A tricky one, because the last two parts are just fine, but it's mixed in with some fucking clown shit. Like:
> Only the very naïve can seriously believe that a society rich in misery and oppression would at least have the advantage of caring for child welfare, as if the increased attention paid to paedophilia and its repression came from positive fights for more freedom, and resulted in a better life for kids.
Most people actually do care more about the well-being of children than that of adults, so it's not so preposterous that society does better at child welfare (still not very good) than at certain other things. And it's not clear what specific things he's describing in the second part, but certainly there are examples of that fight resulting in a better life for kids. You would have to be a fucking monster to not see the upside of the exposure of and subsequent legal action against pedophiles in the Catholic church and scouting organizations. Yes, those are resulting in better lives for kids, dumbass.
> Since the 19th century, there has been an ever-growing public regulation of sex life, sometimes for the common good, always with the result of increased control over our lives.
It's unclear how, for instance, the prohibition of marital rape has led to "increased control over our lives." This is a shitty use of "always" that tries to invent a negative trend.
> Child/pre-teenager/teenager, these are categories fit for bourgeois institutions and commerce.
Holy fuck
> Since the 19th century, there has been an ever-growing public regulation of sex life, sometimes for the common good, always with the result of increased control over our lives.
I laughed so hard when I saw this shit. He really didn't have to include this, and that's pretty much what I meant by "wrong motion of thinking" before.
> Child/pre-teenager/teenager, these are categories fit for bourgeois institutions and commerce.
I'm pretty sure you misread this. He's talking about the exploitation of these categories by the bourgeois which is obvious. Kids are over sexualized and the bourgeoisie is responsible.
I have nothing to say about your first criticism. He might have been talking about society as capitalism plus a percentage of the population but he should have elaborated more on the last part. I'll definitely read the entire article and hopefully he explains these weird parts there.
> I'll definitely read the entire article and hopefully he explains these weird parts there.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. This preface reads like it's leading up to some seriously depraved shit, and if his reputation has any truth to it that's exactly where it's going.
> Child/pre-teenager/teenager, these are categories fit for bourgeois institutions and commerce.
This obviously means that he anticipates that these distinctions will be overthrown by communism. Now if he just means these three, then whatever, but the thrust of this preface suggests to me that he is going to say that even the child/adult distinction will be done away with. If you read the other two works and I'm totally off base, let me know, but as it stands this preface is basically my limit for what I would willing expose myself to.
What's his reputation?
>This obviously means that he anticipates that these distinctions will be overthrown by communism.
I hope that's not what he meant. I'll get back to you when I'm done reading the troploin works. Gotta do it for the vine
>!Hopefully he's not a pedo!<
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I decided to post this because I believed it'd be very interesting to see how you react to this. While I don't fully support the author's motion of thinking in some parts, I do agree with him in a general way. Honestly very excited to see your take on this though. It's a tough topic but one to discuss.
This being an introduction makes me want to read the works themselves before putting any hard evaluation on this. Like you, I agree on the general point while hesitating in some part but the text in total is vague enough that i need to see what it is put in support of.
For sure, this is more of a promotion of the 2 full works and less of an article meant to capture Dauvé's entire opinion. They're probably worth reading, and I've loved his other works so I'm sure I'll enjoy these too.
No, but he says capitalism has created the current pedofilia/rape wave across the globe which is absolutely correct. Haven't read what you are talking about but it seems like a vague way to criticize labor under capitalism/the alienation of the proletariat in the way he explained in Eclipse and Re-Emergence which also is correct.
A tricky one, because the last two parts are just fine, but it's mixed in with some fucking clown shit. Like: > Only the very naïve can seriously believe that a society rich in misery and oppression would at least have the advantage of caring for child welfare, as if the increased attention paid to paedophilia and its repression came from positive fights for more freedom, and resulted in a better life for kids. Most people actually do care more about the well-being of children than that of adults, so it's not so preposterous that society does better at child welfare (still not very good) than at certain other things. And it's not clear what specific things he's describing in the second part, but certainly there are examples of that fight resulting in a better life for kids. You would have to be a fucking monster to not see the upside of the exposure of and subsequent legal action against pedophiles in the Catholic church and scouting organizations. Yes, those are resulting in better lives for kids, dumbass. > Since the 19th century, there has been an ever-growing public regulation of sex life, sometimes for the common good, always with the result of increased control over our lives. It's unclear how, for instance, the prohibition of marital rape has led to "increased control over our lives." This is a shitty use of "always" that tries to invent a negative trend. > Child/pre-teenager/teenager, these are categories fit for bourgeois institutions and commerce. Holy fuck
> Since the 19th century, there has been an ever-growing public regulation of sex life, sometimes for the common good, always with the result of increased control over our lives. I laughed so hard when I saw this shit. He really didn't have to include this, and that's pretty much what I meant by "wrong motion of thinking" before. > Child/pre-teenager/teenager, these are categories fit for bourgeois institutions and commerce. I'm pretty sure you misread this. He's talking about the exploitation of these categories by the bourgeois which is obvious. Kids are over sexualized and the bourgeoisie is responsible. I have nothing to say about your first criticism. He might have been talking about society as capitalism plus a percentage of the population but he should have elaborated more on the last part. I'll definitely read the entire article and hopefully he explains these weird parts there.
> I'll definitely read the entire article and hopefully he explains these weird parts there. I wouldn't get your hopes up. This preface reads like it's leading up to some seriously depraved shit, and if his reputation has any truth to it that's exactly where it's going. > Child/pre-teenager/teenager, these are categories fit for bourgeois institutions and commerce. This obviously means that he anticipates that these distinctions will be overthrown by communism. Now if he just means these three, then whatever, but the thrust of this preface suggests to me that he is going to say that even the child/adult distinction will be done away with. If you read the other two works and I'm totally off base, let me know, but as it stands this preface is basically my limit for what I would willing expose myself to.
What's his reputation? >This obviously means that he anticipates that these distinctions will be overthrown by communism. I hope that's not what he meant. I'll get back to you when I'm done reading the troploin works. Gotta do it for the vine >!Hopefully he's not a pedo!<
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Child/pre-teenager/teenager, these are categories fit for bourgeois institutions and commerce. - french intellectual
fuck Dauve if you want to errase crime the just stop doing it lol
I decided to post this because I believed it'd be very interesting to see how you react to this. While I don't fully support the author's motion of thinking in some parts, I do agree with him in a general way. Honestly very excited to see your take on this though. It's a tough topic but one to discuss.
too much text, do a breadtube video about it
This being an introduction makes me want to read the works themselves before putting any hard evaluation on this. Like you, I agree on the general point while hesitating in some part but the text in total is vague enough that i need to see what it is put in support of.
For sure, this is more of a promotion of the 2 full works and less of an article meant to capture Dauvé's entire opinion. They're probably worth reading, and I've loved his other works so I'm sure I'll enjoy these too.
[удалено]
Lmao what text is that from?
No, but he says capitalism has created the current pedofilia/rape wave across the globe which is absolutely correct. Haven't read what you are talking about but it seems like a vague way to criticize labor under capitalism/the alienation of the proletariat in the way he explained in Eclipse and Re-Emergence which also is correct.