Anonymous_Lover wrote: Fri Apr 24, 2026 2:13 am
I think the liberal tendecies which fought for Ginsberg and NAMBLA were a genuine force, and that attitude can be reactivated again.
And what makes you think they can?
Well, I'd see it as relating to the decline of censorship in general. The publications of Henry Miller and the decline of the Hays Code. The general trend has been to see the impingements on individual freedom as unjustified. Hence you see gay marriage. However, today we have a backsliding into irrational conservatism.
You should know that NAMbLA founder Thorstein was a socialist, a Trotksyist to be exact, and wrote on what the USSR did write and wrong on YL and youth sexuality. If your familiar with actual left-wing publications then reading PIE or NAMbLA's papers/statements then your struck by how if you take MAP stuff out of it they pretty much seem like what you would read from a soft-socialist group like DSA or a vaguely Left socialist outlet which might not claim the name but is basically socialist adjacent. Ginsberg himself was a self-styled communist. PIE had ties to the Labour party where it made more of a show about being socialist which is hardly present from the party under Starmer/Blair. I think one of PIE's leaders allegedly had Soviet connections according to wikipedia.
That's fine, however, censorship is a separate issue from whether a communist or liberal democratic state is preferable. I can agree Marx and Lenin should be allowed to write and publish, without agreeing with their views.
What we seem to have in Western or "classical liberalism" is forces that aren't strictly speaking liberal pushing it to live up to its promises whereas the actual liberal establishment doesn't give a fuck about anything beyond counting their profits and now the effect of that outside pressure seems to be of no use like it was in the past.
I disagree, I think the trouble is that they have lost the courage to lead. I always think of the death penalty. If people were trying to abolish it today, the populists would prevent the abolition. The injustice we face is a popular injustice, like lynching in the South.
There is a line from Disco Elysium that is act where the protag asks: "are liberals liberal?" and one of the speakers from a Marxist group in-universe says, "no, they are reactionaries, barely distinguishable from fascists. The only true liberals left call themselves socialists." Well, that seems to be pretty damn close to the picture we see in 2026. MAPs also might be the only group where people who call themselves liberal actually are but the "classical liberal" meme is libertarian brain-poisoning, libertarianism isn't classical liberalism but a reactionary philosophy masquerading as such, particularly in the realm of economics, and I don't have time to explain why that is today.
I know the difference between liberalism and libertarianism. I don't take Austrian economics seriously. My sympathy is more to Montesquieu. What's needed is a modern day Solon, not more of Hayek's idiocy.
Regarding Disco Elysium (great game by the way, even if I disagree with the views of the creators and it's messages), there's another quote from the deserter: "I do not collaborate with murderers and pederasts of the liberal regime." I'm not convinced the contemporary populist left is self-reflective enough to avoid treating pedophiles the same way conservatives do. I think they leap on the idea of the "Epstein class" because it ties class analysis to "sexual degeneracy". That kind of opportunism is unhelpful in my opinion.
I think the historical record shows there's certainly a better chance between figures who were communist/anarchist who were openly pro-pedophile plus the actual experience of socialist states most of which set their AOC much closer to something Mu would have preferred. The USSR didn't have a set aoc beyond puberty and possession of youth erotica isn't even criminalized in Russia today -- one of the few countries where that's the case. Many former East bloc countries still have very low aocs by world standards like Serbia at 14. China's 14. And this isn't to say they are perfect or some major states like Germany or Brazil don't come close but its notable. I'm not even sure how a world of anarchist communes is supposed to enforce anti-pedophilia mandates, its clearly a superstition that is heavily maintained through censorship and social stigma and that would be harder to enforce under a hypothetical anarchist utopia. If you got caught or suspected of doing it you could probably just move away and change your commune. You have me defending anarchists now, which is something I hate doing.
Theoretically, I agree. Communism is closely linked to the abolition of the family. However, in practical terms, I'm not convinced communists are that ideologically pure. I also hate anarchists, so hey, common ground! Lets all laugh at people who talk about statism as though it's the proper level of analysis.
It seems clear that there's more opportunity for MAPs with forces that want to change things as opposed to forces that want to keep things the same like modern liberalism, particularly in its bourgeois base and establishment. It seems like nothing can fundamentally change in the West today... unless the change is bad and reactionary.
This is where I disagree. I don't think the modern liberals have as much power or influence on contemporary events. I feel that at least since Reagan, mob mentality has undermined people who actually care about principles. What's needed is someone like Bernard Williams, someone who can intelligently and forcefully challenge conventions at a fundamental level..
Your position in terms of "reactivating" old school liberal tendencies is an idealist one. The old school liberalism you speak fondly of rose for definite historical reasons and appears to be falling for definite historical reasons. Do you have any plausible structural analysis that vindicates the notion it can rise again? Otherwise, we're plowing the sea working on some dead liberal's project from anywhere from 60 to 300+ years ago. I don't advocate that MAPs help any type of political project that's pro-MAP, at best, I think MAPs mgiht try to take advantage of forces that provide an opening for us. My stance is MAPs should deprive all tendencies/groups in politics from their labor unless they get assurances from those groups they will help MAPs in some way.
Well, I am an idealist. I think historicism is self-defeating. However bad things get, I see the decline into intolerance and popular totalitarianism as detachment from reality. Everyone can agree the earth is flat without it being true. Everyone can agree pedophilia is evil without it being true. The lack of interest in truth will destroy any society. When you put expedience and prejudice ahead of truth, sooner or latter delusion will clash with reality. This is how I see contemporary society, people get into their paracosms and echo chambers, and their fantasy hides reality (somewhat like ideology in the Marxist sense), then something happens where fantasy leads to harm. People need to develop the self awareness that their fantasies aren't reality before things can change. Unless people are actually interested in the question of whether AMSC is harmful, rather than stubbornly labelling it as harmful and shouting down anyone who challenges that perspective, things are never going to change. People have to actually want to know the truth, otherwise we're stuck.