Submitted by d4rk in d4rk (edited )

The Anarchist Conception of the Object (CH2)

Kropotkin's aboveness is why explains the governing capacity of the Object. Goldman's ideation tells of the oppressive nature of the Object. Rocker tells of the machine within his attitudes towards it. So within these ideas, I would like to provide more context in this Chapter with the emphasis on problems related to the idea of the Object. So to summarize a rough working definition of the Object, here is the oversimplified definition:

  1. The Object is an oppressable non-person. What we do to it is something we would not normally do to real people in society.
  2. we define "oppression" as something authority does to it(the object), which shouldn't happen to us being people.
  3. "Objectification" is to oppress a person in the same way we oppress the Object.

  1. Frequency

I will deal mostly with Philosophical problems in this Chapter and I will deal with the practical aspect when the definition has been more clearly. One of the first problems is Systemic vs. Luddism[1]. Let me define my terms.

  1. Systemic oppression[2] is when the Object is in constant usage with the oppression taking notice as a condition of wear over time.

  2. Luddist oppression[3] is when the Object is being subjected to obvious levels of destructive forces. That being when the Subject wants to destroy the machine.

This debate is somewhat polarizing as many have expressed a view in favor of one and against another. To return to our original idea, we are talking about objects or what is being seen as Objects by certain people. One example would be Smith v. Mugabe[4], where Ian Smith would not take responsibility for Luddist oppression Mugabe imposed ie, massacres although he does take proud responsibility of the systemic oppression due to his racist policies of land grabbing and not extending the franchise. Another case is made by people who support the Catholic Church[5] who would rather Systemic than Luddite Oppression, again, this case concerns Objects or who the people believe are objects. I'm not making any primary judgement since both cases make bad analogies considering it involves a massacre so I will go ahead with other topics under the umbrella of the Object.


  1. Subjectivity

Second would be a more Feminist question but one that has for some reason become very controversial and that is on whether being a Lolicon is somehow pedophilia. Let us again define some terms here.

Lolicon[6], also romanised as lolikon or rorikon, is a Japanese portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex".

In Japan, the term describes an attraction to underage girls or an individual with such an attraction. It is also commonly used when referring to lolicon manga or lolicon anime, a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are often depicted in an "erotic-cute" manner, in an art style reminiscent of the shōjo manga style.

So it is an oppression of the object, which in this case are drawings. Drawings that were created for their own indulgence which in any case is not a sex offense.

Outside Japan, "lolicon" is in less common usage and usually refers to the genre. The phrase is a reference to Vladimir Nabokov's book Lolita, in which a middle-aged man becomes sexually obsessed with a twelve-year-old girl. It was first used in Japan in the 1970s and quickly became used to describe erotic dojinshi portrayals of young girls.

This is where people get the idea of it being a form of pedophilia. Apparently to these people, pedophilia means sexual attraction to cute drawings.

Laws have been enacted in various countries, including in Japan, which regulate explicit content featuring children or childlike characters. Parent and citizens groups in Japan have organized to work toward stronger controls and stricter laws governing lolicon manga and other similar media.

My problem here is that no sane person actually gives in to their desires to other people. Just ask Deleuze, He lived a normal life, he had a wife and two kids and killed himself by the age of 70. He did not, as he wrote, sewed up all of his orifices for the sake of his own desire to achieve the body without organs. Any normal person doesn't objectify other people much less a minor.

Critics say that the lolicon genre contributes to actual sexual abuse of children, while others say that there is no evidence for this claim. Studies of lolicon fans state that lolicon fans are attracted to an aesthetic of cuteness rather than the age of the characters, and that collecting lolicon represents a disconnect from society.

So the primary point in the debate here is the idea somehow of the Objectification of minors. There is obviously a problem with objectification but when we're talking about actual objects then as Anarchist writers previously wrote, they are oppressable. We invented Sex Dolls and Dildos for that main reason because they are objects, they aren't people. They give into their desire by crafting upon it themselves. There is an obvious impasse here when it comes with Objectification which all Anarchists agree must be eradicated. Objectification is how hierarchies come about. I know it may sound like a Kantian ethic, but to Objectify is not within itself good. But to think about Objects as deserving of our deepest desires. Whether that be making Lolicon doujins or Making a license plate.

Pedophilia is the desire to actually act on it on literal people. So there's a difference between lets say Tentacle hentai and Bestiality. One is obviously a drawing, the other one is less realistic to occur. Now onto the next topic of discussion.


  1. Thought crime

Another problem that concerns the object is the idea of thought crime. This describes the intellectual actions of a person who entertains and holds unacceptable thoughts. Now in the case above when it comes to the difference between pedophilia as an attraction to minors and lolicon which is an attraction to cute anime drawings being railed hard, I saw this picture that may shed light on this specific problem. Now the idea of the object as being objectified is that it represents the desires we cannot do in real life which is already a thin line if we talk about issues like pedophilia.

In order to understand the problem, we need to begin first with the debate. First is Kropotkin's idea that we learn and advance via the object. It isn't subjectification which will be somethign which will be discussed later but rather we advance as a species because we learn from the object. If you steam wood or place scalding water on wood and beat it to a mold, you make it bend. If it bends, it can be round. Voila, a wheel. After getting a wheel one can drive on it with a chariot, transport heavy objects normally we can't handle using wheelbarrows, why stop there? add string on it and my friend you could pull things into the air with a pulley. You can access deep wells with it by using it as a fulcrum &c.

Now, how does this relate to thought crimes. Let's take another example, the entire chinese writing system used by 6 countries in Asia, all began by writing on the bones of freshly hunted meat. The oracle bones as they are called, were used for divination. Let's talk the ethicality of this if we were to subjectify everything said so far.

  1. Oxen were rounded up to extinction
  2. bones & excess weren't used for fertilizer thus degrading the quality of land (the Rouran will come to bite them in the ass for that later.)
  3. Domestication of wild oxen into odern cattle
  4. Divination practices
  5. the abbotoir
  6. medicinal broth that may heal no one
  7. possible vectors of disease
  8. cursing people behind their back
  9. prosperity wishes that may affect the economy badly
  10. hierarchy

the list goes on.

However, these are just a few ethical issues when it comes to the use of oracle bones, yet what as it done? Today, 96.8% of China, 99% of Japan, 95% of Vietnam & 98.9% of Taiwan are literate, all are educated and can write in these characters inscribed on bones used to curse their neighbors those millenia ago.

When it comes to loli/shota doujins it as similar functions. Yes people may liketo wank on the cuteness but on the other hand it is also a study in anatomy and practicing how to draw these areas.

So how about Subjectifying lolis? How did cute anime girls get ascribed to children? well firstly, dialogue and societal impressions, you know the character itself is a child. Now second, is that child real? Is that how one treats children, does a drawing deserve protection in the same way real children do? There are more than 500,000 predators are online everyday. Kids 12 to 15 are susceptible to being groomed and manipulated by offenders online. FBI stats show that more than 50 percent of victims of online sexual exploitation are 12-15 years old [7].

To subjectify an object assumes the objects deserve the same rights and dignities we as subjects have. "Drawings of what" is a red herring argument here. If I were to cum on a document on the plenary session of the Peoples' Congress of the Communist Party of China, do I want to fuck the poor or the corrupt?

2

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

There's nothing here…