Makeshift_Swahili posted:

1. totally absorbed into state apparatus.
2. allowed to continue with same autonomy, but likely organised by participants through state-owned infrastructure. might see an increase in activity as the sexual culture changes? or maybe decrease idk.
3. totally abolished if we're talking hippy 'spiritual' stuff. 95% of those types are also pacifists so they can easily be crushed. some autonomy for major religions, but eventual phasing out through state education and crackdowns on the most reactionary churches. this last part also goes for #5 i think, i actually havent read marxs on the jewish question yet....
4. female circumcision totally abolished, male circumcision slowly phased out as above.

just my best guesses, also looking forward to non-ironic discusion now that ive got the non-ironic ball rolling.

ok we'll take this slowly

1. I can see an argument for regulation of some of the equipment but what is the rationale behind the State needing to be present and involved each time people wish to ride such vehicles with friends?

2. Why would the participants of dogging wish to involve the State when the pasttime seems to function adequately with no oversight or regulation from government?

Makeshift_Swahili posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

1. I can see an argument for regulation of some of the equipment but what is the rationale behind the State needing to be present and involved each time people wish to ride such vehicles with friends?

how does that atv stuff work? i thought we were talking rentals and stuff. i guess there's hobbyists that own their own. if we're talking about personal ownership of atvs then im not sure theyd be produced in the kind of quantity needed for personal ownership. its certainly not a production priority for obvious reasons maybe make them worth a shitload of labor vouchers or whatever. if people in the future want to tune up old ones from capitalist era and use those that'd be ok.

What about books? Presumably if ATV production is banned because it is a misuse of labor that results in a wasteful leisure activity, the same should go for other wasteful leisure activities like the reading of books. How would you decide what recreational activities and books to ban?

2. Why would the participants of dogging wish to involve the State when the pasttime seems to function adequately with no oversight or regulation from government?

its not so much that the state is particularly interested, its that theyd be organising through communication channels that must be state-owned for obvious reasons.

*hunched over utopian drawings of atv dogging future*

What obvious reasons, I don't follow why the state must own communication-channels such as talking to somebody on the street, that seems weird and dystopian.

roseweird posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Happy snark to you too my friend, I hope you had a good sabbath (it was my birthday!)



it hurts my feelings that you don't even know me well enough to come up with a half decent joke or jab. which maybe is the best insult of all then? good job.

No point giving you a jab because you clearly already have autism

roseweird posted:

i'm just tired of you posting the same identical combative disingenuous mean-spirited shit week after week. a new week and a new iwc thread about hippies and jews. jesus. whatever

i haven't posted for weeks, i've been out and about enjoying the lovely indian summer we've been havin. but while you're here what do you think of this: a sassy new tell-all book from Malala called 'The Taleban and the Bitch!'

roseweird posted:

i think that is hilarious and topical wit that is addressed to me as a person. it's almost like we are talking in the manner of friends who wish to amuse each other and who use their knowledge of each other in order to enrich their conversation. almost.

my girlfriend just asked if i love you what should I say

babyhueypnewton posted:

IWC I recently read a piece of scholarship on this. not the socialist part because your question makes no sense, it confuses liberal multiculturalism with socialism and presupposes ideology won't change. it's in the context of australia too. not sure if you can understand the theoretical apparatus used but it might be helpful anyway in making your thoughts clear instead of confused and stupid.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132841193/Povinelli-The-State-of-Shame-Australian-Multiculturalism-and-the-Crisis-of-Indigenous-Citizenship

i would like to read it but i can only get the preview, what's the gist of her argument, also: what is your view? Also, i'm quite clearly asking what a socialist state would do about these issues: we know what a liberal multicultural state would do because that's what happens now

littlegreenpills posted:

is Judaism a hobby

social customs and the communities

roseweird posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

well thanks to Hollywood and the media every girl is a jewish girl and thanks to the patriarchy every fuck is a hatefuck ergo been there done that



sure

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

IWC I recently read a piece of scholarship on this. not the socialist part because your question makes no sense, it confuses liberal multiculturalism with socialism and presupposes ideology won't change. it's in the context of australia too. not sure if you can understand the theoretical apparatus used but it might be helpful anyway in making your thoughts clear instead of confused and stupid.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132841193/Povinelli-The-State-of-Shame-Australian-Multiculturalism-and-the-Crisis-of-Indigenous-Citizenship

i would like to read it but i can only get the preview, what's the gist of her argument, also: what is your view? Also, i'm quite clearly asking what a socialist state would do about these issues: we know what a liberal multicultural state would do because that's what happens now



oh sorry i thought scribd was free. anyway these "issues" are created as a dialectical 'other' to multiculturalism and simply wouldn't exist under socialism. multiculturalism is the creation of difference and the politics of shame, replacing class struggle and radical counter-liberal tradition with both a safe 'other' and the unsafe other, which are the things you listed. the re-emergence of class struggle under a universal proletarian consciousness would make these not 'issues'

well ok to take i away from future theoretical hypotheticals, how WERE such customs addressed in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China or Castro's Cuba. How were say, traditional Islamic cultural practices in Transcaucasia or Turkestan viewed and addressed by Soviet authorities? I ask non-disingenuously and as somebody who doesn't support 'multiculturalism' anyway.



they weren't, they are issues (as you posed them) inherently tied to multiculturalism as liberal ideology. this is why you need to be theoretically clear and not just throw things around. 'issues' is just a way to say discourse but loaded with liberal ideological assumptions, and discourse is a matter of hegemony and class struggle.

i'm giving you permission to reframe or rephrase it anyway you like but clearly:

1. There were traditional muslims living under the authority of the Soviets. What sort of policies did the Soviet State have regarding the practice of religion in areas where those muslims lived.

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

IWC I recently read a piece of scholarship on this. not the socialist part because your question makes no sense, it confuses liberal multiculturalism with socialism and presupposes ideology won't change. it's in the context of australia too. not sure if you can understand the theoretical apparatus used but it might be helpful anyway in making your thoughts clear instead of confused and stupid.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132841193/Povinelli-The-State-of-Shame-Australian-Multiculturalism-and-the-Crisis-of-Indigenous-Citizenship

i would like to read it but i can only get the preview, what's the gist of her argument, also: what is your view? Also, i'm quite clearly asking what a socialist state would do about these issues: we know what a liberal multicultural state would do because that's what happens now



oh sorry i thought scribd was free. anyway these "issues" are created as a dialectical 'other' to multiculturalism and simply wouldn't exist under socialism. multiculturalism is the creation of difference and the politics of shame, replacing class struggle and radical counter-liberal tradition with both a safe 'other' and the unsafe other, which are the things you listed. the re-emergence of class struggle under a universal proletarian consciousness would make these not 'issues'

well ok to take i away from future theoretical hypotheticals, how WERE such customs addressed in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China or Castro's Cuba. How were say, traditional Islamic cultural practices in Transcaucasia or Turkestan viewed and addressed by Soviet authorities? I ask non-disingenuously and as somebody who doesn't support 'multiculturalism' anyway.



they weren't, they are issues (as you posed them) inherently tied to multiculturalism as liberal ideology. this is why you need to be theoretically clear and not just throw things around. 'issues' is just a way to say discourse but loaded with liberal ideological assumptions, and discourse is a matter of hegemony and class struggle.

i'm giving you permission to reframe or rephrase it anyway you like but clearly:

1. There were traditional muslims living under the authority of the Soviets. What sort of policies did the Soviet State have regarding the practice of religion in areas where those muslims lived.

what are 'traditional' muslims? do you believe fundamentalist muslims are in any way historically 'traditional' and not a reaction to neoliberalism? why is this an 'issue' in the first place? why do you abstract the soviet state from history, as if socialism wasn't itself a production class struggle? you dont get to vomit a bunch of lazy questions and then not interrogate them when called out.

e: philosophy is not a matter of 'phrasing' but a matter of ideology, and your phrasing is simply a manifestation of the liberal assumptions behind your concepts.

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

IWC I recently read a piece of scholarship on this. not the socialist part because your question makes no sense, it confuses liberal multiculturalism with socialism and presupposes ideology won't change. it's in the context of australia too. not sure if you can understand the theoretical apparatus used but it might be helpful anyway in making your thoughts clear instead of confused and stupid.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132841193/Povinelli-The-State-of-Shame-Australian-Multiculturalism-and-the-Crisis-of-Indigenous-Citizenship

i would like to read it but i can only get the preview, what's the gist of her argument, also: what is your view? Also, i'm quite clearly asking what a socialist state would do about these issues: we know what a liberal multicultural state would do because that's what happens now



oh sorry i thought scribd was free. anyway these "issues" are created as a dialectical 'other' to multiculturalism and simply wouldn't exist under socialism. multiculturalism is the creation of difference and the politics of shame, replacing class struggle and radical counter-liberal tradition with both a safe 'other' and the unsafe other, which are the things you listed. the re-emergence of class struggle under a universal proletarian consciousness would make these not 'issues'

well ok to take i away from future theoretical hypotheticals, how WERE such customs addressed in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China or Castro's Cuba. How were say, traditional Islamic cultural practices in Transcaucasia or Turkestan viewed and addressed by Soviet authorities? I ask non-disingenuously and as somebody who doesn't support 'multiculturalism' anyway.



they weren't, they are issues (as you posed them) inherently tied to multiculturalism as liberal ideology. this is why you need to be theoretically clear and not just throw things around. 'issues' is just a way to say discourse but loaded with liberal ideological assumptions, and discourse is a matter of hegemony and class struggle.

i'm giving you permission to reframe or rephrase it anyway you like but clearly:

1. There were traditional muslims living under the authority of the Soviets. What sort of policies did the Soviet State have regarding the practice of religion in areas where those muslims lived.



what are 'traditional' muslims? do you believe fundamentalist muslims are in any way historically 'traditional' and not a reaction to neoliberalism? why is this an 'issue' in the first place? why do you abstract the soviet state from history, as if socialism wasn't itself a production class struggle? you dont get to vomit a bunch of lazy questions and then not interrogate them when called out.

I never said anything about fundamentalist muslims, nor did I abstract the Soviet State from history, but fine: if 'traditional' was too loaded a word here is what I am interested as a potential guide to how the things in the OP might be addressed by a hypothetical socialist state.

1. What policies did the governments of the Uzbek, Tadjik, Kazakh or Kyrgyz SSRs enact concerning religion and the practice thereof?

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

babyhueypnewton posted:

IWC I recently read a piece of scholarship on this. not the socialist part because your question makes no sense, it confuses liberal multiculturalism with socialism and presupposes ideology won't change. it's in the context of australia too. not sure if you can understand the theoretical apparatus used but it might be helpful anyway in making your thoughts clear instead of confused and stupid.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/132841193/Povinelli-The-State-of-Shame-Australian-Multiculturalism-and-the-Crisis-of-Indigenous-Citizenship

i would like to read it but i can only get the preview, what's the gist of her argument, also: what is your view? Also, i'm quite clearly asking what a socialist state would do about these issues: we know what a liberal multicultural state would do because that's what happens now



oh sorry i thought scribd was free. anyway these "issues" are created as a dialectical 'other' to multiculturalism and simply wouldn't exist under socialism. multiculturalism is the creation of difference and the politics of shame, replacing class struggle and radical counter-liberal tradition with both a safe 'other' and the unsafe other, which are the things you listed. the re-emergence of class struggle under a universal proletarian consciousness would make these not 'issues'

well ok to take i away from future theoretical hypotheticals, how WERE such customs addressed in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China or Castro's Cuba. How were say, traditional Islamic cultural practices in Transcaucasia or Turkestan viewed and addressed by Soviet authorities? I ask non-disingenuously and as somebody who doesn't support 'multiculturalism' anyway.



they weren't, they are issues (as you posed them) inherently tied to multiculturalism as liberal ideology. this is why you need to be theoretically clear and not just throw things around. 'issues' is just a way to say discourse but loaded with liberal ideological assumptions, and discourse is a matter of hegemony and class struggle.

i'm giving you permission to reframe or rephrase it anyway you like but clearly:

1. There were traditional muslims living under the authority of the Soviets. What sort of policies did the Soviet State have regarding the practice of religion in areas where those muslims lived.



what are 'traditional' muslims? do you believe fundamentalist muslims are in any way historically 'traditional' and not a reaction to neoliberalism? why is this an 'issue' in the first place? why do you abstract the soviet state from history, as if socialism wasn't itself a production class struggle? you dont get to vomit a bunch of lazy questions and then not interrogate them when called out.

I never said anything about fundamentalist muslims, nor did I abstract the Soviet State from history, but fine: if 'traditional' was too loaded a word here is what I am interested as a potential guide to how the things in the OP might be addressed by a hypothetical socialist state.

1. What policies did the governments of the Uzbek, Tadjik, Kazakh or Kyrgyz SSRs enact concerning religion and the practice thereof?



*sighs heavily* thats not at all what you asked in the op go back to d&d

No shit, the OP was a hypothetical and the last post was an inquiry about history go back to reddit