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

Fixed.

Revol's description of your points sounds dead on to me.

Here's how it works: if some enterprise is 'capitalistic' as you put it then that enterprise is exploitive. Saying "capitalistic but not exploitive" is like saying "it's a circle, of the type that has several corners" or "a bachelor, the kind who is married."

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

Ny: Pornography, (from Greek, "graphics of prostitutes") is based on wage-exploitation.

To be a bit fair, "second wave" feminists don't oppose pornography and prostitution because they are based on wage labor. For example, there are feminists who would prevent a woman selling her labor as prostitute and instead encourage her to sell her labor as an office worker.

Certainly, I would oppose all commodified product of this world of wage labor, from reified sexual images to Hollywood movies to mainstream rock-and-roll and beyond. On the other hand, the fundamentalist Christians who burn rock records and others who organize campaigns against particular "bad" commodities aren't critiquing capitalism. And just much, we don't expect either communist militants or average workers to reframe right now from consuming capital's commodities in the present world - though we should be at least aware of the noxious qualities of commodified existence.

Of course, Bey himself seems to be being rather opportunistic in arguments and enemies. But let's be at least somewhat exact in our arguments.

The third wave feminist realized, rightly, that to simply ignore pornography, or burn it, leads nowhere. Instead one must take charge of the production and make it empowering rather than exploitive.

These are some ridiculously sweeping, ill-informed generalisations about 'feminism'. I'm not sure why anyone expects a higher level of class-consciousness amongst feminists than they do of the population as a whole.

Tor, do you know what exploitation means? You seem confused.
How can exchanging sex for money be empowering? You're still selling your labour power, no matter how much you think you're making some kind of feminist statement.

I would expect higher levels of class consciousness in feminists than the 'general population' because feminism is (or should be and historically has) been about examining, criticising and attacking oppressive and unequal power relations. That isn't to say that feminism = class analysis, just that there is an obvious cross over that you expect to lead to in general higher levels of class consciousness than 'the general population'.

I agree that a class analysis should logically follow a feminist analysis, and vice-versa, but in practice this is not what happens.

Just because you're "examining, criticising and attacking oppressive and unequal power relations", it doesn't remotely mean you're any more likely to come out with a class analysis. I mean, I think you'll agree that there's a very long list of gay rights, anti-racist/black nationalist groups with the shittest politics ever, with not a shred of understanding of class.

My broader point is that statements like these...

...are not only very sweeping and inaccurate, but also place a higher expectation on feminists as a whole to have a well constructed, sound, class-analysis of sex work. I'm sure this wasn't the intention of the poster, but, twatty privilege politics aside, people should be a bit more careful when making these broad, innaccurate statements about 'what feminists think'.

Yeah no doubt but I reckon if you devised some sort of survey for gauging class consciousness and distributed to a general sample of feminists and a sample of the general population you would expect slightly higher levels of class awareness/conciousness from the feminist group.

I only spoke of the PRODUCTION of pornography that show women as equal to men. And this could be done just like any other non-capitalistic production

Firstly, this demonstrates your lack of understanding of how capitalism operates, and of commodity production within a capitalist economy. Explain yourself.

Secondly, technology is pretty essential for the production of porn, is it not? Unless your talking about some kind of live in your face theatre-porn where Hakim Bey style old men in rain coats sit in the candle-light and frisk themselves silly to some 'empowered' woman wanking off a dildo?

you think primmos want fire? that's where it all went wrong, when arrogant, will to power man stole fire from the gods, for this sin we have been having our liver pecked at ever sense.

How many adjectives do I have to insert to make it clear I'm talking about some feminists rather than all feminists? OK, "second wave" might not be the right term for the branch of feminism in which Andrea Dworkin would be found. But whatever one call that branch, it exists and involves a significant number of people labeling themselves feminists and it seem like it should somewhat clear I was referring to this group.

Just as much, I'm not sure that I'm making any demand of feminists in my post. I was just pointing that Nyarlathotep's attack on Tor didn't have a very coherent basis in the theory-of-exploitation basis. That's all.

I mean, yes it's clear Tor doesn't understand a Marxian theory of exploitation and isn't using the term "exploitative" in that sense but the theory of exploitation doesn't particularly offer an argument for working specifically for the abolition of pornography while wage-labor in general continues - and some (significant) portion of the feminists who attack pornographic attack on an entirely different basis.

The extended quotes of Hakim Bey generally show him to be a moron but at the same time it does seem Nyarlathotep is grasping at straws in his effort to define Bey's politics as being in some worse category than your average incoherent anarcho-potlatch-ist.

For what it's worth, I've known a significant number of sex workers. Sex work indeed seems exploitative and destructive to the mind and body. But one could say the same thing about coal mining. I would say the task of communists is to fight to improve the situation that workers face whichever industry they happen to work in - IE, give sex workers more choices and better pay (including the choice to leave the industry). There are also certainly a significant number of feminists who take this position. OK?

I don't think you used any adjectives to differentiate which feminists you meant, except for your inadequate use of "second wave".

Ok, cool, but it wasn't clear. As you point out, "second wave" feminists are not all Dworkin-ites by any means. If you meant Dworkin, well fine. She's hardly representative of the broader feminist movement, more of a very narrow milieu within a narrow milieu.

Not sure why you're so defensive about me not being able to guess which important words and sentences you left out of your previous post, but hey ho.

I am fully aware of the Marxian idea of exploitation. But it's hard to get a word in here, when everyone has decided that I'm a complete tosser because I happen to think Bey's ideas are valid and believe in the criticism of primitivism

I am fully aware of the Marxian idea of exploitation. But it's hard to get a word in here, when everyone has decided that I'm a complete tosser because I happen to think Bey's ideas are valid and believe in the criticism by primitivists

(edit: damn machinery, I tried to correct my first post and ended up with two)

take a reasonable burden of proof, and double it.

why?

i mean, because of your preconceived ideas about bey and primitivism?

apologies, in future i will purge all prior learning and experience everything anew, like i was born yesterday.

I may not have articulated myself very well, nor been very polite, but supporting Bey and Primitivism is not proof of lack of intelligence. However, you prove time and time again your bigotry

:stonefacedraisedeyebrowface:

–noun,plural-ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Yes, I'm intolerant of paedophiles and ideologies which involve mass die-offs. I am also 'bigoted' towards smallpox and nuclear war. Support for not one but two of said idiocies casts doubt on the critical faculties of the supporter, yes.

Over all when people talk about 'second wave feminism' they tend to be overgeneralizing and making caricatures that are little more useful than very broad statements 'the antiglobalization movement' or about everyone who has ever called themselves 'communists'.

There are indeed feminists like you describe, and there were during the second wave. There are also communists who would impose the commodification of labor power on workers, and some who did quite brutally. Not all communists, not the real ones, though. Likewise, many feminists don't do what you describe including many during the 'second wave', a great many of who did have a good critical grasp of understanding. You might see the collection Dear Sisters and also The Feminist Memoir Project. It's my understanding that Cell 16, for example, had a radical view on capitalism and yet took anti- sex view. This was not because of any long term vision or analysis about sex but because of very short term and local views: much of the left at the time, in their view, was full of a notion of sexual liberation that men on the left used as an excuse to pressure women into sex they didn't want to have. (Analogous to unions and social democrats who talk like they are for working class emancipation but they use those ideas against workers.)

No.

Because of Tor sometimes sounding like he's soft on sexual abuse of children, sometimes sounding excessively forgiving of Bey's writings on this subject (which sometimes condone or are compatible with child sexual abuse, sometimes are expressions of desire to sexually abuse children, and sometimes are actively speaking in favor of sexually abusing children), sometimes acting like the people who speak out up here about Bey and child sexual abuse are making too much out of a minor thing, and at other times contradicting himself by rightly rejecting Bey's views on this and recognizing that child sexual abuse is not something anarchists should condone let alone support BUT without ever saying "oh yeah I changed what I'm saying about this". And because of Tor saying "some feminists are against porn!" as a dodge, then saying "there are some actually existing capitalist companies that produce porn which is not exploitive!" then changing his argument to say "I mean there is some porn which is not objectionable when it comes to how it depicts sex and power relations between men" to then saying "it is possible to produce pornography like that," all without saying "okay, I'm changing my mind and my argument" but rather acting like he's been making the same argument all along.

My arguments have never changed.

- I am not soft on pedophilia, but I accept Bey's right to be one, especially since there is no proof that he has ever actually touched a child (the difference between a desire, and an act)
- Anarchist shouldn't let their children be molested, but should allow all sort of different viewpoints and desires (unless it is an Platonic utopia, which I do not condone). If a child desires to have relations with an adult that raises problems, that should be then dealt with.
- I said SOME feminist are against pornography, some aren't. This is true. Some see all porn as exploitive, some see a possiblility to reclaim pornography, and create such pornography which shows equality of the sexes.

Tor, I'm sorry I misunderstood your views.

I don't know if I agree that there is a "right to be" a pedophile and I'm not sure anarchists should "allow all sort of different viewpoints and desires." For example, some people have a desire to murder all people of certain racial or ethnic groups. And some people, like me, have a desire to limit other people's desires -- am I allowed my desire to limit others' desires?

That said you do have an important point: people with pedophile urges who don't act on those urges should not be kicked around. The issue is actions, not urges. I do think you seemed to minimize the issue of pedophilia. Perhaps I overreact to the issue, it's possible, I have adult loved ones who were molested as children and I am myself a parent and there are other children in my extended family so I have strong feelings on this. I will say that you were initially not clear, you early on seemed to be suggesting that we should regulate people's attempts to act upon their desires. We should do so. Again though the issue is actions, not urges, as you noted.

Two final points. One, someone else pointed on one of the Hakim Bey threads that some of Bey's writing might actually harm people with pedophile urges by helping them rationalize acting upon those urges, in the process hurting a child and themselves. That seems to me an important criticism. And, again on actions not urges, speaking and writing in ways that seek to encourage or objectively do encourage people to act on pedophile urges is an action. Bey's writings on this strike me as an unacceptable action. Just as it is unacceptable to write tracts that call for people to cultivate or to act upon the desire to murder people because of their racial or ethnic group.

Two, I take your point about pornography. Such material if produced under capitalism will still be exploitive in an economic sense.

If Bey was saying 'I have sexual urges towards children, I accept that it's wrong, I am taking steps such as counselling to ensure I never act upon them' then you'd have a point. What he is doing is advocacy, seeking to legitimise child rape.

In some senses the fact he is a cunt should not affect how we view his other writings. Luckily he writes a load of old cock, so we don't need to face that dilemma.

No one has a "right" to be a pedophile, just as no one has a "right" to be a rapist, drive nails into the body of their housekeeper, or be a murderer. If one fantasizes, and openly promotes, these conceptions they are sick and shouldn't be allowed in a circumstance where these feelings can be acted upon.

I wouldn't mind even if he was a paedo and didn't fucking write about it or base his whole notion of 'anarchism' around an egoist fulfilment of desires pile of pish. Well I would mind in the sense that he shouldn't be free to abuse kids but I mean I wouldn't mind it in terms of his theories, I'd be prepared to make a distinction between his paedoness and his politics. In Bey's case his politics are so obviously rooted in justifying and fulfilling his nonce desires.

Yes. Even if this is not a conscious, deliberate thing on Bey's part. Bey's writings are an ideology that would facilitate pedophiles acting on their desires. That's an okay initial test for theories in a way I think -- "are pedophile practices acceptable under this theory?" If so, reject it.

I refer TIME AND TIME AGAIN to my video on this, as he says ANY UTOPIA is somebodys WET DREAM.

oh, well that makes it alright then.