House of Worship

but I'm not a real person, just the shit you can't make up ... icon by @kandyarts. header by @donut-entendre.

[communistmarktemple]

pinned post. i’m chi. (prounounced “kai” like sky).

im an alter. member of @chromaticroses. fictive of leonard church and mark temple from red vs blue.

communist. furry. trying to be less of a bitch.

anti-endos fuck off. 18+ blog.

dating tk @playboybrightside

for more general rvb shit go to @leonardalphachurch.

[fus-mar-hoz]

"there's like 8 rich guys standing between us and shorter working hours / week" posting is fine until you think about it for two seconds and realize that the most rabidly anti-reformist group of people are the people with a bar and two employees who would amputate one of their worker's arms if it meant getting a 0.8% income tax cut

[carlosmarcosapproved]

[website-enjoyer]

someone should try doing transfeminism that is actually working class instead of just using the word proletarian like a label that just means good and then serving up lumpen or petit bourgeois ideology

[website-enjoyer]

the basic unit of transfeminist organization is now the factory cell ok?

[website-enjoyer]

explaining myself based on a few different responses. in pointing out the use of "proletarian like a label that just means good" do i imply that the petit bourgeois or lumpen strata are therefore bad? many internet communists certainly do. petit bourgeois artisans are all literally hitler haven't u heard. it's less tasteful to hate on lumpen or semi-proletarian ideology & political methods since the lumpen are a lower class strata and racialization, transmisogyny, disability etc are lumpenizing, so the internet communist hates on these strata abstractly for being '(basically) anarchist' instead. there’s a slightly more subtle version of this that happens when petit bourgeois and lumpen formations reach the highest level of unity that they can together in the absence of independent working class political leadership, i.e. charity or patronage, and then based on this association and the greater legibility of the petit bourgeoisie within it, a communist who does not socially investigate can write off the 'anarchism' of the lumpen- or semi-proletariat within this joinery as 'petit bourgeois'!!! or as i referred to in the original post, methods that obviously draw on lumpen traditions are ideologically cast as simply transfeminist when applied to transfem issues and that transfeminism is wedded to an abstract communism, producing incoherencies from this denial of class politics: our diy hrt against their bathtub insulin

i’ve said "abstract" in a negative way a couple of times now and that’s what i want to poke at more. outlining a program for socialist revolution based on a class analysis of a particular social formation involves determining the broadest possible united front that can be concentrated on the central tasks of that revolution. without a revolutionary program, an abstract communism is without a conception of a united front. this creates contradictory narrowings and broadenings of communist consciousness at the same time in the imperialist countries today: what we need is for everyone to just become a communist (of my sect)! also, everyone but us is backwards! this is what i mean when i say a lot of people are all ideology and no politics. there’s no concrete understanding of the communists as the leading force in the working class movement raising class consciousness through struggle, and the working class as the leading force in specific tactical and strategic united fronts (yes this does mean some abstraction) directed towards socialist revolution

let’s say we want to consider something like a cross-class transfem liberation united front. lumpen strata are probably going to be the main transfem force within this because yes we are broadly lumpen. characteristics i would highlight of lumpen political methods and ideology: more emphasis on mutual aid, survival programs, and armed confrontation w police or fascist gangs than on generalizing struggle against bosses, more emphasis on directly expropriating consumer goods and empty housing than on expropriating the means of production. these things do address the needs of the lumpen strata more directly—they aren’t bad things—they just can’t be the leading force (because the main enemy is the imperialist monopoly bourgeoisie) especially when isolated, but they can be understood within a united front rather than glossed over or attacked for not being the most vanguard of vanguards. i’m saying a working class perspective has to have a leading role because i’m a communist. from the perspective of socialist revolution, the proletariat occupy a more leading position than the lumpen- or semi-proletariat. our low rate of participation in any form of regular occupation makes this all the more important, not less, since without a conscious focus on this, it will be even easier for all transfem politics to keep splintering into petit bourgeois and lumpen sections whose greatest degree of unity is, again, occasional charity or patronage from one to the other—or another viable unity is a nihilism that serves fascism! and as for workers organizations needing to indicate that they care about transfems, how about the example of labour unions in saskatchewan rallying in defence of trans kids and carrying out internal political education on trans issues based on a united front against the provincial government’s usage of the notwithstanding clause. this is effectively a (defensive and within the limits of bourgeois legality) politically transfeminist united front with the labour movement in a leading role, and most of these workers are not trans. this is what happens when u step outside of narrow abstract valorizations and affirmations of certain categories. and this is not revolutionary this is just a starting point for discussion without getting into the hegemony of a counterrevolutionary labour aristocracy over the official workers organizations in the imperialist countries but i don’t want to lose my thread here okay im trying to cover a lot i know it’s messy

[assimilation-failure]

daily reminder that:

ai art is not art

photography is not art

digital art is not art

"traditional" art is not art

music is not art

art is not real and you cant make it

[greenbloods]

art moodboard

[greenbloods]

[bintro]

​i’m such a fake idgafer everything bothers me tbh

[anti-parent]

i needed to write this out anyway for my book so here is the actual dialectical materialist argument for family abolition and youth liberation, by the way:

the continued existence of capitalism depends not only on the circuit of production but also the circuit of reproduction. social reproduction is the process by which the working class prepares and maintains itself for the exchange of labor-power for a wage. this can also refer to how the bourgeoisie maintains its power generationally. marx introduced this concept in capital but did not explore it in depth.

there are two scales of social reproduction: day-to-day and intergenerational. the labor pool is replenished via three processes: gestation (having kids), immigration, and slavery.

day-to-day social reproductive labor is usually carried out by women. this includes the work of cooking, cleaning, budgeting, and all the other work that goes into running a household. the wife in a typical nuclear family does this labor unpaid, but many affluent households choose to hire cheap migrant laborers (usually also women) to carry it out for them.

intergenerational social reproductive labor is usually understood as the work of raising children - that's as far as it's been theorized in existing marxist feminist work. but i believe that children are responsible for the bulk of this type of labor. the work of formal and informal education for the dual purposes of developing job readiness and internalizing capitalist norms - it's not recognized as labor by, well, much of anybody but i hope that changes in the future.

one of the key features of capitalist education is establishing the alienation of labor, so that by the time children grow up, they're ready to integrate into a compliant labor force. another key feature of education is maintaining the reserve army of labor, which works to undercut attempts to organize labor or establish worker solidarity. the neoliberalization and globalization of the economy has extended this second feature of education both to adults and previously inaccessible labor markets around the world.

this (unpaid) labor occupies most of childhood and its imperative is reinforced by three pillars: the family, the market, and the state. you could argue for the education system to be considered a fourth pillar since it operates somewhat independently of other state apparatuses, at least in the US. depends on how you look at it. the family, the market, and the state work together (imperfectly, unevenly) to reproduce capitalism.

the family is the smallest unit of social reproduction. the nuclear family form developed around the same time as the industrial revolution and is inextricable from patriarchy, white supremacy, ableism, and all the other -isms we usually talk about. the family form in general developed after the agricultural revolution, as a mechanism for inheriting wealth and maintaining socioeconomic hierarchies. families aren't just a source of violence and coercion; they're also most people's primary source of care and support. but abolishing capitalism also necessitates abolishing the capitalist family form (as stated in the communist manifesto).

family abolition doesn't just mean tearing families apart. it means expanding systems of care so that the family isn't the only place that people can receive it. in their original writing, hegel, marx, and engels all used the word aufhebung to refer to abolition, which is really better translated as "positive supercession." so people should still be able to get care from their families if they like, but it shouldn't be their only option. marx believed that this principle was well represented in the paris commune. i believe that the 2022 cuba family code referendum also provides a great model.

to me (an adult), if a socialist/communist movement is going to last, it requires a thorough analysis of minors as an oppressed class. the continued existence of capitalism depends on the extended disenfranchisement of young people until they internalize capitalist norms and prove themselves capable of capitalist reproduction. this process is absolutely key to establishing the alienation of labor. dialectical analysis of children vs. their parents, children vs. the state, working class children vs. the bourgeoisie is all sorely needed. the thing is that hardly anyone has explored this! marx and engels make some passing references to it, and contemporary marxist feminist theorists like m.e o'brien and susan ferguson incorporate this idea into their analyses somewhat. but nobody that i can find has approached this question comprehensively or systematically. which is why i'm here! writing! a lot!

sources!

the communist manifesto (lol)

the origin of the family, private property, and the state by friedrich engels

capital by karl marx (heinrich's introduction to capital is much more beginner-friendly btw)

marx's 1844 economic and philosophical manuscripts (to understand the theory of alienation, specifically)

childhood in world history by peter n. stearns

social reproduction theory: remapping class, recentering oppression edited by tithi bhattacharya

family abolition: capitalism and the communizing of care by m.e. o'brien

making workers: radical geographies of education by katharyne mitchell

schooling in capitalist america: education reform and the contradictions of economic life by samuel bowles and herbert gintis

[positiveoatmilkmotel]

Temple fanart!! Because I really really love to hate Temple! ❤️

[april]

hey so umm i see you've cast me as the villain in your life's narrative... just wondering if your costume department has decided on my outfit yet? if they haven't, can you tell them i'm a big fan of an all-black wardrobe, no real preference between frilly and strappy, not at all opposed to chokers, not afraid to show some cleavage. thanks

[khoesib-deactivated20251231]

This is why I cant stand this kinda discussion because no one can be correct or normal about.

No "pedophile" is not a class of human being. Being "a pedophile" is not an innate trait or a mental illness or something wrong with the individual. The sexual abuse of children is one that occurs in society because of patriarchal power dynamics - it can be reduced down to singular actions because it is societal and structural. The fetishisation of youth ranges from the obsession with not looking old to older men dating younger women to schoolgirl and step-daughter/step-sibling pornography. Child sexual abuse does not simply happen when "a pedophile has children" but is simply the most extreme form of the control and power that familial relationships engender.

To abolish pedophilia you must abolish the family, the patriarchy and class relations. Eradicate them and pedophilia disappears.

Being a pedophile is not a fixed trait; sexual paraphilias are socially mediated not static. To illustrate this, most people today have a breast fetish and breasts are unequivocally seen as sexually attractive to people. This is not because breasts are "inherently sexual" but rather because we live in societies that sexualise breasts. This was the basic idea behind the free the nipple campaign - if you can understand this, you can understand how paraphilias are not built into the individual but are influenced by the society we live in. A society without race sees no raceplay, a society without rape sees no cnc, a society without strict boundaries around female sexuality sees no "dykebreaking".

If you indeed have erotic thoughts of minors then it is not an inherent trait you were born with, it is something you enjoy because it makes you feel powerful because it allows you tap into the worst aspects of patriarchy and wield it against the most vulnerable people in society. You are not attracted to "the child" you are attracted to being able to take advantage of and manipulate someone who has no other option but to allow you to do so. You have the choice to work through your own psychological issues and cease to feel this kind of way because until then it will eat at your relationships with other people and you will end up harming someone in your quest to fine sexual gratification through patriarchal domination.

[metaphorparadox]

secret secret santa post

@communistmarktemple

[metaphorparadox]

rvb secret santa gift for @communistmarktemple!

stocking stuffers:

i don’t usually draw these guys so i hope i did them justice. ho ho fucking ho, merry whatever you celebrate!! (ps. i’ve got one more secret doodle that i haven’t included here because it’s got nudity in it but that is also posted. check it out if you wanna see mark temple’s beautiful bazongas)

[communistmarktemple]

@redvsbluesecretsanta gift for @razmerry who wanted temple angst. guy who killed like, a lot of people but who's also afraid of blood was always a great concept so here's temple having a panic attack after he got blood on him.

non animated version:

[lovetechnique]

I think about this much too often

[communistmarktemple]

put me in the misery hole

[solitairians]

whenever I confess to people that i feel like I am just roleplaying as a normal person they're always like noooo you don't strike me as someone who's roleplaying as a normal person at all!!! :) and every time internally im like well yes that's because I am excellent at it