DISCUSSIONA summary of why Communism/Cultural Marxism is dangerous as a movement.

submitted by BioEssentialism from self.TumblrInAction

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I could open with a paragraph elaborating about how this shit isn't actual marxism/communism and how people in the US have used this word inappropriately to an exhaustive degree on recent history, but this is a discussion for another time.

This, on the other hand, is more interesting:

To be honest, I would problematize (not the socmed meaning) “power imbalances” as well.

How I see it talked about whenever it’s brought up to shut down some kind of interpersonal relationship, there’s no possible and practical way to have a completely equal dynamic.

The matter here is balance, not complete equivalence.

A 50 year old dating a 17 year old would be considered ludicrous by 99% of people because of the huge difference in the power dynamics between both people.

Most 50 year olds have jobs, stable lives and a vault of experiences which puts them on a whole other level than a 17 year old, most of which are still "getting out of diapers" on most matters related to adult life.

Pointing out that there's no way for two people to have the exact same life experiences, even if they're the same age, doesn't deny or erase the gap of power on the example above, or make a relationship like that ethical or good.

That's why every single case of unequal power dynamics must be analyzed based on its own merits, otherwise we as a society can go to very dark places very fast.

(women are always overpowered by men, right? Non-white people are always overpowered by white people in the West, right? Mentally ill and neurodivergent and disabled people are always at a disadvantage compared to abled neurotypicals, right? Someone born into money is inherently different from someone who struggles economically, and these people will never be able to genuinely connect and care about each other, right? Someone older will always overpower the younger socially, right? etc.).

Try to eliminate the word "always" of these sentences. After doing that, now answer: are they untrue?

The problem with the argument made in the text is that it uses the same rhetorical trick gender grifters do: "you see, some people are born intersex, so biological sex doesn't exist!"

Sound familiar, doesn't it?!

We tend to use generalizations to access reality for a reason.

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The point is are power differentials, even big ones, automatically bad?

The biggest problem with huge power differentials is the issue of blurred consent, but once you can establish both parties are fully enthusiastically consenting adults (and the concept of “adult” itself varies between cultures so even that’s not perfect) why is power automatically deemed as this evil boogeyman that will always inevitably turn abusive/exploitative?

That’s already buying into bullshit Marxist mindsets about the inherent moral value of “power” - which is a nebulous concept that can’t be objectively measured one way or the other anyways.

This exact mentality is what’s spawned the bullshit of terms such as “White Privilege” or “Microaggressions.”

[–]Neo_Shadow_Lurker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The biggest problem with huge power differentials is the issue of blurred consent, but once you can establish both parties are fully enthusiastically consenting adults (and the concept of “adult” itself varies between cultures so even that’s not perfect) why is power automatically deemed as this evil boogeyman that will always inevitably turn abusive/exploitative?

Yes, specially when we are talking about interpersonal relationships.

A big difference in power comes with coersion.

Back to our example: if the 50 year old becomes the sole breadwinner in the relationship, then the 17 year old will be compelled to stay with them even if they don't want to. The thing gets even complicated if we include pregnancy in the mix.

That’s already buying into bullshit Marxist mindsets about the inherent moral value of “power”

If power has no inherent value, then why people always seek it?

[–]BioEssentialism[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If power has no inherent value, then why people always seek it?

It has value but that doesn’t automatically make it this irredeemable evil thing that must either always be completely eliminated or avoided. (As the woketards/commies attempt to)

Lots of cultures all around the world venerate and respect power and never dare to question it, like Eastern countries such as Japan and South Korea, and look how much better their society is functioning by every measurable metric imaginable.

This lack of respect and/or dismantlement of basic hierarchy and authority is the prime root of wokeism and is the reason why the West (or at least America) has devolved into this clown world, people lack shame and respect and have gotten too brazen.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Power is a tool that can either be used for good or evil, however using power for evil is the winning move.

Society A. Utopian Communism You produce one food. I produce one food. We both are equal in every way, there is no power imbalance.

Society B. Total Anarchy.

You produce one food. I have a gun and produce no food.

I kill you and eat your food. Society collapses because nobody is making food. Everyone dies.

Society C Benevolent Socialism.

You produce one food. I have a gun and produce no food. I use the gun to protect against predators. Your food production increases. You share your food with me.

Society D Unrestricted Authoritarian Capitalism

You produce one food. I have a gun and produce no food. I use the gun to take half of your food. Then use the gun to take food from society A with no guns. Now I have three food. I use the extra food to get more guns, take over more societies.

Using power for evil is the winning move. Which is why balance of power is important in any sustainable polite and peaceful society.

A game only works and is only fun if there are rules and they are enforced. In a game of chess if I care not for you or your feelings, the winning move is to simply punch you in the face and declare myself victor. Without the structure of a society and power restrictions to keep me in check, the winners are the most violent and destructive and that drags us as a species down to the level of the animals.

Authority and respect for it is important. But it's about keeping power balanced. The king rules with total authority but still derived his power from the people he rules. If he abuses his power and doesn't fulfill his responsibilities to his people he will be overthrown.

The benefit of democracy is that we can do this without violence.