the problem.
God bless us! If only we are able to abolish the 'capitalist'
of these things, and, as good, Catholic, ethical subjects, consumerism along with it, that all of the antagonisms and ills of the present order will follow suite in being wished away. The fact of the matter is that for the Communist there is no 'problem' that can be abstracted, the entire human mode of practice is constituted by its primordial deadlock or 'problem', THE WHOLE THING is a 'problem', is the product of a problem, a deadlock, you cannot abstract something, the image of something, from the wider context of its self-becoming, of its movement, of its place in the basic reproduction and functioning of capitalist society.
You argue against the capitalist conception of things. What are these THINGS you FUCKING dolt? Why don't you basically admit your real problem: "It's the capitalist conception of capitalism which is the problem, not capitalism itself". You declare in your head that you are an anti-capitalist, that you want to overthrow capitalism, and yet you continually prove to everyone that you believe in a big Other who doesn't agree with you.
I for one am not trying to turn social norms on their head.
You admit, you
coward, that you want to have the moral satisfaction
of calling yourself a Communist without actually owning up to and taking responsibility for its full implications. You want to wish away the antagonisms of present day society without recognizing that the 'things' in question are solely constituted by their inner antagonisms: You cannot abstract 'the bad' from normality, it is a condition of the existence of what you expereince as normality. If you are not ready to live without god, without any big Other or any sense of external guarantee, any external comfort, if you are not ready to embrace the anxiety of freedom, then you admit you are a bourgeois ideologue, and we have absolutely nothing to fucking say to you.
Social norms? In the naive, neoliberal universe, slavery and segregation in the United States were intruding excesses, not norms. And yet, THEY WERE fucking social norms, racism was SIMPLY normal, it was the status quo, and those who were fighting against it were indeed turning social norms on their head. What a frankly naive and disgusting fucking thing to say. Who are you to decide what constitutes a social norm and what doesn't? It is a social norm on many college campuses that woman are raped. You don't want to touch that though, I'm sure. You don't want to turn social norms on their head, so you articulate each and every social norm you arbitrarily oppose as an intruding excess upon the harmony and peace of social life.
You, for one, do not want to turn social norms on their head. Good for you, little rodent, go ahead and cower, take refuge. You literally, freely admit that you set for yourself a limitation that you don't want to touch, that you are scared of impacting, dealing with, that you wish for things to 'continue as they are'', minus the arbitrarily abstracted 'bad things'. Meanwhile, the Communists live to DESTROY the basic experience of normality as such, to shock the system, to terrorize it, to accentuate and direct antagonisms and anxieties, not run away from them, to crush any and all semblances of complacency and contentedness, to smash the existing order, to subsume EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF LIFE under the conscious control of 'meager' humans, who in your mind must humble themselves before god, as pathetic creatures unworthy of Holy Truth.
What is the motto of the Communist? Épater la bourgeoisie!
We have no god, we have no big Other, we have nothing, no sense of guarantee
in anything outside of ourselves.
If you are not ready to smash and destroy any and all sacreds, if you exempt a certain space of life from criticism as a sacred space not to be touched, critiqued, subject to conscious control, you proclaim yourself an enemy ideologue.
In our beautiful pluralistic society, there is a pluralism of rodents, some of them cope with their petty bourgeois sentimentality more honestly by becoming fascists, others, like Location C, call themselves socialists, for whatever hand-picked arbitrary reason, as a cosmetic, perverse, consumerist identity. I mean, look at this motherfucker's profile picture, he literally openly declares it, that for him socialism is just a 'preference', is located on a 'commonly shared and recognized' spectrum, a cosmetic appearance. God forbid someone actually takes their socialism seriously. God forbid it actually means something, affects actual life.
I am trying to fight the way capitalists define, employ and exploit those norms in their maintenance of capitalism and the bourgeois state.
Holy shit this motherfucker reads like an academic paper., this stupid fucking phrase-mongering, this throwing around of pseudo-revolutionary jargon to disguise what is really the greatest servility, complacency with and toward the prevailing order. You are trying to fight the way capitalists
define, employ and exploit
those norms, as if those norms have an independent existence outside of the context of their immersion in the totality that is the prevailing mode of human practice in its entirety. Are you literally fucking stupid? Those NORMS are not natural, they are fully constituted only by their immersion in capitalism in the first place, what you perceive to be their 'bad representation', or 'bad expression' is an illusion - the same sense of philistine safety you find in normality is the same 'badness' that is also immanent to normality. You can't have your cake and eat it to, because in the end, what is even normality? All normality is, is that breath of fresh air that ones life is guaranteed by something else, all normality is, is a qualified psychosis, it is a sense of escape from the confrontation of the actual contingency of life, it is the sense of gauruntee that so long as one is normal, one is fine, all is well.
This is literally so important, everyone, you better understand it: Perceiving the failures of normality as a product of some external intruder, rather than what is essentially immanent to normality itself, IS FASCISM, is no different from the logic of anti-semitism. The failure of normality, trauma, in other words, IS IMMANENT to normality itself. The sense of anxiety experienced upon ones failure to be normal, is only existing becasue of the weight of normality in the first place, i.e. the fact that human activity is guaranteed by a big Other in the first place. if there is a point of Communism, it is that one lets go, one no longer needs to feel normal any longer, one no longer cares about normality, so that, one takes full ethical responsibility whether or not god thinks it is normal.
For example, it is not normal to be an open racist. But what separates the communist for the liberal is that the Communist doesn't care whether it is normal, or fashionable, or not. We aren't afraid of looking mad, looking crazy, or looking abnormal. We STICK to our guns, we remain dedicated to our ethical duty, in this 'psychotic' sense, while the liberal, this philistine, relies on fear and hope in god's mercy in his rejection of racism and ethical engagement in general. We don't need a god, we Communists. We fulfill our ethical duty, we abide by the rationality of historical self-consciousness INDEPENDENTLY of how 'normal' or 'abnormal' it appears to god.
Ladies and gentlemen, READ his words. He tells us he wants to 'fight' the WAY the 'norms' are 'used' by the capitalist intruder, who otherwise disturbs the peace and 'goodness' of such 'norms'. Look how he uses the word capitalism, rather than describe the totality of the prevailing mode of human practice and life itself, which is how Marx understood it, which is how every socialist understood it, capitalism is only a certain aspect of life that can be abstracted from it, so that there is 'capitalistic family' and there is the 'good family in general'. For this intellectual cockroach, like the rest of them, this disgusting piece of shit, this filth, who manages to crawl his way onto Revleft with a free pass just because he proclaims his allegiance to socialism, socialism is nothing more than the actual 'ethical' side of capitalism.
Your socialism, you fucking idiot, is no different in terms of its relation to capitalism than is, say, Catholicism. Your critique of capitalism, if we can call it that (which we cannot, in the Marxist sense of critqiue) is no different in terms of substance from the reactionary-romantic, conservative critique of capitalism. This is not a critique, it is the actual supplement, the necessary buttress and supplement, to capitalism. Marx already notes this in the grundrisse quite well:
It is as ridiculous to yearn for a return to that original fullness  as it is to believe that with this complete emptiness history has come to a standstill. The bourgeois viewpoint
has never advanced beyond this antithesis between itself and this romantic viewpoint, and therefore the latter will accompany it as legitimate antithesis up to its blessed end.)
The emptiness Marx refers to, is precisely that 'bad' aspect of capitalism, which our resident Catholic moralists conflate with capitalism in its entirety (which INCLUDES its moralizing blowback!). The romantic critique of capitalism is the necessary supplement of capitalism, to ensure the basic goings and functioning of capitalism, to keep it in check. What the pseudo-socialists fail to understand of Marx, and of Communism more generally, is that quite to the contrary of Communism being an intensified expression of this romantic critique of capitalism (i.e. "Capitalism exploits mother nature, it exploits the family, what a tragedy that people lose a sense of wholeness, are cogs in a machine, have forgotten god, etc.) is in fact an intensified expression of the 'bad' side itself, i.e. in other words, Communism is not where man finds balance with nature or himself, it is where on the contrary his productive capacities are unleashed even more greatly, it is on the contrary where nature is 'exploited' even to a greater degree, it is where on the contrary the family ceases to even exist as such, it is where god dies not only in nature but also in social relations. Communism is not the taming of capitalism, it is its
aufhebeng[sic]. No longer is life taken for granted.
Nothing escapes ruthless criticism.