Am I the only one who thinks the concept of "love" is inherently reactionary and incompatible with socialism in any...

Do you expect you and your friends to plan your lives together and have each other's backs almost unconditionally?

Commitment implies exclusion.

Having someone's back unconditionally is the basis of socialism. Why not universalize it to all of humanity?

ITT: sentimental socialism and ultra-leftism

The reads like it was written by someone who has never loved or been loved, and has no idea what he's talking about
Sorry OP

Ad hominem on your part.

It's not practically possible. I hate to go all muh human nature but humans need close bonds. For most people a relationship is the optimal form of existence.

It's still the case "love" is incompatible with socialism.

None of this is bad. Zizek is right in this regard, "True" love is inherently a selfish action in which you place another above you or anyone else and hold them as absolute despite, and maybe even because of, their flaws. It is also this selfishness that gives it any meaning, selfishness taken to the point that you sacrifice your freedom to engage sexually with others to fully dedicate yourself to a single person. Liberal capitalist society today would instead remove this "freedom" to renounce ones sexual freedom by pairing us with others through online dating sites and "risk free" coupling services which provides us a false freedom and, more importantly, a false love which lacks both commitment or any kind of "fatal attachment" to another. Love is given a safe distance apart from us, we no longer have to involve ourselves in it and we can always safely detach ourselves without fear of hurting ourselves emotionally. But actual love is an obcene act which always carries with it the risk of despair. Without it, it just becomes another exchange subject to the consumerist tailoring of taste pervasive in today's society.

Attached: 6e9.png (473x595, 535.58K)

Make yourself better if you need pussy/boipussy user, if it's to much work, just be satisfied with yourself the way you are, knowing you still improved yourself, and will keep doing so (ergo like the ego book) .

Praise Zizek

And on what basis is personal experience a means of knowing truth? Why should anyone take YOUR experience of love as proof of love?

To be fair, Zizek isn't exactly a communist anymore and most of his social views are pretty reactionary, especially compared to his contemporaries.

Nigga, what

How do you know what it's like to be black, I mean you can't read up on it lmao
t. average, liberal, idpol fag

Zizek has said communism is impossible.

Personal experience is never valid. Truth is objective, experience is not.

Truth come's from mass experiences, it's not implausible he missed out on it

He believes we can achieve what we've been told is impossible, and that's communism

Very interesting.

This, basically. He beat me to it.
Love is experiential by its nature.
What OP is talking about it is so far removed from what I know, and people around me know to be true, so I don't have a problem discounting it.

Look up Voltairine de Cleyre, OP.

Zizek is a EuroComm socdem. Definitely not a communist.

what in the god damn hell are you on about son

sounds like OP wants to take things a step further and collectivize the means of reproduction as well

It's a real social issue which leftists should discuss. What is the nature of "love" under capitalism, and what about it needs to change in the next system?

Love is at least unproductive and not revolutionary at least. Those in love cannot be fully invested in revolution, they are placated by their emotions. Thank the lord the majority of people are not in love, we must use pain for our journey.

wrong shitpost flag

Yes, when in a combat regiment I expect my comrades to back me up and I to back them up with our lives for the revolution.

Love for your fellow man carries the revolution to the Palace's doorstep. That includes your significant other.

Love is great. You should aspire to love other people as much as you can. Falling in love with a specific person is great as well. There's nothing anti-revolutionary about it. The "possession" inherent in love doesn't rely on any societal enforcement. It isn't anything like the kind of property we're opposed to. In fact, it precisely relies on the uncertainty of being loved back. You have to make a leap of faith. That's what makes it so exciting.

Back that claim up.

Zizek consistently calls himself a communist though. He definitely isn't opposed to revolution, even if there isn't any revolutionary project he's currently pushing. My impression is that he tries to get along with everyone on the left. We don't know what leftist movement will turn out to make the difference, so he's hedging his bets and ensuring everyone hears his critical remarks.

No that's the old idea of marriage which would be, Monogamy unattached to the social institution of Marriage isn't "possessive" at all since you don't feel equally attached or attracted to everyone on Earth the same and you will like some more or less. Is having a best friend actually fascist because you put him above some mouth drooling incel or furry autist? Ban friends!!!
As you do with everyone, you probably wouldn't let a complete random stranger into your house to look after you kids rather then your friends. COMMUNISM IS NOT EQUAL SOCIAL STANDING IT IS A EQUAL STARTING ECONOMIC FIELD WITH HIERARCHICAL SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS TORN DOWN. A mouth-breathing person who constantly spits on you is not going to be liked the same under full Communism.
As can all relationships, anyway humans aren't robots and are inherently irrational in many ways. Why paint a picture if you could be sitting in a chair doing nothing you could trip and die while painting so it's not the most logical way to continue surviving as a human.
Then neither should friendships dumbass
Monogamy can happen without the social institution of marriage, learn to separate the two.

OP you're a childish incel, stop talking about socialism and revolution, find a girl or a man and come back in 10 year.