Search the Community

In the video/podcast Titled “ The Origin of Sexual Fetishism” he uses as a refutation of Anarcho-Communism the argument that the body is just like any other matter i.e. that it is “just a thing”. If this is true how do you preserve ownership? Because if there are only things how can one thing own another thing. Remembering that this statement is a denial of “different categories” of things with respect to their ability to be owned. This leaves only two possibilities, that no thing is owned by any thing which dismisses ownership or that every thing is owned by all things which is more An-Com than An-Cap but still pretty useless. Of course there is the possibility that he meant It is no different owning your “body thing” than owning “a thing” but this comes up against problems. First of all the operation of the ownership are very different empirically and if I own my “body thing” by the same rules that I own “a thing” how does that preclude owning more than one “body thing”, or more germane owning certain parts of someone else's “body thing” individually or as part of a collective that “controls the means of production”. The only way you can avoid this is to create a special category that can't be owned that isn't “a thing” that in fact can't be a thing or it will be subject to ownership, something like a soul. But this won't save the argument because any exceptions you introduce are obviously available to the other side as well. By no stretch of logic can this be seen as a refutation of Anarcho-Comunism. Now a few of you might respond with the presumption that I'm an An-Com but that's not true it's too in-egalitarian and anti-intellect for me,yes its argument by adjective but only because my ideological perspectives are at best peripheral to this matter of logic. While the above argument is, I believe, flawed the is another argument that I would like to offer a different perspective on that being “the wife as employee”. I would like to suggest “the wife as investor” instead. In the partnership called marriage both (or all) members bring assets to the relationship. The ones that could be considered primary being for the men earnings/earnings potential and for the women sexual attractiveness/fecundity. A problem is that over the life of the relationship the magnitude of these “assets” is diametrically opposed. As men age their earnings normally increase while women loose their beauty and ability to bear children, while at the same time the act of rearing children reduces(at least) the ability to obtain marketable skills for the period after her fecundity has ended. In this situation “getting a job” is counter productive and personally undesirable whereas “investing your assets for a return” is productive and desirable. This perspective in no way supports alimony or any other product of the state. It is just a substitution of a partnership for the employer/employee relationship inherent in Stefan's argument. A substitution that more closely parallels the biological realities of the situation. Does anyone see any flaws with my logic?