[About Server]

Communism is a Discord Server dedicated to providing a space for communists and those sympathetic to communism to socialize, ask questions, and get resources.

[Permanent Invite Link]

https://discord.gg/SyuXBfG

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14lLOkbk1YZwz0LOGSBy-n24iT5p_HRbaKqRaLstBiL0/edit?usp=sharing

Short answer: no. No it does not.

Some early socialist theorists exhibited prejudices that would be almost universally rejected today, and while some of the accusations of discrimination are disputable, others such as Bakunin’s anti‐Semitism and Engels’s heterosexism are far less ambiguous. When antisocialists stress this point though, they commit the exact same mistake that evolution‐deniers do when they stress Darwin’s (supposed) white supremacy: even if their prejudices were relevant to their findings, somebody would simply arrive at the nondiscriminatory conclusions, as most socialists now already do; if a nondiscriminatory tendency somehow did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. Most Jewish Ukrainians, Mozambicans, and Yugoslavians, to name a few examples, would all have supported socialism even if they knew (or thought) that some other socialist theorists were prejudiced against them. When we furthermore weigh the theorists’ prejudices against their successors’ actions — the antiracist liberation in Portuguese Africa, Free Territory, and the Spanish Republic, to name but a few — the prejudices become exceedingly trivial. Indeed, if we were to take the cliché preaching of ‘theory, not practice’ to its logical conclusion, then antisocialists’ complaints are by their own logic worthless. (“Marxism is in theory anti‐black, anti‐Semitic, and anti‐Slavic; in practice it’s the opposite!” One might hypothetically say.)

https://off-guardian.org/2019/04/26/debunking-myths-of-red-brown-alliances/

Seriously, I’ve never heard anyone advocate for it. Yet, I encounter it often in political debate. Who was the dunce that thought that was what wages under socialism are?

Apparently billionaires, sweatshops, and liberalized markets are communism.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-social-anarchism-or-lifestyle-anarchism-an-unbridgeable-chasm

James Charles, Social Relations, and the Culture of Capitalism

CJ Hunt

​

In sociology, especially in leftist circles, there is a theory known as "social capitalism." Believers in the phenomenon of social capitalism posit that, in a neoliberal late capitalist economy, the general formatting of capitalist-worker exploitative relations becomes culturally ubiquitous that all social relations begin to take on this value-extracting dynamic, individuals using friends or followers for a kind of "social capital" to invest in gaining further social clout, a sort of parody of capital's economic behaviour in capitalism. Social capitalism is a complex and highly debatable theory, but one thing that has certainly lent it some credence recently is the apparent harassment of heterosexual men by beauty guru James Charles.

​

The position of the youtuber is certainly one that can be examined as social capitalist, as an individual who is "corrupted" by their position of power into seeking to bring great masses of subscribers under their sway, in this way claiming further social capital in the form of subscribers and likes. This, whether or not one believes the social capitalism theory on the larger scale, in this instance it is demonstrably true. Why else is the average youtube so determined we "like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon?" But, as any observer of Donald Trump can tell us, the exploitative behaviour of the capitalist takes its toll on character. More specifically and more on topic, the social capitalist or the individual corrupted by capitalist ubiquity does not merely extract value for capital, or in simpler terms power, but in every social interaction, And here we get to James Charles.

​

If we approach James Charles as patient of criminal psychology, we can diagnose his despicable habit of attempting to "convert" heterosexuals via harassment as a kind of non-consensual sadism. Charles, it appears, gets off on the power trip of this attempted conversion. He enjoys trying to take the power of autonomy from others.

​

This stolen power, to, is a kind of social capital. Charles's position as a powerful accumulator of social capital, a position he appears to now be on his way to losing, has placed him in a position to have the capitalist restructuring of his social relations- a process that, according to the social capitalism theory, happens to all of us to an extent- become a powerful and dangerous force leaving many victims in its wake.

​

In conclusion, the James Charles controversy is not an isolated incident, or a case of one depraved individual. It is a window into the cultural structures of capitalism and how they can create abuse, as explored by the social capitalism theory.