Hakim Bey, world-reknown author and political organizer of pedophiles. - got dirt?

Burroughs was infinitely more interesting and talented than Bey. He hated politics (in his biography he is quoted as having said that he avoided the main trend going on at college- Communism. And that at least one though most likely many of his regular male lovers were Marxists- which irritated him to no end) so no, he wasn't trying to push his ideas on anyone else. In fact, he regularly writes about having a farm or large property at the end of civilization where he can grow coca, cannabis and poppies and have several young men live with him without anyone bothering any of them. He hated having to live in a heterosexual, opiophobic society that despised people who enjoyed using any kind of drug or engaged in homosexuality. But he didn't want to alter society for his benefit, he wanted to escape from it. This is a common theme for most of his work.

If you study or are familiar with his work, his descriptions of his actual sexual life are with younger men- not children. Male prostitutes and men he picks up or lives with or sees regularly are generally described as being in their late teens or 20's. This is what he means when he says 'boys' most of the time. There are instances when he talks about male children, but it's more like Henry Darger than Hakim Bey- a literary device, an expression of innocence. He is very clear when he's lusting after someone, and those someones are 17, 19, 21 year old men. Huge difference with Bey.

He is simply attacking one movement in feminism, and rightly so, for being anti-sex and anti-pornography.

And as being monarchistic, come one, you're clutching at straws. He is talking of dreams, and dream symbolism, in which there is either anarchy or strong authority (mother and father=king and queen).

Bey is well versed in Sufism

that anyone who learns some ancient and religious beliefs and try to introduce or apply them to western "civilization" is but a sharlatan?

There is a close link between the thoughts of Bey and Burroughs. Both were pederasts

Why not? I'd take it anyday over the Kingdom of McDeath

We DO know however that his Tangier lover, Kiki, was 14-15...

Pornography, (from Greek, "graphics of prostitutes") is based on wage-exploitation. There is nothing healthy about jerking off to images of people who have prostituted themselves out of economic necessity; in fact, it's a way of participating in anther's economic exploitation.

Quote:

Pornography, (from Greek, "graphics of prostitutes") is based on wage-exploitation. There is nothing healthy about jerking off to images of people who have prostituted themselves out of economic necessity; in fact, it's a way of participating in anther's economic exploitation.

See capitalism.

revol68 wrote:

Quote:

Pornography, (from Greek, "graphics of prostitutes") is based on wage-exploitation. There is nothing healthy about jerking off to images of people who have prostituted themselves out of economic necessity; in fact, it's a way of participating in anther's economic exploitation.

See capitalism.

Of course, how would you feel if Hakim Bey advocated burning texts which criticize the automotive industry?

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

He is simply attacking one movement in feminism, and rightly so, for being anti-sex and anti-pornography.

Pornography, (from Greek, "graphics of prostitutes") is based on wage-exploitation. There is nothing healthy about jerking off to images of people who have prostituted themselves out of economic necessity; in fact, it's a way of participating in anther's economic exploitation.

Any way, we may have disagreements on the issue, I certainly don't think your literature should be burned over this disagreement. But Hakim Bey does because in his stoner paranoia he views these mostly imagined "anti-sex feminists" as a threat to his "right" to consume kiddie porn and commodify the bodies of youth with his disgusting "erotic poetry".

Quote:

And as being monarchistic, come one, you're clutching at straws. He is talking of dreams, and dream symbolism, in which there is either anarchy or strong authority (mother and father=king and queen).

No he isn't, read the entire article.

Quote:

Bey is well versed in Sufism

What are his scholastic credentials? Were is the academic recommendations? Where is his analysis of classical Sufi literature? Does he even speak Arabic?

Quote:

that anyone who learns some ancient and religious beliefs and try to introduce or apply them to western "civilization" is but a sharlatan?

No but it helps to actually study....

Quote:

There is a close link between the thoughts of Bey and Burroughs. Both were pederasts

Are you sure Burroughs was a pederast? I always assumed themes of child rape in works such as Naked Lunch were meant as a denunciation of patriarchal exploitation.

Quote:

Why not? I'd take it anyday over the Kingdom of McDeath

So I get to choose between getting butt-raped by a middle aged man in a right-wing hippie "pirate commune", (a.k.a. the Manson Family compound) or spending eight hours a day flipping soy patties for minimum wage? Is suicide a choice?

There is no becoming, no revolution, no struggle, no path; already you're the monarch of your own skin--your inviolable freedom waits to be completed only by the love of other monarchs: a politics of dream, urgent as the blueness of sky.

After studying at Columbia University, he did extensive traveling in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Nepal. He studied Tantra in West Bengal and visited many Sufi shrines and masters. In 1971 he undertook research on the Ni'matullahi funded by the Marsden Foundation of New York.
During 1974 and 1975 he was consultant in London and Tehran for the World of Islam Festival. In 1974 he became director of English language publications at the Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy in Tehran under Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and he studied, worked with, and published books by Nasr, Toshihiko Izutsu, Henry Corbin and others. He was editor of Sophia Perennis, the Journal of the IIAP.

Not all pornography is exploitive. There are several examples of so called feminist pornography, Lars Von Trier owning(oooh) the production company of one of them.

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

Not all pornography is exploitive. There are several examples of so called feminist pornography, Lars Von Trier owning(oooh) the production company of one of them.

"Feminist" pornography is not only exploitative, but it represents a recuperation of a particular set of radical ideas by capitalism. The sex industry is coercive by it's very nature.

The sex industry is not coercive in it's nature because it's shock horror to do with sex or some other judeo christian moralistic pile of shit but because it is an industry.

revol68 wrote:

The sex industry is not coercive in it's nature because it's shock horror to do with sex or some other judeo christian moralistic pile of shit but because it is an industry.

Thanks for explaining that. It's not like I'm a member of an anarchist communist political organisation that opposes capitalism and has produced propaganda criticising work in all it's forms, so I'm glad you're here to enlighten me.

I wasn't trying to enlighten you I was simply making it clear because too often it is the sex part of the sex industry that is viewed as exploitative or makes it (doubly so), the very fact that someone would state that the sex industry is exploitative on a libertarian communist forum suggests it is retains some sort of special status distinct from the rest of capitalism that no one feels to need to specifically and explicitly state are exploitative.

revol68 wrote:

I wasn't trying to enlighten you I was simply making it clear because too often it is the sex part of the sex industry that is viewed as exploitative or makes it (doubly so), the very fact that someone would state that the sex industry is exploitative on a libertarian communist forum suggests it is retains some sort of special status distinct from the rest of capitalism that no one feels to need to specifically and explicitly state are exploitative.

Well I made that particular post in response to Tor's defence of "feminist pornography". Though in any case, the sex industry is different, because sex just isn't the same as other activities we take part in.

revol68 wrote:

I wasn't trying to enlighten you I was simply making it clear because too often it is the sex part of the sex industry that is viewed as exploitative or makes it (doubly so), the very fact that someone would state that the sex industry is exploitative on a libertarian communist forum suggests it is retains some sort of special status distinct from the rest of capitalism that no one feels to need to specifically and explicitly state are exploitative.

Well I made that particular post in response to Tor's defence of "feminist pornography". Though in any case, the sex industry is different, because sex just isn't the same as other activities we take part in.

no concrete activity is the same as another different concrete activity, the fuss about sex work is a conmplicated mix of judeo christian moral bullshit and resistance and repulsion to the commodification of what most of us regard as very personal intimate relations.

for me the role of communists should be to be spreading this resistance and repulsion to all forms of wage labour and as such breaking down the notion of sex work as some sort of special case.

But let's answer the thread title:

Does he organize pedophiles? No
Do we have any dirt? No (except some poetry)

revol68 wrote:

no concrete activity is the same as another different concrete activity, the fuss about sex work is a conmplicated mix of judeo christian moral bullshit and resistance and repulsion to the commodification of what most of us regard as very personal intimate relations.

for me the role of communists should be to be spreading this resistance and repulsion to all forms of wage labour and as such breaking down the notion of sex work as some sort of special case.

Well as far as "repulsion to the commodification of what most of us regard as very personal intimate relations", what's wrong with that? I don't see how it's any different to being repulsed by the working conditions in sweatshops. Different groups of workers experience wage labour differently.

I'm sorry revol, you're completely right, having sex with huge numbers of people you don't want to in order to feed a crippling drug addiction is exactly like shelf stacking in Asda or being a cleaner.

Go back and read my response then ask yourself why I posted a facepalm picture.

Furthermore to reduce sex work to street prostitutes feeding drug habits is just fucking stupid (which isn't to say just like sex trafficking it isn't a very real issue).

And it's quite obvious that some women do prefer sex work than working in ASDA or being a cleaner and frankly it's not my place to judge.

Not all pornography is exploitive. There are several examples of so called feminist pornography, Lars Von Trier owning(oooh) the production company of one of them.

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

Not all pornography is exploitive. There are several examples of so called feminist pornography, Lars Von Trier owning(oooh) the production company of one of them.

Either you think Von Trier's porn company is a non-capitalist enterprise (in which case, justify that claim) or you don't understand that all capitalist enterprises are exploitive. Which is it?

Nate wrote:

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

Not all pornography is exploitive. There are several examples of so called feminist pornography, Lars Von Trier owning(oooh) the production company of one of them.

Either you think Von Trier's porn company is a non-capitalist enterprise (in which case, justify that claim) or you don't understand that all capitalist enterprises are exploitive. Which is it?

He's talking about exploitation in a non marxist sense, you know the liberal 'special case' type where it's something that happens to thrid world workers in sweatshops and sex workers but not to the less spectacular or 'sexy' workers serving fries in McDonald's or sitting in the new satanic mills of call centres.

revol68 wrote:

Nate wrote:

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

Not all pornography is exploitive. There are several examples of so called feminist pornography, Lars Von Trier owning(oooh) the production company of one of them.

Either you think Von Trier's porn company is a non-capitalist enterprise (in which case, justify that claim) or you don't understand that all capitalist enterprises are exploitive. Which is it?

He's talking about exploitation in a non marxist sense, you know the liberal 'special case' type where it's something that happens to thrid world workers in sweatshops and sex workers but not to the less spectacular or 'sexy' workers serving fries in McDonald's or sitting in the new satanic mills of call centres.

No...
I never said Trier's company wasn't capitalistic. I was making the point that production of non-exploitative pornography is possible.

No seriously read my post again before the facepalm, then read your response to it.

As for your 'liberal' jibe, well to my mind communists don't tend to judge proles for their particular occupation or reasons for taking one over the other (with obvious exceptions police, military etc) as we hold all wage labour to be exploitative. It is liberals who get on their high horses about certain forms of exploitation, seeking to wall them off as 'special issues' in order to quarantine them so they can't contaminate more naturalised forms of exploitation.

revol68 wrote:

No seriously read my post again before the facepalm, then read your response to it.

As for your 'liberal' jibe, well to my mind communists don't tend to judge proles for their particular occupation or reasons for taking one over the other (with obvious exceptions police, military etc) as we hold all wage labour to be exploitative. It is liberals who get on their high horses about certain forms of exploitation, seeking to wall them off as 'special issues' in order to quarantine them so they can't contaminate more naturalised forms of exploitation.

It's not about walling anything off, it's about recognising that some forms of wage labour are qualitatively different to others.

no concrete activity is the same as another different concrete activity, the fuss about sex work is a conmplicated mix of judeo christian moral bullshit and resistance and repulsion to the commodification of what most of us regard as very personal intimate relations.
for me the role of communists should be to be spreading this resistance and repulsion to all forms of wage labour and as such breaking down the notion of sex work as some sort of special case

Well as far as "repulsion to the commodification of what most of us regard as very personal intimate relations", what's wrong with that? I don't see how it's any different to being repulsed by the working conditions in sweatshops. Different groups of workers experience wage labour differently.

the role of communists should be to be spreading this resistance and repulsion to all forms of wage labour

I don't see how it's any different to being repulsed by the working conditions in sweatshops.