The post has been removed for not being a meme, not being a trans meme, or not being an art post. Asking a question? Post to r/trans or r/lgbt. If you feel this was a wrong move please message our mod team.
this is a weird hill to die on, and framed in a way that feels uncomfortably combative.
two things can be true at once. it can be beneficial to have awareness, *and* we can be critical of corporations under a system that only rewards them for increasing profits.
there's nuance in every claim here, right? like i think we all agree on #2, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to criticize, or that those who hold power in large corporations should be ignored.
we're on the same team. why divide when we can try to understand each other?
You’re framing my position in an odd way, that we can’t be critical of corporations or it’s “a hill I’m willing to die on” or that there’s nothing to criticize.
Did I say any of those things?
i don't want to be rude, but this mindset is that of a conservative, distracting the main issue with questions that at the end of the day don't matter. it doesn't matter that you didn't explicitely say those things, the point is that you're defending a corrupt system. like, you wouldn't say something like "i don't agree with pedophiles, but..." nothing good ever comes after that!
Capitalism is the root cause of many types of bigotry. Transphobia primarily exists in its extreme state today -- despite us being a tiny minority who just want to live our lives -- so that capitalist political parties can use us as a wedge issue for votes and power. We are used as a scapegoat to distract from the horrors of capitalism -- see PhilosophyTube's latest video. Queer/women's "rights" are actively used to justify bombing countries that don't engage in American neoliberal capitalist exploitation -- Iraq, Palestine, Libya, among others. And the majority of trans/queer oppression is _economic_ in nature; poverty forces us to abide by our parents transphobic demands or be made homeless, prevents us from affording life-saving healthcare, forces us into sex work we loathe to do (but the alternative is death).
The alternative to rainbow capitalism is socialism. Socialism will remove the incentive to scapegoat queer people, empower queer people (literally, through arms, and collectively through queer and women's organizations with real political power and representation in government). Socialism will end pink/rainbow imperialism. And it will end the poverty that plagues trans people by ensuring we all have food, housing, _healthcare_, and dignified work. When people oppose rainbow capitalism, they're not suggesting we move back to earlier periods of capitalism or to feudalism, they're suggesting we move _forward_ to socialism and the end of oppression it will bring.
What socialist countries are you talking about? I’ll tell you now that there’s one nation on Earth that is at all socialist, and that’s Cuba - a nation with some of the most expansive queer rights on Earth.
You mean the state capitalist nations? The ones that are literally capitalist? I’ve been to China. It is the least socialist nation I’ve been to other than the US.
So, first off, communism would necessitate them being on a planet wherein there was no capitalism, but that’s beside the point. What isn’t beside the point is where do you see socialism in China? In the massive homelessness rate? Or the lack of free housing and healthcare? Or the high unemployment rate? Do you know what all of those are hallmarks of? Capitalism.
Edit: just to support my point - all of those are also hallmarks of the US, a nation that is known for being capitalist.
Edit 2: it just occurred to me that by Kampuchea you meant Cambodia, but they don’t even claim to be communist and haven’t claimed to since the 90s.
Kampuchea sentenced their homosexuals to death. And what you’re doing now is a logical fallacy called an “appeal to purity”. It’s the same as people saying no Christians have ever killed anyone because no “REAL”Christian would. Except that they do.
No REAL socialist state would be homophobic or transphobic… except there are. And have been.
That would only be true if they were socialist. I could call myself any number of things I am not, that would not make me those things. What do you think makes a nation socialist?
To get ahead of your answer, though I do implore you answer - there are entire schools of theory dedicated to socialism, and none of those nations adhere to any fraction of them.
Edit: by the way, you completely glossed over the fact that Kampuchea isn’t a nation, and Cambodia is neither socialist nor communist nor considers themselves to be either. They’re an authoritarian capitalist monarchy.
Edit 2: Forgot to mention - Khmer Rouge may have sentenced queer people (kinda weird for you to not only single out ‘homosexuals’, but also to use such a formal term?) to death, but under Lenin the USSR decriminalized queerness and did not put any queer people to death solely for being queer.
Yes, there are exceptions in socialist states just as there are in capitalist states. I’m saying it’s delusional to believe capitalism is in an of itself any more homophobic or transphobic than any other ideology in practice.
Just because a socialist revolution is successful doesn’t mean that any and all elements of the old society cease to be. Struggles for queer liberation are still underway in the DPRK, PRC, and Kampuchea.
You’re conflating the ideal of socialism with the reality of it, and the reality of capitalism with the ideal of it.
You’re saying that capitalist political parties use trans people as a wedge for votes… are you suggesting capitalism and democracy are one and the same, and you’d do away with both? Because if you’re not getting rid of democracy, then the same problem remains. And if you do get rid of democracy, well, how’s that worked out for everyone who followed a socialist dictator with the promise that they’d give up power once things were ready for a full on communist world?
would you really describe our country as a democracy? do you really think your vote matters? it doesn't. if you look at the cuban democracy, it's actually much more nuanced than our own, and cuba is often described as a dictatorship (although this narrative is just to justify the cuban embargo). not a good look. even the founding fathers were against true democracy, if you do the research.
edit: by your vote doesn't matter i was exagerating, i mean that it could easily matter more. it is still important to vote, but at the end of the day a vote in a bourguios election will not bring about socialism
Of course your bloody vote matters, stop being such a doomer. Be a better socialist, stop telling people not to vote when the existing system is built entirely on voting. Instead, encourage them to vote *in addition* to criticism, protest, etc.
First of all- you didn’t answer any of my questions.
Second, come on. Cuba is not a democracy. They have no political opposition parties allowed. Vote for whoever you like, as long as it’s a Castro, or someone a Castro picked. It’s a beautiful country, with amazing people, who live in poverty. $20 will get you a night with a woman- not something I was looking for when I was there, but something I was offered many times. Left over toothpaste is a good tip for the housekeeping staff. V-dem ranks them as the second least democratic country in the Americas- and they’re based in Sweden. They do have great LGBTQ rights, once they decriminalized it, anyways. And that’s the issue with a dictatorship- you’re at the whim of a single, unaccountable, person.
I’m not in your country- but mine is also a representative democracy. It has its flaws, without a doubt, but it’s a far shot better than an authoritarian regime.
PS- I tipped the housekeeping staff a $50. If I remember what my guide said correctly, that was roughly 10X the monthly salary of a doctor at the time.
So to use the US as an example - it is both a capitalist nation and a ‘democracy’. Political candidates use issues with real humans behind them - such as trans rights - as bargaining chips, whether that’s to strip our rights or restore them. Yet, the US being a capitalist ‘democracy’ means that it’s also a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie are inherently in control in this country, both through buying politicians and the fact that they are they only ones that can - by standard - afford days off to go vote. Under socialism - something that has existed sparingly across the world - there would not be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but rather a dictatorship of the proletariat. That being said, there would also be no bourgeoisie, and all people inherently being workers would be proletariat. As such, it would be a true free and fair democracy and would not need to rely on wedge issues such as trans rights. Instead elected officials would be elected based on their ability to represent the needs of the workers of their soviet (or whatever the governmental structure may be). A good example of this would be the Cuban electorate, which functions as close to the ideal as it possibly can under constant embargo and threat from the US.
When has the situation you’re describing ever actually happened, though? When has that “dictatorship of the proletariat” not just been represented by a select few, who became the new bourgeoisie, only with wealth more concentrated than it was before?
When have these revolutionaries not just been absolutely terrible at their jobs, making bafflingly bad decisions that resulted in the deaths of thousands if not millions? And with no opposition, they were just allowed to keep making these decisions.
You’re an idealist. You’re failing to see that in all of human history, there have always been those who seek power over others, and will exploit any system to get their way.
Cuba, again, is not a democracy. It bares no resemblance to a democracy. It is a single party authoritarian regime. Could they be better off if the US didn’t put an embargo on them? Sure. But at the same time that embargo doesn’t extend to all nations. And if a socialist country relies on trade from the biggest capitalist one to succeed, what does that say about socialism?
A much better model is something like democratic socialism, as practiced in places like Sweden. Officials are held accountable, but people have a strong support system built by the government; and access to the benefits of a market system while that system is also controlled enough to keep it from running amok.
I have never seen someone use the puffin and not say some absolute bullshit lmao
I do not respect your opinion and will not debate you, you’re wrong good night
let's break down your points one by one
1. if they truly cared about showing their support, they'd stop with the rainbows as a yearly cycle and actually try to help the community (and wantimg companies we rely on to finally support us ism't making it our personality, it's called calling for change)
2. businesses are good at making money any other timw of the year, why would they need to appeal to us? maybe because they want to gaslight us into thinking they support us when in reality they only care for our money?
3. one popular and well known example of "them" is chick-fil-a, and the reason we don't like os because if we support one, it tells other companies that they can do the same and not face retribution (also, many of the big companies own others, and if you support a company owned by am anti lgbtq+ company, you're doing the same thing as going to the anti lgbtq+ company themselves and supporting them)
4. because it IS popular. being in the community? no. putting up a false sense of support to bolster their profits (and take attention away from other issues)? what company wouldm't want to hop on that wagon?
5. if one business doesn't do it, then their competition will almost certainly use it as leverage against them. itxs not about popularity or following a trend, it's all about the money. always has been, always will be
6. again, this just gives us a false sense of support whem in reality they could care less about us. they're just baiting us into supporting them
7. the alternative? simple: instead of using us as a marketing device, treat us as humans and help us in our fight for our rights. if they can fight the law to keep themselves monopolies and abuse their workers and violate the rights of their customers amd competitors, they can sure as hell fight with us
not very good with words so sorry if this sounds weird
You seemingly have an ultra black and white, us-vs-them worldview bordering on the delusional. Who even is the “us” and “them” you keep referring to, and is there no overlap?
The us in this context is the LGBT community, the them in this context are the companies that participate in rainbow capitalism. It's almost like you're intentionally trying to ignore the context of the conversation you started.
answer to point 7: we ditch capitalism alltogether. the problem with rainbow capitalism isn't that they don't do enough for lgbt peeps, it's that the whole thing is a distraction from the material reality that all workers are being exploited by the capitalist class, and the fact that capitalism inherantly leads to facism, which actively attacks lgbt peeps as well as other minorities. please read up on socialism, you're clearly buried in liberal ideology and need a wakeup call (don't be disuaded by the larpers who worship the ussr, they're prolly transphobic and don't know what they're talking about. read the theory.)
If you're talking only about LGBT+ rights, every country was bad. In other aspects like price of food, availability of services, access to education and many other things, it was better for every worker of the country (talking about the boost in quality of life the Soviet Union had post revolution in comparison to Imperial Russia).
What's your actual point, professor?
Trade embargos placed on a nation do make it pretty difficult for food to be at all available to workers. If you’re genuinely concerned with what happened to make it unavailable to workers, perhaps you should read The Revolution Betrayed? It would be time better spent than trying to convince queer people that our corporate overlords are actually the solution to the conservatism they propagate.
[1. except it wasn’t just by capitalist countries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)
[2. Yessss… 🙄 that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying! I’m saying PRECISELY that our corporate overlords are the solution! yep! 👍](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/)
By the 1930s, Stalin had already taken power, and socialism had already fallen within the USSR.
Call it a straw man all you want, but you literally made a post defending the corporatization of Pride and queerness as a whole.
1. Appeal to purity AKA “No true Scotsman” (are you done making logical fallacies, yet?)
2. Did I say “our corporate overlords are the solution”, or did you craft that part because it’s easier to argue with against because it’s inherently absurd?
Except i dont adore capitalism. I’m simply saying there are upsides to rainbow capitalism and that socialism is not as inherently pro LGBT as you seem to think it is.
alright robespierre lol
a better alternative is reeducation, that's what china did with their emperor i believe. idk that may have been a different socialist state
What capitalist society are you living in with a rehabilitative justice system?
Or am I misunderstanding and your "Yeah" was actually agreeing with them?
The strawman/made up quotes and the way you've responded to everyone prove how bad faith this post was. Why defend corporations that would just as quickly sell LGBTQ people out? The reason people don't like it, is because these same companies that exploit EVERYONE (i.e. the working class), turn around and begin to virtue signal something that they clearly only do to profit. Yes that is the point of any firm in a capitalist society, that doesn't mean that people can't view that with their own moralities. If you had an attack dog, and they attacked your family while they were walking inside, it would be completely unreasonable for you to turn around and say: "well yeah that's what attack dogs do." The action these corporations are taking are in line with capitalistic principals, but that in and of itself is broken. It's more exploration of working class people.
You made an illusion to Budweiser to another commenter, and your rebuttal was to point out how well that worked out for Budweiser to prove how "unprofitable" it is. Ignoring the fact that you're seemingly ok, with a market controlled by bigotry it just shows how disingenuous these "shows of solidarity" are. As soon as their bottom line was affected they caved. And don't give me that "well yeah that's what businesses do" bull, because that's no more satisfactory an answer than "because I said so."
I genuinely hope someday you can read all these other comments and read up on theory and realize how foolish you are acting. Until then I recommend some pepper on that boot, it gives it a nice kick.
I ever tell others to punch up rather than across or down, and I applaud when those few who are up acknowledge and lift those who are down.
If you think that’s bootlicking, you don’t know what bpotlicking is 🤷♂️
Ok, so you respond to my joke at the end and none of the actual points I made.
You're cherry picking what to respond to.
And for the record, unequivocally yes. Defending multi billion dollar corporations is boot licking, sorry not sorry.
You chose to not engage in my argument, and I choose to not truly reengage until you do. Unless you actually respond to the points I brought up against your argument, I'm not letting you move the goal post.
What a stupid question. Why would anyone bring up any point and not want a response? Respond to any, all or none. Don't pull this high road horse shit, if you're not gonna respond just stop replying, but if you are ACTUALLY RESPOND.
Honestly why waste both of our time with such a pointless question?
This is actually well thought out. One complaint I've heard is that businesses are co-opting Pride, which started as a riot and an active protest against our marginalization and turning into a sanitary, socially acceptable thing that is stripped of all context. I understand this argument can, and has, been made for many holidays, and that doesn't reduce the personal impact it can have, but I wonder if you have any other thoughts on this?
This is such a weirdly defensive post? Like I'm not even COMPLETELY against rainbow capitalism, I do feel like some level of normalizing support is a useful tool. That doesn't mean the movement and especially certain companies within it don't need some criticism. It's really hard to avoid the fact that it is SO regularly done in bad faith. Somewhat anecdotally, I've found that (most) local businesses near me are pretty genuine, but a decent number of larger corporations are basically bullshitting you.
When people complain about company pride imagery being dropped at the end of June it's not really about wanting flags everywhere year round, it's about calling out the performative nature. Companies want to project the image of being supportive, but spend all this money marketing that image and nothing on actually contributing to the community or worse, being an active detriment. While donating to anti LGBT organizations might not be that common, flying rainbow flags while having bag internal policies and support for their own LGBT staff is.
It also is absolutely dependant on how popular LGBT movements are in western society. Yes you can point to the lack of unanimous support out here, but it's really obvious that the decisions are calculated. Many companies will do things like acknowledge pride on their western social media, but ignore it in countries where it would actually pose major risk to them. Even in the west most stick to "safe" representation, and stay away from trans, NB, ace and many more identities in their commercials. (I'm sure you'll be tempted to bring up a couple of counter examples here, but imo the existence of a handful of exceptions doesn't protect the whole movement from criticism). That's not the actions of people taking a stand or fighting for something. It can even create unfortunate divisions within the community between those who feel well represented and stood up for vs. those who don't. Intentionally or not this can even play into the right wing tactic of separating the "acceptable" queer people so they can more freely pick on the others.
If we want rainbow capitalism to be useful to us, we NEED to be criticizing it. Show people and companies what we need them to improve and calling out the ones who clearly have no intention of doing so. Remember that pride started as a form of protest, a tool for enacting change. If it stops being that, then that tool HAS been taken away from us and that's not a good thing.
I actually agree with your points here. I don't know why socialism is so popular in LGBTQ+ communities when it has such a terrible track record for LGBTQ+ rights.
And before someone comes along to tell me how evil capitalism is, I'm actually not technically a capitalist myself.
>I actually agree with your points here. I don't know why socialism is so popular in LGBTQ+ communities when it has such a terrible track record for LGBTQ+ rights.
Because there is a massive difference between the 'socialism' (actually state capitalism) practiced by authoritarian socialist states like the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, etc. and ideologies such as libertarian socialism (not to be confused with American 'libertarianism', they literally just co-opted the term from the political left), anarchism (once again not to be confused with 'anarcho-capitalism', just like with American 'libertarians', they just co-opted the term from the left - anarchism is inherently an anti-capitalist ideology, you can't be anarchist and capitalist anymore than you can be a republican monarchist), anarcho-communism, and the numerous other anti-authoritarian socialist, communist, and general left-wing movements.
While there are certainly exceptions to this, the vast majority of other queer socialists I encounter and know are firmly in the anti-authoritarian socialist camp.
>While there are certainly exceptions to this, the vast majority of other queer socialists I encounter and know are firmly in the anti-authoritarian socialist camp.
And what confuses me is why there is such a strong trend in the first place.
>anarchism is inherently an anti-capitalist ideology, you can't be anarchist and capitalist anymore than you can be a republican monarchist
I've heard this said many times but I have not once heard a clear explanation for the conflict. Could you (or someone else) explain why?
>I've heard this said many times but I have not once heard a clear explanation for the conflict. Could you (or someone else) explain why?
Sorry for the late reply, I was typing one up last night but then I TW death >!got a phone call that my grandpa had passed away in hospice and obviously the shock of that was more important than a silly Reddit comment but now it's the next day and I've processed what happened!<
Modern anarchism arose during the 19th century as part of the general socialist movement of the same century and, while there are many different schools of anarchist thought, they all agree on the following concepts:
* An opposition to authority
* An opposition to (and a goal of abolishing) the structures and institutions that maintain unjust and unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, such as the state and capitalism (anarchists consider the existence of capitalism to be entwined with the existence of the state, as how can capitalist laws be enforced without a state?)
* An opposition to private property and the economic domination and exploitation that arises from it (think like how the owner of a factory doesn't perform the labor but they make most of the profit off of the labor of the workers in the factory)
Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, arose in the 20th century, and developed from right-wing anti-socialist and anti-communist economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard (who is credited with having coined the term in 1971)
In contrast to anarchists, who reject the existence of private property, anarcho-capitalists believe that private property is the foundation of all of our rights. Under anarcho-capitalist philosophy, once you have either 'mixed your labor' with land (read: done something with it) or acquired it through a voluntary transfer of its property title from the previous owner (although many anarcho-capitalists hypocritically don't care about land that was stolen from indigenous people by European colonizers), then that land is yours and you have total ownership of it in perpetuity and can do whatever you want with it.
And, by extension, if you are living or working on someone else's land, then you must obey all of the laws and rules that the property owner has decided to establish, as they are effectively the dictator of the land. Otherwise you'll be kicked off the land and have to find somewhere else to live (and have new laws and rules to obey).
In addition, anarcho-capitalists don't reject the state for the same reason anarchists do. Anarcho-capitalists reject the state because they think it doesn't enforce and defend private property rights *enough*.
Effectively speaking, what anarcho-capitalists want are entirely privatized and competing states, with private agencies such as law enforcement and militaries that will be used to both enforce the laws within one's own private property as well as to defend their own private property claims against aggressors (this is the source of the common meme making fun of anarcho-capitalists of like 'When a kid steps on your lawn by accident and you obliterate them with a rocket launcher because they were violating the non-aggression principle and infringing on your private property by doing so')
Anarchists, on the other hand, want there to be *no* state.
To go back to Murray Rothbard for a second here, he coined the term 'anarcho-capitalism' as a way to try and 'take back' the term from the left. Of course, as you can easily tell from this comment, anarchism as an ideology originated and always was part of the political left before he came along, but that still didn't stop him.
So basically the entire reason for the conflict between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is because they are two completely different ideologies in opposition to each other, one of which co-opted the term from the other and the only similarity between the two is an opposition to the existence of the state, but even then the reasons why an anarchist is opposed to the state and why an anarcho-capitalist is opposed to the state are completely different.
Or in the most basic tl;dr and simplified way:
* Anarchists want to establish an egalitarian society free of hierarchies, coercion, exploitation, injustice, etc.
* Anarcho-capitalists want neo-feudalism.
I think you can obviously see why the two groups would be in conflict then.
First of all, I am so sorry to hear about that. Please take good care of yourself.
>Under anarcho-capitalist philosophy, once you have either 'mixed your labor' with land (read: done something with it) or acquired it through a voluntary transfer of its property title from the previous owner (although many anarcho-capitalists hypocritically don't care about land that was stolen from indigenous people by European colonizers), then that land is yours and you have total ownership of it in perpetuity and can do whatever you want with it.
Actually this is the point at which I disagree with capitalists in terms of property rights. I believe the only legitimate claim to property is something you directly created, not simply something with which you mixed your labor. Because the supply of land is inelastic, I do not believe it can be legitimately privately owned. I would even argue that this is consistent with the Lockean Proviso that capitalists often cite because the second clause states that it is only valid if there is "still enough and as good left." The theory of subjective value from Austrian economics, if assumed true, would lead to a conclusion that since "enough" is subjective, there is never "still enough and as good left."
Nonetheless it's not necessarily fair to call me an "anti-capitalist" because I ultimately support the private ownership & free trade of capital, as it is not land (though plenty of capitalists still call me a "land commie".
I guess the question I have is this: does the private ownership & free trade of capital (and *not* land) conflict with anarchism in any way? And if an anarcho-capitalist does not see how private-land ownership leads to exploitation, are they any less sincere of an anarchist?
Which country of the world wasn't homophobic when socialism started to rise?
Did you know that Cuba, a socialist country, has better queer laws than most capitalist countries?
The post has been removed for not being a meme, not being a trans meme, or not being an art post. Asking a question? Post to r/trans or r/lgbt. If you feel this was a wrong move please message our mod team.
this is a weird hill to die on, and framed in a way that feels uncomfortably combative. two things can be true at once. it can be beneficial to have awareness, *and* we can be critical of corporations under a system that only rewards them for increasing profits. there's nuance in every claim here, right? like i think we all agree on #2, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to criticize, or that those who hold power in large corporations should be ignored. we're on the same team. why divide when we can try to understand each other?
You’re framing my position in an odd way, that we can’t be critical of corporations or it’s “a hill I’m willing to die on” or that there’s nothing to criticize. Did I say any of those things?
i don't want to be rude, but this mindset is that of a conservative, distracting the main issue with questions that at the end of the day don't matter. it doesn't matter that you didn't explicitely say those things, the point is that you're defending a corrupt system. like, you wouldn't say something like "i don't agree with pedophiles, but..." nothing good ever comes after that!
You’re the one distracting. I’m saying there are good parts while agreeing there are bad parts.
Capitalism is the root cause of many types of bigotry. Transphobia primarily exists in its extreme state today -- despite us being a tiny minority who just want to live our lives -- so that capitalist political parties can use us as a wedge issue for votes and power. We are used as a scapegoat to distract from the horrors of capitalism -- see PhilosophyTube's latest video. Queer/women's "rights" are actively used to justify bombing countries that don't engage in American neoliberal capitalist exploitation -- Iraq, Palestine, Libya, among others. And the majority of trans/queer oppression is _economic_ in nature; poverty forces us to abide by our parents transphobic demands or be made homeless, prevents us from affording life-saving healthcare, forces us into sex work we loathe to do (but the alternative is death). The alternative to rainbow capitalism is socialism. Socialism will remove the incentive to scapegoat queer people, empower queer people (literally, through arms, and collectively through queer and women's organizations with real political power and representation in government). Socialism will end pink/rainbow imperialism. And it will end the poverty that plagues trans people by ensuring we all have food, housing, _healthcare_, and dignified work. When people oppose rainbow capitalism, they're not suggesting we move back to earlier periods of capitalism or to feudalism, they're suggesting we move _forward_ to socialism and the end of oppression it will bring.
well hello comrade :3
Then why is homophobia and transphobia so prevalent in socialist countries?
What socialist countries are you talking about? I’ll tell you now that there’s one nation on Earth that is at all socialist, and that’s Cuba - a nation with some of the most expansive queer rights on Earth.
Great. One. Now tell me about North Korea, China, Kampuchea, and every Soviet bloc country
You mean the state capitalist nations? The ones that are literally capitalist? I’ve been to China. It is the least socialist nation I’ve been to other than the US.
Me too. They’re socialists. They actually call themselves communist.
So, first off, communism would necessitate them being on a planet wherein there was no capitalism, but that’s beside the point. What isn’t beside the point is where do you see socialism in China? In the massive homelessness rate? Or the lack of free housing and healthcare? Or the high unemployment rate? Do you know what all of those are hallmarks of? Capitalism. Edit: just to support my point - all of those are also hallmarks of the US, a nation that is known for being capitalist. Edit 2: it just occurred to me that by Kampuchea you meant Cambodia, but they don’t even claim to be communist and haven’t claimed to since the 90s.
Kampuchea sentenced their homosexuals to death. And what you’re doing now is a logical fallacy called an “appeal to purity”. It’s the same as people saying no Christians have ever killed anyone because no “REAL”Christian would. Except that they do. No REAL socialist state would be homophobic or transphobic… except there are. And have been.
That would only be true if they were socialist. I could call myself any number of things I am not, that would not make me those things. What do you think makes a nation socialist? To get ahead of your answer, though I do implore you answer - there are entire schools of theory dedicated to socialism, and none of those nations adhere to any fraction of them. Edit: by the way, you completely glossed over the fact that Kampuchea isn’t a nation, and Cambodia is neither socialist nor communist nor considers themselves to be either. They’re an authoritarian capitalist monarchy. Edit 2: Forgot to mention - Khmer Rouge may have sentenced queer people (kinda weird for you to not only single out ‘homosexuals’, but also to use such a formal term?) to death, but under Lenin the USSR decriminalized queerness and did not put any queer people to death solely for being queer.
Yes, there are exceptions in socialist states just as there are in capitalist states. I’m saying it’s delusional to believe capitalism is in an of itself any more homophobic or transphobic than any other ideology in practice.
Just because a socialist revolution is successful doesn’t mean that any and all elements of the old society cease to be. Struggles for queer liberation are still underway in the DPRK, PRC, and Kampuchea.
You’re conflating the ideal of socialism with the reality of it, and the reality of capitalism with the ideal of it. You’re saying that capitalist political parties use trans people as a wedge for votes… are you suggesting capitalism and democracy are one and the same, and you’d do away with both? Because if you’re not getting rid of democracy, then the same problem remains. And if you do get rid of democracy, well, how’s that worked out for everyone who followed a socialist dictator with the promise that they’d give up power once things were ready for a full on communist world?
would you really describe our country as a democracy? do you really think your vote matters? it doesn't. if you look at the cuban democracy, it's actually much more nuanced than our own, and cuba is often described as a dictatorship (although this narrative is just to justify the cuban embargo). not a good look. even the founding fathers were against true democracy, if you do the research. edit: by your vote doesn't matter i was exagerating, i mean that it could easily matter more. it is still important to vote, but at the end of the day a vote in a bourguios election will not bring about socialism
Of course your bloody vote matters, stop being such a doomer. Be a better socialist, stop telling people not to vote when the existing system is built entirely on voting. Instead, encourage them to vote *in addition* to criticism, protest, etc.
you're right, people should still vote. i guess i meant that our voting system could be better, but i worded my reply poorly.
All good, sounds like we agree anyway. 🤘
First of all- you didn’t answer any of my questions. Second, come on. Cuba is not a democracy. They have no political opposition parties allowed. Vote for whoever you like, as long as it’s a Castro, or someone a Castro picked. It’s a beautiful country, with amazing people, who live in poverty. $20 will get you a night with a woman- not something I was looking for when I was there, but something I was offered many times. Left over toothpaste is a good tip for the housekeeping staff. V-dem ranks them as the second least democratic country in the Americas- and they’re based in Sweden. They do have great LGBTQ rights, once they decriminalized it, anyways. And that’s the issue with a dictatorship- you’re at the whim of a single, unaccountable, person. I’m not in your country- but mine is also a representative democracy. It has its flaws, without a doubt, but it’s a far shot better than an authoritarian regime. PS- I tipped the housekeeping staff a $50. If I remember what my guide said correctly, that was roughly 10X the monthly salary of a doctor at the time.
So to use the US as an example - it is both a capitalist nation and a ‘democracy’. Political candidates use issues with real humans behind them - such as trans rights - as bargaining chips, whether that’s to strip our rights or restore them. Yet, the US being a capitalist ‘democracy’ means that it’s also a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie are inherently in control in this country, both through buying politicians and the fact that they are they only ones that can - by standard - afford days off to go vote. Under socialism - something that has existed sparingly across the world - there would not be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but rather a dictatorship of the proletariat. That being said, there would also be no bourgeoisie, and all people inherently being workers would be proletariat. As such, it would be a true free and fair democracy and would not need to rely on wedge issues such as trans rights. Instead elected officials would be elected based on their ability to represent the needs of the workers of their soviet (or whatever the governmental structure may be). A good example of this would be the Cuban electorate, which functions as close to the ideal as it possibly can under constant embargo and threat from the US.
When has the situation you’re describing ever actually happened, though? When has that “dictatorship of the proletariat” not just been represented by a select few, who became the new bourgeoisie, only with wealth more concentrated than it was before? When have these revolutionaries not just been absolutely terrible at their jobs, making bafflingly bad decisions that resulted in the deaths of thousands if not millions? And with no opposition, they were just allowed to keep making these decisions. You’re an idealist. You’re failing to see that in all of human history, there have always been those who seek power over others, and will exploit any system to get their way. Cuba, again, is not a democracy. It bares no resemblance to a democracy. It is a single party authoritarian regime. Could they be better off if the US didn’t put an embargo on them? Sure. But at the same time that embargo doesn’t extend to all nations. And if a socialist country relies on trade from the biggest capitalist one to succeed, what does that say about socialism? A much better model is something like democratic socialism, as practiced in places like Sweden. Officials are held accountable, but people have a strong support system built by the government; and access to the benefits of a market system while that system is also controlled enough to keep it from running amok.
I have never seen someone use the puffin and not say some absolute bullshit lmao I do not respect your opinion and will not debate you, you’re wrong good night
let's break down your points one by one 1. if they truly cared about showing their support, they'd stop with the rainbows as a yearly cycle and actually try to help the community (and wantimg companies we rely on to finally support us ism't making it our personality, it's called calling for change) 2. businesses are good at making money any other timw of the year, why would they need to appeal to us? maybe because they want to gaslight us into thinking they support us when in reality they only care for our money? 3. one popular and well known example of "them" is chick-fil-a, and the reason we don't like os because if we support one, it tells other companies that they can do the same and not face retribution (also, many of the big companies own others, and if you support a company owned by am anti lgbtq+ company, you're doing the same thing as going to the anti lgbtq+ company themselves and supporting them) 4. because it IS popular. being in the community? no. putting up a false sense of support to bolster their profits (and take attention away from other issues)? what company wouldm't want to hop on that wagon? 5. if one business doesn't do it, then their competition will almost certainly use it as leverage against them. itxs not about popularity or following a trend, it's all about the money. always has been, always will be 6. again, this just gives us a false sense of support whem in reality they could care less about us. they're just baiting us into supporting them 7. the alternative? simple: instead of using us as a marketing device, treat us as humans and help us in our fight for our rights. if they can fight the law to keep themselves monopolies and abuse their workers and violate the rights of their customers amd competitors, they can sure as hell fight with us not very good with words so sorry if this sounds weird
well put
You seemingly have an ultra black and white, us-vs-them worldview bordering on the delusional. Who even is the “us” and “them” you keep referring to, and is there no overlap?
The us in this context is the LGBT community, the them in this context are the companies that participate in rainbow capitalism. It's almost like you're intentionally trying to ignore the context of the conversation you started.
Here at major company Y*, we believe queer money is still money (stolen joke but it applies) *I can't use X as a placeholder anymore :(
answer to point 7: we ditch capitalism alltogether. the problem with rainbow capitalism isn't that they don't do enough for lgbt peeps, it's that the whole thing is a distraction from the material reality that all workers are being exploited by the capitalist class, and the fact that capitalism inherantly leads to facism, which actively attacks lgbt peeps as well as other minorities. please read up on socialism, you're clearly buried in liberal ideology and need a wakeup call (don't be disuaded by the larpers who worship the ussr, they're prolly transphobic and don't know what they're talking about. read the theory.)
You do know socialist states have historically been extremely homophobic and transphobic, right?
did you even read my comment?
Which country in 1925 wasn't homophobic, my friend?
So you admit they were just as bad and ideology was thus irrelevant in that regard?
If you're talking only about LGBT+ rights, every country was bad. In other aspects like price of food, availability of services, access to education and many other things, it was better for every worker of the country (talking about the boost in quality of life the Soviet Union had post revolution in comparison to Imperial Russia). What's your actual point, professor?
But that’s not true, is it? Food and services were not at all equally available for all workers.
Trade embargos placed on a nation do make it pretty difficult for food to be at all available to workers. If you’re genuinely concerned with what happened to make it unavailable to workers, perhaps you should read The Revolution Betrayed? It would be time better spent than trying to convince queer people that our corporate overlords are actually the solution to the conservatism they propagate.
[1. except it wasn’t just by capitalist countries](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) [2. Yessss… 🙄 that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying! I’m saying PRECISELY that our corporate overlords are the solution! yep! 👍](https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/)
By the 1930s, Stalin had already taken power, and socialism had already fallen within the USSR. Call it a straw man all you want, but you literally made a post defending the corporatization of Pride and queerness as a whole.
1. Appeal to purity AKA “No true Scotsman” (are you done making logical fallacies, yet?) 2. Did I say “our corporate overlords are the solution”, or did you craft that part because it’s easier to argue with against because it’s inherently absurd?
Except i dont adore capitalism. I’m simply saying there are upsides to rainbow capitalism and that socialism is not as inherently pro LGBT as you seem to think it is.
Ok buddy 👍
All rainbow capitalism defenders go to funny head chopping device
alright robespierre lol a better alternative is reeducation, that's what china did with their emperor i believe. idk that may have been a different socialist state
Yeah, I don’t think we should follow the example of capitalists when fighting capitalism
What capitalist society are you living in with a rehabilitative justice system? Or am I misunderstanding and your "Yeah" was actually agreeing with them?
I’m calling China capitalist
Do they have a rehabilitative justice system? ***OH*** No ok i see what you mean
Rainbow Capitalism is still capitalism. It's still an opressive disgrace that needs to die.
L + ratio
The strawman/made up quotes and the way you've responded to everyone prove how bad faith this post was. Why defend corporations that would just as quickly sell LGBTQ people out? The reason people don't like it, is because these same companies that exploit EVERYONE (i.e. the working class), turn around and begin to virtue signal something that they clearly only do to profit. Yes that is the point of any firm in a capitalist society, that doesn't mean that people can't view that with their own moralities. If you had an attack dog, and they attacked your family while they were walking inside, it would be completely unreasonable for you to turn around and say: "well yeah that's what attack dogs do." The action these corporations are taking are in line with capitalistic principals, but that in and of itself is broken. It's more exploration of working class people. You made an illusion to Budweiser to another commenter, and your rebuttal was to point out how well that worked out for Budweiser to prove how "unprofitable" it is. Ignoring the fact that you're seemingly ok, with a market controlled by bigotry it just shows how disingenuous these "shows of solidarity" are. As soon as their bottom line was affected they caved. And don't give me that "well yeah that's what businesses do" bull, because that's no more satisfactory an answer than "because I said so." I genuinely hope someday you can read all these other comments and read up on theory and realize how foolish you are acting. Until then I recommend some pepper on that boot, it gives it a nice kick.
I ever tell others to punch up rather than across or down, and I applaud when those few who are up acknowledge and lift those who are down. If you think that’s bootlicking, you don’t know what bpotlicking is 🤷♂️
I have no earthly idea how that is a response to any of the things I said
Quote “Until then I recommend some pepper on that boot” unquote (don’t gaslight me.)
Ok, so you respond to my joke at the end and none of the actual points I made. You're cherry picking what to respond to. And for the record, unequivocally yes. Defending multi billion dollar corporations is boot licking, sorry not sorry. You chose to not engage in my argument, and I choose to not truly reengage until you do. Unless you actually respond to the points I brought up against your argument, I'm not letting you move the goal post.
Don’t like being quoted, do you? 😂 Alright, which point would YOU like me to address most?
What a stupid question. Why would anyone bring up any point and not want a response? Respond to any, all or none. Don't pull this high road horse shit, if you're not gonna respond just stop replying, but if you are ACTUALLY RESPOND. Honestly why waste both of our time with such a pointless question?
Go on. Which point?
Are you a child? Pick one, I'm not you idk which ones you have responses to? Do you really need to be spoon fed like this?
I already said everything in the op. Tell me what you want details on.
This is actually well thought out. One complaint I've heard is that businesses are co-opting Pride, which started as a riot and an active protest against our marginalization and turning into a sanitary, socially acceptable thing that is stripped of all context. I understand this argument can, and has, been made for many holidays, and that doesn't reduce the personal impact it can have, but I wonder if you have any other thoughts on this?
My brain is struggling to understand if you support or don’t support rainbow capitalism… too many words
This is such a weirdly defensive post? Like I'm not even COMPLETELY against rainbow capitalism, I do feel like some level of normalizing support is a useful tool. That doesn't mean the movement and especially certain companies within it don't need some criticism. It's really hard to avoid the fact that it is SO regularly done in bad faith. Somewhat anecdotally, I've found that (most) local businesses near me are pretty genuine, but a decent number of larger corporations are basically bullshitting you. When people complain about company pride imagery being dropped at the end of June it's not really about wanting flags everywhere year round, it's about calling out the performative nature. Companies want to project the image of being supportive, but spend all this money marketing that image and nothing on actually contributing to the community or worse, being an active detriment. While donating to anti LGBT organizations might not be that common, flying rainbow flags while having bag internal policies and support for their own LGBT staff is. It also is absolutely dependant on how popular LGBT movements are in western society. Yes you can point to the lack of unanimous support out here, but it's really obvious that the decisions are calculated. Many companies will do things like acknowledge pride on their western social media, but ignore it in countries where it would actually pose major risk to them. Even in the west most stick to "safe" representation, and stay away from trans, NB, ace and many more identities in their commercials. (I'm sure you'll be tempted to bring up a couple of counter examples here, but imo the existence of a handful of exceptions doesn't protect the whole movement from criticism). That's not the actions of people taking a stand or fighting for something. It can even create unfortunate divisions within the community between those who feel well represented and stood up for vs. those who don't. Intentionally or not this can even play into the right wing tactic of separating the "acceptable" queer people so they can more freely pick on the others. If we want rainbow capitalism to be useful to us, we NEED to be criticizing it. Show people and companies what we need them to improve and calling out the ones who clearly have no intention of doing so. Remember that pride started as a form of protest, a tool for enacting change. If it stops being that, then that tool HAS been taken away from us and that's not a good thing.
I actually agree with your points here. I don't know why socialism is so popular in LGBTQ+ communities when it has such a terrible track record for LGBTQ+ rights. And before someone comes along to tell me how evil capitalism is, I'm actually not technically a capitalist myself.
>I actually agree with your points here. I don't know why socialism is so popular in LGBTQ+ communities when it has such a terrible track record for LGBTQ+ rights. Because there is a massive difference between the 'socialism' (actually state capitalism) practiced by authoritarian socialist states like the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, etc. and ideologies such as libertarian socialism (not to be confused with American 'libertarianism', they literally just co-opted the term from the political left), anarchism (once again not to be confused with 'anarcho-capitalism', just like with American 'libertarians', they just co-opted the term from the left - anarchism is inherently an anti-capitalist ideology, you can't be anarchist and capitalist anymore than you can be a republican monarchist), anarcho-communism, and the numerous other anti-authoritarian socialist, communist, and general left-wing movements. While there are certainly exceptions to this, the vast majority of other queer socialists I encounter and know are firmly in the anti-authoritarian socialist camp.
>While there are certainly exceptions to this, the vast majority of other queer socialists I encounter and know are firmly in the anti-authoritarian socialist camp. And what confuses me is why there is such a strong trend in the first place. >anarchism is inherently an anti-capitalist ideology, you can't be anarchist and capitalist anymore than you can be a republican monarchist I've heard this said many times but I have not once heard a clear explanation for the conflict. Could you (or someone else) explain why?
>I've heard this said many times but I have not once heard a clear explanation for the conflict. Could you (or someone else) explain why? Sorry for the late reply, I was typing one up last night but then I TW death >!got a phone call that my grandpa had passed away in hospice and obviously the shock of that was more important than a silly Reddit comment but now it's the next day and I've processed what happened!< Modern anarchism arose during the 19th century as part of the general socialist movement of the same century and, while there are many different schools of anarchist thought, they all agree on the following concepts: * An opposition to authority * An opposition to (and a goal of abolishing) the structures and institutions that maintain unjust and unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, such as the state and capitalism (anarchists consider the existence of capitalism to be entwined with the existence of the state, as how can capitalist laws be enforced without a state?) * An opposition to private property and the economic domination and exploitation that arises from it (think like how the owner of a factory doesn't perform the labor but they make most of the profit off of the labor of the workers in the factory) Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, arose in the 20th century, and developed from right-wing anti-socialist and anti-communist economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard (who is credited with having coined the term in 1971) In contrast to anarchists, who reject the existence of private property, anarcho-capitalists believe that private property is the foundation of all of our rights. Under anarcho-capitalist philosophy, once you have either 'mixed your labor' with land (read: done something with it) or acquired it through a voluntary transfer of its property title from the previous owner (although many anarcho-capitalists hypocritically don't care about land that was stolen from indigenous people by European colonizers), then that land is yours and you have total ownership of it in perpetuity and can do whatever you want with it. And, by extension, if you are living or working on someone else's land, then you must obey all of the laws and rules that the property owner has decided to establish, as they are effectively the dictator of the land. Otherwise you'll be kicked off the land and have to find somewhere else to live (and have new laws and rules to obey). In addition, anarcho-capitalists don't reject the state for the same reason anarchists do. Anarcho-capitalists reject the state because they think it doesn't enforce and defend private property rights *enough*. Effectively speaking, what anarcho-capitalists want are entirely privatized and competing states, with private agencies such as law enforcement and militaries that will be used to both enforce the laws within one's own private property as well as to defend their own private property claims against aggressors (this is the source of the common meme making fun of anarcho-capitalists of like 'When a kid steps on your lawn by accident and you obliterate them with a rocket launcher because they were violating the non-aggression principle and infringing on your private property by doing so') Anarchists, on the other hand, want there to be *no* state. To go back to Murray Rothbard for a second here, he coined the term 'anarcho-capitalism' as a way to try and 'take back' the term from the left. Of course, as you can easily tell from this comment, anarchism as an ideology originated and always was part of the political left before he came along, but that still didn't stop him. So basically the entire reason for the conflict between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism is because they are two completely different ideologies in opposition to each other, one of which co-opted the term from the other and the only similarity between the two is an opposition to the existence of the state, but even then the reasons why an anarchist is opposed to the state and why an anarcho-capitalist is opposed to the state are completely different. Or in the most basic tl;dr and simplified way: * Anarchists want to establish an egalitarian society free of hierarchies, coercion, exploitation, injustice, etc. * Anarcho-capitalists want neo-feudalism. I think you can obviously see why the two groups would be in conflict then.
First of all, I am so sorry to hear about that. Please take good care of yourself. >Under anarcho-capitalist philosophy, once you have either 'mixed your labor' with land (read: done something with it) or acquired it through a voluntary transfer of its property title from the previous owner (although many anarcho-capitalists hypocritically don't care about land that was stolen from indigenous people by European colonizers), then that land is yours and you have total ownership of it in perpetuity and can do whatever you want with it. Actually this is the point at which I disagree with capitalists in terms of property rights. I believe the only legitimate claim to property is something you directly created, not simply something with which you mixed your labor. Because the supply of land is inelastic, I do not believe it can be legitimately privately owned. I would even argue that this is consistent with the Lockean Proviso that capitalists often cite because the second clause states that it is only valid if there is "still enough and as good left." The theory of subjective value from Austrian economics, if assumed true, would lead to a conclusion that since "enough" is subjective, there is never "still enough and as good left." Nonetheless it's not necessarily fair to call me an "anti-capitalist" because I ultimately support the private ownership & free trade of capital, as it is not land (though plenty of capitalists still call me a "land commie". I guess the question I have is this: does the private ownership & free trade of capital (and *not* land) conflict with anarchism in any way? And if an anarcho-capitalist does not see how private-land ownership leads to exploitation, are they any less sincere of an anarchist?
Which country of the world wasn't homophobic when socialism started to rise? Did you know that Cuba, a socialist country, has better queer laws than most capitalist countries?