Love is an illusion of the ruling class

As if an indescribable feeling doesn't prove that it is idealist bullshit to begin with, I am going to type up my observations i logged in my journal after reading "The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State" about the functional irrationality that society calls love

People's willingness to omit true feelings such as attraction to another person or desire to be with another epitomizes the irrational behavior that is the product of labeling two people together as "lovers". Both parites develop a blind obligation to stay close to each other while still actually wanting to be with each other in the hopes of fufiling their title as lovers. This is the phenomenon that applies to all exclusive relationships and is where blind devotion and loyalty is born.

Both partners enjoy each others presence and so unknowingly take on the restrictions of an exclusive relationship and misconstrue their own feelings in order to believe that these restrictions on natural wants and needs are welcomed. This mental slavery is what blinds people from more compatible people, sexual freedom, and ultimately UNRESTRAINED happiness. Not only would both partners have the freedom to see other people if they so desire, but the inherent responsiblility to tend to the other is removed and the romantic and kind treatment becomes totally voluntarily practiced without being EXPECTED and DEMANDED. It simply is and it makes both partners happy.

Like the idea of atheists being a non-profit organization and atheists being guided by their own moral compass, Partners are guided by their own romantic compass rather than being guided by the significant other's. With this freedom people will be lead to the partner of truest compatibility without anyone forcing the needle of their compass in one direction to achieve happiness. An exploitation of the will to have romantic power if you will.

Much like society's illusions in capitalism. A submission of the working class with the belief that true happiness will ensue while the ruling class obscures the submission of the working class and the working class believes both sides have reached an agreement and even a partnership.

Monogamy has only existed since women's loss of rights as an equal to males coinciding with the idea of passing down private property from generation to generation. Men objectified woman as women lost their equality as men gained the role of leading the herds. Women were subjected to sexual slavery and tools of the males to pass down their private property. Marriage was and still is today an economic union and considering women's oppression, the illusion of "love" would be strategic to the male ruling class in making women complicit in their often FORCED marriage to a man.

As Women enter the workplace, divorce rates skyrocket. This is because the economic foundations of monogamy are being toppled as women destroy their original economic dependence on men.

This coincides with the ruling class manipulating the family as a reactionary institute in capitalist society.

will write more but i is tired now

DISCUSS

Quote :

Monogamy has only existed since women's loss of rights as an equal to males coinciding with the idea of passing down private property from generation to generation. Men objectified woman as women lost their equality as men gained the role of leading the herds. Women were subjected to sexual slavery and tools of the males to pass down their private property. Marriage was and still is today an economic union and considering women's oppression, the illusion of "love" would be strategic to the male ruling class in making women complicit in their often FORCED marriage to a man.

As Women enter the workplace, divorce rates skyrocket. This is because the economic foundations of monogamy are being toppled as women destroy their original economic dependence on men.

This coincides with the ruling class manipulating the family as a reactionary institute in capitalist society.

will write more but i is tired now

DISCUSS[/quote]





What kind of love are you reffering too ? I take it you mean fatious romantic and consumate love ? anyway

I agree with your last three paragraphs. However I think you are too quick to politicize love. Love is only irrational when seen from an individual perspective. The truth is that it is essential to human existence and ensures that people stay together and care for children long after the initial sexual attraction ie lust or fatuous love has faded. Without extended love for our fellow man we would be no different from animals and act 'only' in our own interests, this would altogether render society unsustainable.

If love served no purpose and was, as you put it an 'irrational' behavior then it would not exist. Love is unique to man, no other animal can experience it. Love is of a high order as far as emotions go and reflects our sophisticated stage in comparison to other creatures. It also seems to quell hate and prob exists to balance things due to its negative counterpart.


It is part of human nature not a product of class ect so don't bother politicizing it.

For the most part I agree with inkus. But I think romantic "love" is in fact the merging of two emotions/impulses. The first of which is the need to reproduce or "lust" inherent in all mammals. The second is compassion, which I think is something natural to develop in any close relationship between two sentient beings.

That said, I agree with MarxistFreeman's views on marriage and family structures.

yeah i'd agree with that

but why should there be a monopoly on such compassion for it to be real?

You're saying that one day the ruling class just sat down and decided "Okay, we're gonna make something up! We'll call it love, and it will make people stick with each other! That'll benefit us! Ha! Stupid proletariat!"

Also, you do this while ignoring that most of the poets that write about love are dirt poor? It's sang about by garage bands and makes poor people work harder to support their families, and you're saying rich people invented it? Silly.

hey

It is beneficial to follow the family model in capitalist society

it has become the societal unit

His theory is right. It's the materialist conception of love.

lol thank you

perhaps i should get it published?

lol

Does the spartacist league publish a newsletter or something? You could use that.

Yeah they publish the Worker's Vanguard

When I become a full-fledged member maybe me and my closest comrades could pal up to touch it up and submit it

Do they have an online version to see?

yeah scroll down
http://spartacist.org/

Or you click on Workers Vanguard at the top.

lol that too..

tell me what you think of it emy

Pannekoek wrote:

His theory is right. It's the materialist conception of love.

Aye. That is true. Many people only simply "love" another just to get things. All this "Valentines" crap and everything I see on TV, it's just mass media to fool the people. Many familes I have known in America have simply "loved" or married to get money. They don't pay child support (a creul thing to pay to support your child) and get into fights all the time. A good lot of my friends at school have exactly THOSE types of familes and I can relate to them.

I'm sick and tired of materialism running rampant in today's society and it MUST change.

Pannekoek wrote:

Does the spartacist league publish a newsletter or something? You could use that.

Your a spartisist? Crap...

not really

I study with them a shit ton and am being taught to function as a member...

and why is that bad?

Are you wearing your name as a badge or as a critique?

MarxistFreeman wrote:

not really

I study with them a shit ton and am being taught to function as a member...

and why is that bad?

Are you wearing your name as a badge or as a critique?

The reason I think spartisists are annoying comes from experience participating in marches with them. We're just marching to end the Iraq War, but while everyone's chanting "end the war now" some asshole on a megaphone is yelling "Death to the Bourgeois Pigs!". Spartisists are always convinced that they can start "the world proletarian revolution" just when they feel like it, regardless of the fact that it is a march of 1000 people through a mid-size town. I.E. they are naive ideologues, much like the Maoists, and yes I understand the ideological differences. Plus, they take the whole role of the "proletarian vanguard" off the edge, to the point of elitism.

As far as my name, it kind of reflects my position. I am a Marxist, but not a Leninist. And somewhere between "revolutionary socialist" and Social-Democrat. I guess a more accurate depiction of my views would be somewhere along the lines of a Eugene Debs/Norman Thomas tendency.
The main reason I chose the name is that I knew it would stir up a "ruckus" among the Leninists.

Im not sure that person was with them and if so i am sure they were admonished for it. I have been admonished for shouting things against Obama when i was on a paper sale. They told me that isn't their politics.

They always enter class collaborationist rallies (like the one you went to) ready for polemics and debate about what is the best strategy and introduced a marxist perspective.

I MET the spartacists at an anti-war rally and I was carrying a sign that said BUSH/CHENEY OUT
TROOPS OUT
DEMOCRATS IN

and one of them challenged my perspective on the democrats and asked me what that would really entail.

been with them ever since.

Have you READ Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky?

I am reading that now...

MarxistFreeman, are you antisexual?

I am totally for sexual freedom?

I have sex?

I have girls that i care a great deal about and make sure they are happy?

MarxistFreeman wrote:

I am totally for sexual freedom?

I have sex?

I have girls that i care a great deal about and make sure they are happy?

Antisexual is a guy who is totally against sex/love. Your post reminds me of one

I am not against strong feelings for anyone

I am against the use of "love" as a term and the random justifications and definitions of it.

I am against people demanding a monopoly on the best part of a person...

MarxistFreeman wrote:

Im not sure that person was with them and if so i am sure they were admonished for it. I have been admonished for shouting things against Obama when i was on a paper sale. They told me that isn't their politics.

They always enter class collaborationist rallies (like the one you went to) ready for polemics and debate about what is the best strategy and introduced a marxist perspective.

I MET the spartacists at an anti-war rally and I was carrying a sign that said BUSH/CHENEY OUT
TROOPS OUT
DEMOCRATS IN

and one of them challenged my perspective on the democrats and asked me what that would really entail.

been with them ever since.

Have you READ Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky?

I am reading that now...

Yes I am familiar with Lenin's piece on Kautsky. I know how Lenin insists that Kautsky would betray the proletarian revolution via political collaboration with bourgeois democratic parties. I've also read Lenin's wider criticism/s against reformist socialists because they "try to build a new society within the shell of the old" etc. But like I have said many times, I am not a Leninist.

That said I hold no delusions that the democrats are the answer to the problems which face the US. When you look at the past gains the US made in equality (civil rights,etc.) , it was usually because they're was a mass people's movement. Republicans completely disregard these, but democrats can push changes through if (to use a cliche') the people lead and the leaders follow.

Also, it's pretty obvious that I was at least familiar with "Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" because my forum name is "Renegade Kautsky" not "Karl Kautsky".

No civil rights were gained because the ruling class could no longer ignore the violence and had to quell it in order to avoid a revolutionary situation.

And now look, those same civil rights gains are either being pulled back or people claim they are proof the playing field is level.

Slavery was abolished through violence and civil rights legislation was won from the blood of many.

plus I asked if you READ it. cover to cover.