Ask Lemmygrad

809 readers

1 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml

GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml

SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml

QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml

yogthos@lemmygrad.ml

Are left wing people much less likely to want to have children than right wing people? (hexbear.net)

submitted 1 year ago by ComradeLuz@hexbear.net to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem here is that you are using a individualist idealist perspective. We Marxists do not follow moralistic lines of reasoning. Morals are arbitrary and idealistic while we live in a material world. Marx didn’t say taking surplus value was immoral, he knew no matter what he thought that socialism was inevitable because of objective material class struggle. You are using the morals of a sad westerner with no apparent culture, influenced by individualistic thought to condemn oppressed peoples who care about the their own culture that is under attack.

Once again, you are coming from a western individualist perspective without recognizing it. It’s different for the people you are condemning. Their morals are not the morals your specific context gave you

are you so relativist when it comes to child abuse? there are cultures where it's normal to pierce the ears of infants, or worse. If we cannot say that violating the bodily autonomy of a child is bad then what the fuck are you even doing?

If you’re not going to make more people to live to produce communism then you’re never going to have communism. I don’t mean one should impose their ideology on to their kids, but struggles don’t end in a generation

this is conscription

People aren’t going to stop having kids whatever you want.

i have no illusion about that and we should pursue the best possible world for those of us with the misfortune of being condemned to live in it.

was simply extending your logic to its logical conclusion.

obviously I don't agree with your "logical conclusion". i'm sure there are debatelord terms for the specific way of making shit up that you committed but I'll just reiterate that there are loads of "wrong" things where trying to use the state to enforce morality would incur a greater harm. It being legal to cheat on a partner isn't an endorsement of cheating or a denial of the harm caused, but there's no way morality police wouldn't be worse. The most we could or should do about natal conscription is cultivate mores against it.

[–] QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You still don’t get my point about moralistic arguments. You are still using idealist reasoning, and others using similar reasoning might come to different conclusions. You’re imposing your own assumptions on others in a different context. Marxists are supposed to be materialists not idealists. We do not debate in the realm of morals.

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i find it very difficult to believe that someone with queer in their name would be a staunch moral relativist.

what's the non-idealist argument against harming another person for no reason? you've almost certainly read more marx than i have.

[–] QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

i find it very difficult to believe that someone with queer in their name would be a staunch moral relativist.

Pointing out the dominant moral paradigm does not make me have no opinions. My opinion on this issue comes first from the facts that patriarchy is justified with idealist logic, while if you do much beyond surface level analysis it’s clear there are not true binaryness in sex or ascribed gender characteristics and historically there have been different gender systems, and that gender oppression is materially tied with class oppression, and secondarily because I believe that oppression is bad thanks to many material affects on my consciousness I do not fully understand.

what’s the non-idealist argument against harming another person for no reason?

Morality and emotions are historically constructed, so idk exactly, but as empathetic beings we generally don’t like to see people hurt. One Randian semi-materialist argument that comes to mind is that one wouldn’t hurt people randomly because that will generally have negative social implications for thonself, and harm them in the long run.

Hurting someone for no reason is very different from birthing someone who might suffer if that’s what you’re pointing to. If anything the average psychological pain might be less than an alienated westerner like you, considering the benefits of solidarity and documented improvements in mental health during war.

you’ve almost certainly read more marx than i have.

I’m flattered, though I’ve only read like two OG Marx works. I’ve read more Engels and Mao along with listening to RevLeft and people on here.