Is Lenin in the house?

Greenjuice, maybe you'd be interested in joining the Shakers? I'm sure they turn up in the Anarchist FAQ if you look hard enough.

Fun!

Greenjuice, you don't have to join the Shakers (they'll welcome you, there are only three of them left and they don't want to go the way of the Glasites and the Muggletonians), there were also a few leftist groups who de facto practized celibacy: the ISK in its early years or Lutte Ouvriere during the seventies demanded both an ascetic lifestyle without sex and other earthly pleasurers

i'm a pillock

So we should do things we enjoy sparingly but then that would include watching films, dancing, going bowling, playing board games, riding rollercoasters, etc. as well as the examples you gave of having sex and getting intoxicated.

Sure, but IMO sexuality and intoxication make the biggest problems.

Here you've lost me again. I can see how sports might be good for a revolution, but not museums or theaters.

You mentioned them. I just responded that I'm pretty sure they practice that either.

Ok but then I don't know why you mentioned atheism and not theism.

Because that's the idea of Gramscians- theism is bad, atheism is good.

Sexual and emotional moderation, I guess that would mean less sex and less feelings. I still don't see how monogamy is advantageous here.

Having multiple enlarges both practice of sex and emotional intensity. Monogamy practically limits sex, and limits emotions by making a relationship a habit and not a romance, so it's perfectly advantageous.

If you sleep next to someone every night you're likely to end up having sex a couple times a week at least

Maybe if the're a part of "serial monogamy" culture, which is just a form of promiscuity. Marriage and sexual ascetism would be the best option.

In fact if they aim for emotional moderation then they are possibly better off not sleeping with the same person every month lest they get too attached and spend the month pining over them rather than developing their will-power and intellectual values

Practicing sexuality, especially with multiple partners, is antithetical to developing will-power and intellect.

On the left the term work often just means work as it currently exists and I don't think there's any reason to be at all proud (or ashamed) of the number of hours we spend a day being exploited.

I don't agree. I've seen a lot of how work is going to be replaced with play, jobs with hobbies, we're going to have voluntary play and meet all the need of everyone. That's either fueled by technological utopianism or by pure idiocy. All communes that exist are very disciplined, labor quotas, organization, tough work, because all of the communes that weren't organized like that simply collapsed. Also, lazyness is not about time, it's about effort and attitude. Slow-downs are very different from being plain lazy.

but I really don't think that having a job not in construction or warehouse work makes a person lazy.

All I said is that all leftists I know couldn't do such work. I've worked many times jobs like that and some guys come to work for a few days to get a few bucks, mostly students. They do a couple of hours of work and on the first break they're like "I'm going to the shop for a sec" and they don't come back. The leftists I know are that guys- slackers and couch potatoes.

The fact that some of the people you talk to judge people for what they do for fun

For what they do with their lives. Doing something for fun and wasting your life by doing only stuff for fun are two different things.

Also sometimes the serious leftists who don't know how to have fun can be just as alienating if not more.

I don't think the people that such leftists alienate from the left would be of any use anyway.

really don't think we should be encouraging a judgemental attitude to what people do with their leisure time.

Again, I told you it's not about leisure time it's about all the time, and I told you that my views are not theoretical, but that I saw this in practice, with multiple leftist groups.

I'm still confused about what makes one recreational activity decadent and one not.

Read Socratic dialogues, Stoics, or even Epicureans.

you could encourage revolutionaries to dedicate six days of the week to doing only activities which make them useful for the revolutionary purpose, whether they enjoy it or not, like developing their intellect, their fighting skills etc etc, and on the seventh day everyone can spend the day doing what they like, and it's no one business whether they have a drug-fuelled orgy or a day at the funfair.

People having drug-fuelled orgies cannot do that on 1 day a week and be dedicated revolutionaries the other 6 days, it's too big of a cognitive dissonance.

..

No need for Shakers, Hutterites are cool, too. I know about the ISK, me and my animal rights, ascetic, socialist friends totally like that such a thing existed. Are you sure about Lutte Ouvriere, can you give me a source?

This must be a wind-up.

Intoxication is a problem as it can be bad for our health, destroy our braincells, and cause us to mess things up because we're hungover, but not because it's fun.

I mentioned museums and theaters as examples of things which were fun, like sex and drinking are fun. You repeated these as examples of things which made people useful, like doing sports is useful. I would have thought it was clear why going to the theater is fun, but then you said the decadent student lefties you were criticising didn't go to the theater, as if it would be clear that this was a mark against their value as revolutionaries. It's not clear to me. If they don't enjoy going to the theater I don't see why they should.

So having a monogamous relationship, but ending it when you're no longer that interested in each other and then going out with someone else, is detrimental because you'll be unable to focus on the revolution because you'll constantly be in the honeymoon period with someone. What a good revolutionary should do is get married and with any luck they'll eventually become bored with their spouse, their relationship will become a habit rather than a romance, they'll rarely be interested in having sex with each other and they'll be better able to focus on making themselves useful for the revolutionary purpose. This sounds like a plan, but I can see it backfiring. What if you get married and after a few decades you're still passionately in love with each other? What if you try to settle into the drudgery that you were promised marriage would be, but find instead that you're sharing a home with someone with whom your sexual tension shows no signs of abating?

I'd like to see this backed up with scientific proof, or at least some wild speculation as to why this might be the case.

I agree that people who think everything is going to get done post-revolution just because people feel like it are deluded, but a critique of work is fundamental to a critique of capitalism. Talking of post-revolution, are your ideas about becoming less emotional, and cutting down on the amount of joy we have in life pre-figurative of the kind of society you envisage, or do you think post-revolution we can have as much fun as we're able to have providing we still take care of everything that is required for a functional society?

Sure there's a difference, but I'm not advocating that everyone waste their lives by doing only things for fun. I'm saying that if people take care of their responsibilities, then it's up to them what they do for enjoyment.

I see lots of people put off by leftists because they're too serious. At this point in time, I don't think that learning weaponry needs to be high on our list of priorities, in comparison to say, organising with people around us. And I think it's very difficult to organise with people around us, at work, or in our neighbourhoods, or at the jobcentre, etc, without getting to know them a bit on a human level. I think ot of people find the left too serious and too dull, and that those people aren't all a waste of our time.

From what I read of these, years ago admittedly, I remember a lot about being good and virtuous, but as far as I remember the knowledge of what made the decadent activities decadent was taken as read. Clearly I know what is considered decadent, debaucherous behaviour, and I know what is considered virtuous and wholesome, but I've not seen justifications for these distinctions as they pertain to individual activities, beyond a reliance on the prejudices of society. I've seen no rational explanations so if you could send me some links to particular parts that I must have missed, then I'd really appreciate it. What I mean is I've read "A, b and c are decadent activities because they all lead to things like x, y and z" but not "A leads to x and this is how.." which would be more useful.

This comment gets to the heart of the matter I think. Cognitive dissonance between what and what? There's no logical inconsistency between being a revolutionary and having a drug-fueled orgy. At no point is it neccesary to lie to oneself about what one's thinking or feeling. So I'd like you to explain what you mean cognitive dissonance here. For simplicitys sake, let's ignore the drugs because clearly people aren't much use while they're on a comedown. But if I'm weighing up what to do tomorrow, I have no obligations, I just want to relax, have a good time, have some fun, before getting back to the serious work of being a revolutionary, what does it matter if I spend that day at the funfair, or at a sex party? What kind of cognitive dissonance will a day of riding cock cause that a day of riding rollercoasters won't? How will one make me psychologically less able than the other to meet my responsibilities the next day?

this isn't criticism. I don't know what it is. I'm quite sure you could pick any author/thinker/person/whatever and through 6 degrees of separation connect them to Lenin, Hitler, my mother, Bakunin, Adam Smith, Kant, Esra Pound, Hegel, Rocker, Nietzsche, Sorel, etc, etc. You get the picture.

Yo, Che Guereenjuice, shouldn't you be going to town on some dolphins?

Intoxication is a problem as it can be bad for our health, destroy our braincells, and cause us to mess things up because we're hungover, but not because it's fun.

Intoxication is a problem because it means one is mentally impaired during it, and because it is addictive, and then because of those things you mention.

So having a monogamous relationship, but ending it when you're no longer that interested in each other and then going out with someone else, is detrimental because

... you're debasing youself as a sapient being, and becoming addicticted to sexuality.

What a good revolutionary should do is get married and with any luck they'll eventually become bored with their spouse, their relationship will become a habit rather than a romance, they'll rarely be interested in having sex with each other and they'll be better able

... to be people with some will-power that lead their lives accodring to intellect and reason instead of carnal impulses, that making them able to be constructive members of society in any way they choose.

What if you get married and after a few decades you're still passionately in love with each other? What if you try to settle into the drudgery that you were promised marriage would be, but find instead that you're sharing a home with someone with whom your sexual tension shows no signs of abating?

It is literally physically impossible. It's not the mere perception of pleasurableness of something (/someone) that gets dopamine (and similar chemicals in braing) pumping, it is much more the question of novelty of that which is percieved as pleasurable. Every repetition produces tolerance that decreaces the response of the brain reward system and the more you get used to the same thing (e.g. sex with the same person), the less pleasurable it becomes. It's a reverse part of the Coolidge effect. So, monogamy, being minimalistic, is great for tackling sexuality.

I'd like to see this backed up with scientific proof, or at least some wild speculation as to why this might be the case.

I don't see how living according to carnal impulses can be anything but antitethical to living according to reason and intellect. I mentioned the greek philosophers, I'd suggest reading abou Epicurean theory of happiness, it's a good explanation why we should avoid carnal pleasures.

I agree that people who think everything is going to get done post-revolution just because people feel like it are deluded, but a critique of work is fundamental to a critique of capitalism.

As said, I don't see it so. The critique of capitalism is the critique of exploitation, and when seeing that exploitation is actually the making of non-labor incomes, the opposite could be said- that critique of capitalism is the critique of non-work.

Talking of post-revolution, are your ideas about becoming less emotional, and cutting down on the amount of joy we have in life

Cutting the amount of carnal 'joy', and only one type of sensual enjoyment, that connected with direct senses (meaing sexuality and ingestion). That's required for the revolution to come about and succeed, and it will surely be needed to some degree in a post-revolutionary society to function in order for it to function smoothly.

I'm saying that if people take care of their responsibilities, then it's up to them what they do for enjoyment.

Sure, but as I said, some forms of enjoyment make to big of contradiction with "taking care of responsibilites" when not enjoying, because they are too consuming.

Cognitive dissonance between what and what?

Between being a constructive member of society (in it's most radical sense of fighting for a just and humane society) and wasting your life in mentally impearing fun.

There's no logical inconsistency between being a revolutionary and having a drug-fueled orgy.

I have yet to see someone pull that one off. There is no 'logical' incosistency between being a heroin user and having a job and raising kids, but there is real world near-impossibility of those two to coincide in a single person.

I think you've crossed the line there. Knowing that most people here are opposed to "work", you come out with the most absurd defense of "work" that anyone could possibly think of. I think we're all tired of reading your ridiculously long posts of sheer repetition and poor logic. Like your predecessors, you are a pure propaganda machine, not somebody interested in new ideas.

I can no longer sit back and allow Individualist infiltration, Individualist indoctrination, Individualist subversion and the locally specific, North American Individualist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of Libcom's precious bodily fluids.[taken and changed a bit from the movie Dr. Strangelove, lol]

Which means I will.....

Wait..

No, I will do nothing because I don't have the power to do anything...

Unless the admins would like to do something.

Wait..

I will continue to respond to your posts..

but only when I feel like it.

Ha!

I think we're all tired of reading your ridiculously long posts
Oh, well, that makes all the difference.

not somebody interested in new ideas.
Unlike your openness to hear what I say, and that without a mocking attitude.

I will continue to respond to your posts..
but only when I feel like it.
Ha!
Yeah, you're such a badass, man.

I should clarify, greenjuice, that I have some sympathy with some of the things you say. Regarding willpower, for example, it does definitely seem to improve with practice, although not neccesarily in a way that's transferable. I was completely straightedge for a few years, and also celibate for a few years, and I think going without things made it easier to go without other things because you learn self-control. But I don't believe that it makes that much difference what these things are. If you're not that bothered about drinking, sex, or drugs, but you can't get enough of reading wikipedia, then you'llstrengthen your willpower more by resisting the urge to go on wikipedia than by resisting the urge to do those other things.

Regarding addiction, we can get addicted to many things, I had a phase where I spent every free moment playing sudoku. Your brain rewards you when you achieve something that you're trying to do, which is why sudoku can be addictive as can gaming, sports, work, etc. The feeling of successfully resisting the urge to do something will of course also be rewarded with dopamine, so exercising self-control can become addictive in itself.

I really enjoy eating, for example, but rather than this resulting in the fact that I stuff my face all day, I will buy myself some chocolate, eat a piece, and then save the rest for weeks. I guess I must enjoy not eating it so I can later reward myself by eating it. I have no other reason for doing this, I'm not trying to impress anyone, it has no practical benefits (in fact, on occaison I've found the things I saved went off or were eaten by someone else), so I clearly must get some perverse pleasure out of delayed gratification.

This is not to say that we can't utilise the ways our minds work to achieve goals we have, whether revolutionary or otherwise, but I think we need to understand how this works as well, rather than assuming we're getting things right just because our mind releases the chemicals that we get for doing something we think is right, whether or not it's actually pointless.

I'm convinced that trying to not have sex, or trying to not fall in love, are such pointless endeavours. And so far the explanations you've given haven't depended on reason or rationality. For example you say that serial monogamy involves

this is pure moralism with no reason behind it whatsoever. If you look down on a person for the number of sexual partners they've had, that bears no relationship to their actual worth. They haven't cheapened themselves, they've lowered their value as it's perceived by other people who value them according to their number of sexual partners, and possibly even as it's perceived by themselves, if they've internalised those same sex-negative messages. But no actual debasement has occured. Also regarding

like becoming addicted to drugs or alcohol or anything else, it's apparant that it's happened when the addiction starts to infringe on other aspects of the persons life. For most people, serial monogamy doesn't impact on their ability to do other things with their life.

This doesn't make any sense either. If you're no longer interested in sex then the fact that you aren't having any has nothing to do with your willpower. I've met people so lazy they can't be bothered to have sex. And enjoying sex with your spouse doesn't mean you lead your life according to carnal impulses. Most people are perfectly able to have regular sex with their spouse without it stopping them from being constructive members of society.

I don't know where you get this from but it bears no relation to reality. Some people get bored with their partners, some people don't. Some people find their partners more exciting as time goes on. I've being in a relationship for enough years that the novelty has completely worn off but I'm increasingly more in love and more attracted to my partner and can't see us getting bored of doing something together which expresses and reinforces an increasing depth of feeling. Clearly this might peak and peter out one day, or it might not, but there's clearly considerably more factors involved in this than the simple novelty value you're depending on for your theory, and it's no surprise to me that you have such a dim view of sexuality if this is all there is to it in your opinion. The fact that you talk of "tackling" sexuality makes this clear. Even the most prudish people merely consider it something that needs to be "managed" more stringently than other people do. You're the only person I've come across who's actually sex-negative rather than just having a restricted view of when sex is positive.

You say "living according to" but you seem to be the arbiter of what an acceptable and what an unacceptable amount of pleasure is. If someone wants to restrict their indulgence in certain pleasures to make themselves happy, that's their business but they haven't done anything wrong if they want to acheive their happiness differently. It is perfectly possible to develop ones reason and intellect by engaging in some activities, and then indulge in pleasure by engaging in other activities. You've just said that "practising sexuality" amounts to "living according to carnal impulses". The idea that having sex (even with more than one person over the course of one's lifetime!) means that a person will become incapable of doing anything else with their life is just nonsense.

Does "you've yet to see someone pull that off" mean that of all the many people you know who've gone to drug-fueled orgies they have all found themselves from that point on unable to involve themselves in revolutionary activity? I happen to know many very active and dedicated revolutionaries who have been to (sometimes very well organised) orgies, and I can assure you it's had no impact whatsoever. Some people are able to work hard and play hard. The fact that you keep bringing up the group of leftists you know who only seem to play hard doesn't actually make it impossible.

Also being a heroin user and having a job and raising kids is difficult because it's so easy to turn from a heroin user to a heroin addict, but I've actually seen that before too (although I wouldn't recommend it as most people don't have that kind of willpower). The problem with becoming a heroin addict is that it's so expensive that most of one's time is spent getting hold of heroin. Although I've also seen people on heroin programmes who, having been given heroin every morning by their doctor, are perfectly able to get on with their lives. Also people with jobs and kids who have a bit of heroin every few months generally don't tell anyone this because heroin user = heroin addict as far as most people are concerned. Similarly, someone who has sex = sex addict as far as you're concerned. This has more to do with your messed ideas about sexuality than about anything else. Comparing sex to heroin also makes little sense as there is a constant supply of sex between two people who want to, in which case they can spend most of their time productively (like the heroin user with a heroin prescription) rather than spending all their time obsessing over it (like the one who needs to find money every day).

Still not as embarrassing as my threads about Zizek. Those were unsurpassable

p.s.

CULTURAL HEGEMONY

@greenjuice: Don't talk to me about revolution unless you are prepared to eat a rat.

Preferably a rat with bad politics and AIDS that you found in a bin.