Am I the only one who thinks the concept of "love" is inherently reactionary...

Bentley Bennett
Bentley Bennett

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

"Love" denotes a relationship of possession: your lover is "yours" and has to be bound to you in some form. It's also entirely a relationship of separation: you prioritize a single person over everyone else, you inherently try to separate a single person (or a few people) from the greater whole and give that person (or select few) certain privileges which you wouldn't give anyone else. "Love" creates irrational attachments to those whom the individual "loves" which can also destroy the individual's autonomy.

"Love" should not exist in socialism (state socialism or anarchy). Human relationships should be restructured as strong friendships some of which have a sexual nature without ANY attachment to a single individual or handful of individuals. I'm male so I dunno how females go about it but it should be the same.

Attached: 1023983brknhrt.jpg (163.51 KB, 926x615)

Owen Howard
Owen Howard

Plus marriage was never about self-fulfillment or compassion towards another. It was ALWAYS about property and the reproduction of the existing hierarchical system.

Aiden Johnson
Aiden Johnson

I just read Huey Newton's autobiography where he talked about a similar idea that he found interesting that one of his friends from college had

Hudson Peterson
Hudson Peterson

strong friendships some of which have a sexual nature without ANY attachment to a single individual or handful of individuals. I'm male so I dunno how females go about it but it should be the same.

friendship is a form of attachment

Julian White
Julian White

Not to the extent "love" is. Plus friendship doesn't imply exclusion.

David Ross
David Ross

Honestly if you are talking about the usual marketed, HOLLYWOOD idea of love, then sure, it's just a load of bullshit.
I think we all have to stop and look how we describe "love" or "friendship"
For example, is there anything you would do for your partner that you wouldn't do for a friend. (And I hope nobody answers with HAHA FUCK THEM LMAO XDDDDDDDD)

Alexander Smith
Alexander Smith

OP is just mad no girls will fuck him.

Chase Hill
Chase Hill

I wouldn't do anything for a "lover" that I wouldn't do for a friend whom I was just fucking, or not fucking. Mutual aid shouldn't be a privilege.

William Bennett
William Bennett

this tbh

Michael Cox
Michael Cox

Judging by the edgy flag, probably
The Chad heavy commitment, and extremely close relationship V.S virgin Islamic level harems, that only leave you feeling less fulfilled (wetter pp tho, so lmao, it's all good)

Dylan Murphy
Dylan Murphy

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

Samuel Myers
Samuel Myers

Commitment implies exclusion.

Lucas Wood
Lucas Wood

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

Camden Jones
Camden Jones

ITT: sentimental socialism and ultra-leftism

Josiah Russell
Josiah Russell

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

Ryan King
Ryan King

Ad hominem on your part.

Christian Peterson
Christian Peterson

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.

Isaac Martin
Isaac Martin

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

Luis Reed
Luis Reed

"Love" denotes a relationship of possession: your lover is "yours" and has to be bound to you in some form. It's also entirely a relationship of separation: you prioritize a single person over everyone else, you inherently try to separate a single person (or a few people) from the greater whole and give that person (or select few) certain privileges which you wouldn't give anyone else.
Commitment implies exclusion
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 (535.58 KB, 473x595)

Jack Brooks
Jack Brooks

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

Xavier Davis
Xavier Davis

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

Josiah Long
Josiah Long

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

Michael Martin
Michael Martin

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

Josiah Ward
Josiah Ward

Zizek has said communism is impossible.

Colton Price
Colton Price

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

Justin Gonzalez
Justin Gonzalez

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

Mason Hernandez
Mason Hernandez

Very interesting.

Jonathan Powell
Jonathan Powell

Truth come's from mass experiences
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.

Ian Powell
Ian Powell

Look up Voltairine de Cleyre, OP.

Jason Ortiz
Jason Ortiz

Zizek is a EuroComm socdem. Definitely not a communist.

Kevin Brooks
Kevin Brooks

what in the god damn hell are you on about son

Jaxon Sanchez
Jaxon Sanchez

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

Brayden Cooper
Brayden Cooper

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?

Jonathan Murphy
Jonathan Murphy

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.

Dominic Ramirez
Dominic Ramirez

wrong shitpost flag

Adam Williams
Adam Williams

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.

Liam Thomas
Liam Thomas

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.

Oliver Walker
Oliver Walker

"Love" denotes a relationship of possession: your lover is "yours" and has to be bound to you in some form.
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!!!
It's also entirely a relationship of separation: you prioritize a single person over everyone else, you inherently try to separate a single person (or a few people) from the greater whole and give that person (or select few) certain privileges which you wouldn't give anyone else.
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.
"Love" creates irrational attachments to those whom the individual "loves" which can also destroy the individual's autonomy.
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.
"Love" should not exist in socialism (state socialism or anarchy).
Then neither should friendships dumbass
Human relationships should be restructured as strong friendships some of which have a sexual nature without ANY attachment to a single individual or handful of individuals.
Monogamy can happen without the social institution of marriage, learn to separate the two.

Jace Harris
Jace Harris

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

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit