Yes, these are just things I don't like and not necessarily 'ultra left' but that term is stupid because none of the things in this thread are 'ultra left' they're usually liberal or nationalist takes disguising themselves as socialism.
If 'right' and 'left' are meaningful terms at all, they should refer to 'right' being closer to the currently established hierarchy, and the relative distance away from 'right', the 'left', then representing the degree of change away from the present society.
308, here's the bit, but you gotta understand - there was a Q&A where the hosts were like "nah we think antinatalism is dumb" and then the subreddit ERUPTED because it was extremely blackpilled and thought having kids was pointless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_P-VsPJk6Y
Mostly agree except antinatalism. I'm not gonna yell at anyone for having kids or anything; but I know I'd have been better off not having been born and the world in general is pretty shit, so I can't force that on someone else.
Antinatalism as a personal choice is fine, I'd probably adopt instead of making a new baby myself, my problem and I assume op's problem is with enforced Antinatalism. Also with "antinatalism isn't just a reaction to capitalism it would be true even after socialism is fully established in the whole world and should be the enforced policy of socialist states".
Yes. Something I want to add is I think a lot of people don't want to or feel like they can't satisfyingly have children, and need a justification for it. In times of system failure or collapse or even just general squeeze on the working class, people will stop having kids or have less kids, because of the economic stress. I think a lot of us are feeling that economic stress and logically deciding not I have kids bc we could only offer a life offering less than they would deserve, and look for a justification for it. This was the case for me, when I was an antinatalist. Now that I'm past it, perhaps I am unfair to those who still are. I don't mean any judgment to anyone choosing not to have children, I probably won't, or I'll adopt.
I really hate admitting it but I struggle to talk myself out of being low key antinatal.
It just seems supremely arrogant to force a being into existence. Yeah they may have an awesome life, but they may have a life of suffering and pain, you have no way of knowing for sure. Even if we lived in fucking Star Trek communism there’s still a chance their life could be one of pain and misery so I really don’t feel okay taking that gamble just for the satisfaction of having a kinda cute sorta clone of myself.
Being a socialist is about wanting to build a better future for human kind. If creating new humans is arrogant and shitty because their life might be bad, we're basically saying that actually the human race should go extinct. Misanthropy and socialism are incompatible.
Like I said in my other reply here, antinatalism as a personal choice is fine. If you feel arrogant making a baby, don't make a baby.
This is a disingenuous framing. I can think that having children is a bad idea and still want to build a better world for the people who are alive. I’m not anti-natalist because I’m a misanthrope, it’s because I care about people and don’t want them to suffer through a life that they never wanted in the first place.
I wish I had never been born. My life has been utterly miserable and it isn’t the sort of thing I’d ever want another being to suffer through. It’s not arrogance to want to spare others from suffering. My parents did not feel it was arrogant to have me, but they really should have. They’re emotionally immature people who were absolutely not capable of good parenting and of course that’s exactly the sort of people eager to have children without thinking through the consequences of choosing to bring someone into existence.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for enforcing anti-natalism or anything like that. It’s not something that could ever be ethically done even if it was possible. I just don’t care to be accused of arrogance or misanthropy because I think forcing other people to go through what I have is a shitty thing to do.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for enforcing anti-natalism or anything like that.
Then we don't disagree on anything here? I thought I was clear that personal antinatalism is fine, and that I only have a problem with enforced antinatalism? I myself would probably prefer to adopt.
I never accused you of being arrogant, I was repeating your argument about having kids being arrogant (or feeling arrogant to you). I reread my statement to make absolutely sure I didn't misword something there to give you that impression, but I definitely didn't. I don't think your position is arrogant in the slightest, its actually very humble.
And I didn't mean to accuse you of being a misanthrope either, though in this case I can see how you got that impression. I was aiming the misanthrope argument at enforced antinatalism, and people who hold their personal stance of antinatalism on others.
Also to be clear, criticizing individual parents for having kids before they were ready and shit is fine as well.
Sorry, I read your comment as implying that anyone with anti-natalist beliefs was driven by either misanthropy or a desire to not feel arrogant and I got defensive. I think we’re on the same page here and it’s all cool.
(Also I’m not the same user you were responding to initially, just so you know)
that term is stupid because none of the things in this thread are ‘ultra left’
thank god someone said it. I fucking hate the term ultraleft for this reason.
If ‘right’ and ‘left’ are meaningful terms at all, they should refer to ‘right’ being closer to the currently established hierarchy, and the relative distance away from ‘right’, the ‘left’, then representing the degree of change away from the present society.
there's a point on the right where they're no longer trying to preserve the present society and instead reinstitute an older one, but yeah, you're generally correct.
Idk when some dork posts takes like "NATO overthinking Gaddafi and Libya was good" or "support ISIS against the west" on WSWS I'm going to dunk on them and call them ultras. At that point I don't really care anymore and I'm not going to engage past petty insults like ultra
those are nationalist takes masquerading with leftist aesthetics. a further left analysis is exactly what's needed to dismantle them. punching left to own the right is.. uhh... what?
At that point I don't care about dismantling the argument or anything. If people are seriously parroting those talking points. It's not worth the time or effort. It's not about the terms being correct or anything. Maybe that is not the correct approach but...
So this has like 12 million qualifiers but it was supposed to be in a situation where at least one of the capitalist imperial powers, if not the hegemon, would have a socialist revolution and could help a still semi-feudal peasant society skip (or at least significantly shorten) the capitalist stage of development because they could give them the necessary means of production to construct the material basis for a socialist society. Not, as is often claimed, that you could just skip from feudalism to socialism in one country on its own. Engels hints at this in the preface to the russian edition of the manifesto:
Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeaval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
Now obviously this hypothetical never came to pass and it might not have worked anyway, since you wouldn't have had capital destroy the traditional social structures out of which you could build something resembling socialism. Instead you would likely have to have an alternative transition stage of development which would accomplish the same things but (hopefully) without the same levels of immiseration and exploitation that capitalism inflicts on a society. But it doesn't really matter now because there aren't any semi-feudal peasant societies anymore so the whole argument is moot. As was this comment.
I'm glad you typed it out though comrade! Marx as I understand it actually made this argument as well, but it seems like it hasn't panned out, and I don't see any present historical analogues, as you say.
Antinatalism
Anprim
Kazcynzkites
Russia, Belorussia, Syria, Iran are socialist
Capitalist phase of development can be skipped
No such thing as class traitors
Anarchist Society dealing with climate change
SU was not state capitalist
CPC will bring about global communism
Anti-Revisionists of all flavors
Social democrats of all types
Vaush
Supercapitalism
Yes, these are just things I don't like and not necessarily 'ultra left' but that term is stupid because none of the things in this thread are 'ultra left' they're usually liberal or nationalist takes disguising themselves as socialism.
If 'right' and 'left' are meaningful terms at all, they should refer to 'right' being closer to the currently established hierarchy, and the relative distance away from 'right', the 'left', then representing the degree of change away from the present society.
Still my favorite struggle sesh we've had here so far. Outdoor cats is a close second.
Virgil's cold open about it is still my favorite moment of the whole show
deleted by creator
308, here's the bit, but you gotta understand - there was a Q&A where the hosts were like "nah we think antinatalism is dumb" and then the subreddit ERUPTED because it was extremely blackpilled and thought having kids was pointless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_P-VsPJk6Y
deleted by creator
Mostly agree except antinatalism. I'm not gonna yell at anyone for having kids or anything; but I know I'd have been better off not having been born and the world in general is pretty shit, so I can't force that on someone else.
Antinatalism as a personal choice is fine, I'd probably adopt instead of making a new baby myself, my problem and I assume op's problem is with enforced Antinatalism. Also with "antinatalism isn't just a reaction to capitalism it would be true even after socialism is fully established in the whole world and should be the enforced policy of socialist states".
Yes. Something I want to add is I think a lot of people don't want to or feel like they can't satisfyingly have children, and need a justification for it. In times of system failure or collapse or even just general squeeze on the working class, people will stop having kids or have less kids, because of the economic stress. I think a lot of us are feeling that economic stress and logically deciding not I have kids bc we could only offer a life offering less than they would deserve, and look for a justification for it. This was the case for me, when I was an antinatalist. Now that I'm past it, perhaps I am unfair to those who still are. I don't mean any judgment to anyone choosing not to have children, I probably won't, or I'll adopt.
I really hate admitting it but I struggle to talk myself out of being low key antinatal.
It just seems supremely arrogant to force a being into existence. Yeah they may have an awesome life, but they may have a life of suffering and pain, you have no way of knowing for sure. Even if we lived in fucking Star Trek communism there’s still a chance their life could be one of pain and misery so I really don’t feel okay taking that gamble just for the satisfaction of having a kinda cute sorta clone of myself.
Being a socialist is about wanting to build a better future for human kind. If creating new humans is arrogant and shitty because their life might be bad, we're basically saying that actually the human race should go extinct. Misanthropy and socialism are incompatible.
Like I said in my other reply here, antinatalism as a personal choice is fine. If you feel arrogant making a baby, don't make a baby.
This is a disingenuous framing. I can think that having children is a bad idea and still want to build a better world for the people who are alive. I’m not anti-natalist because I’m a misanthrope, it’s because I care about people and don’t want them to suffer through a life that they never wanted in the first place.
I wish I had never been born. My life has been utterly miserable and it isn’t the sort of thing I’d ever want another being to suffer through. It’s not arrogance to want to spare others from suffering. My parents did not feel it was arrogant to have me, but they really should have. They’re emotionally immature people who were absolutely not capable of good parenting and of course that’s exactly the sort of people eager to have children without thinking through the consequences of choosing to bring someone into existence.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for enforcing anti-natalism or anything like that. It’s not something that could ever be ethically done even if it was possible. I just don’t care to be accused of arrogance or misanthropy because I think forcing other people to go through what I have is a shitty thing to do.
Then we don't disagree on anything here? I thought I was clear that personal antinatalism is fine, and that I only have a problem with enforced antinatalism? I myself would probably prefer to adopt.
I never accused you of being arrogant, I was repeating your argument about having kids being arrogant (or feeling arrogant to you). I reread my statement to make absolutely sure I didn't misword something there to give you that impression, but I definitely didn't. I don't think your position is arrogant in the slightest, its actually very humble.
And I didn't mean to accuse you of being a misanthrope either, though in this case I can see how you got that impression. I was aiming the misanthrope argument at enforced antinatalism, and people who hold their personal stance of antinatalism on others.
Also to be clear, criticizing individual parents for having kids before they were ready and shit is fine as well.
Sorry, I read your comment as implying that anyone with anti-natalist beliefs was driven by either misanthropy or a desire to not feel arrogant and I got defensive. I think we’re on the same page here and it’s all cool.
(Also I’m not the same user you were responding to initially, just so you know)
That clone of you would be hella cute and don't you deny it.
Idk I’m kinda ugly
Nah you're cute bro, you just don't know it yet.
deleted by creator
thank god someone said it. I fucking hate the term ultraleft for this reason.
there's a point on the right where they're no longer trying to preserve the present society and instead reinstitute an older one, but yeah, you're generally correct.
Idk when some dork posts takes like "NATO overthinking Gaddafi and Libya was good" or "support ISIS against the west" on WSWS I'm going to dunk on them and call them ultras. At that point I don't really care anymore and I'm not going to engage past petty insults like ultra
those are nationalist takes masquerading with leftist aesthetics. a further left analysis is exactly what's needed to dismantle them. punching left to own the right is.. uhh... what?
At that point I don't care about dismantling the argument or anything. If people are seriously parroting those talking points. It's not worth the time or effort. It's not about the terms being correct or anything. Maybe that is not the correct approach but...
yea, but make fun of them for being right wing... don't feed their lie that their takes are in any way left.
I mean you're obviously right and I'm being an ignorant lib. You win this time haha
:cat-trans:
Oh Lord, don't even start.
So this has like 12 million qualifiers but it was supposed to be in a situation where at least one of the capitalist imperial powers, if not the hegemon, would have a socialist revolution and could help a still semi-feudal peasant society skip (or at least significantly shorten) the capitalist stage of development because they could give them the necessary means of production to construct the material basis for a socialist society. Not, as is often claimed, that you could just skip from feudalism to socialism in one country on its own. Engels hints at this in the preface to the russian edition of the manifesto:
Now obviously this hypothetical never came to pass and it might not have worked anyway, since you wouldn't have had capital destroy the traditional social structures out of which you could build something resembling socialism. Instead you would likely have to have an alternative transition stage of development which would accomplish the same things but (hopefully) without the same levels of immiseration and exploitation that capitalism inflicts on a society. But it doesn't really matter now because there aren't any semi-feudal peasant societies anymore so the whole argument is moot. As was this comment.
I'm glad you typed it out though comrade! Marx as I understand it actually made this argument as well, but it seems like it hasn't panned out, and I don't see any present historical analogues, as you say.
deleted by creator