Circumcision is Good Actually

Anti-Circumcision rhetoric can be found all over the political spectrum, but I shall in the secular part of this post mainly be thinking of Left Wing opposition to the practice since I am Left Wing and consider Conservatives and "Libertarians" people who's opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

The first problem to complicate the perception of Circumcision is how Female Genital Mutilation is often incorrectly called Female Circumcision.  FGM is both in terms of what it does and why it's done not in any way similar to Circumcision, it should be called Female Castration because that is far more parrel to what's actually being done.  

There is I suspect a direct connection to that barbaric practice being wrongly equated with Circumcision and the way many people decided to start describing Circumcision as "cutting part of your dick off".  The Forsaken is part of the dick in the same way hair is part of your head or fingernails part of your hand.  But the best comparison is actually the ambilocal cord, both serve a function while in the Womb but are obsolete as soon as the infant is born.

It angers me to see so many of the same people chanting "Believe the Science" when the Science seems to be contradicting something religious people believe in, will then ignore the endless scientific studies that have proven the health benefits of Infant Circumcision.  There are many health benefits to Circumcision in general but what's most directly relevant to Infant Circumcision is Urinary Tract Infection, Uncircumcised AMAB children have a significantly increased risk of developing UTI before they even turn 2 years old.  It is absurdly hypocritical how some of the same people who support mandatory vaccinations of children even when the parents are uncomfortable with it to also then turn around and try to ban allowing parents to circumcise their children.

The Science has shown that the benefits of Circumcision far outweigh the hypothetical risks. In addition to the UTI issues it also reduces risk of STDs and HPV and cervical cancer  Now I've seen people seek to respond to all these health arguments with a weird little slogan of "wash your dick", thinking it's that simple is clear evidence of having the privilege of being Cut your whole life.  

Science has also debunked the notion that Circumcision effects male sexual enjoyment one way or the other.

The only Anti-Circumcision claim that has any statistical validity at all is the claim that it has a negative psychological effect and even that is inconclusive.  But the thing is even if that is true that is Socially Constructed.  We live in a society that conditions people of every gender but especially Cis-Males to place much of their self worth in their sex organs, and then idiots start telling Circumcised people that they had part of their dick cut off when they were a baby.  Putting all that value on a piece of vestigial skin because it can technically be considered "part of the dick" is pure Toxic Masculinity.

There is also an obvious overlap between anti-Infant Circumcision arguments and the arguments of TERFs and other Transphobes, this idea that anything related to the natural state of a child's reproductive system is sacrosanct and shouldn't be allowed to be altered until they are unambiguously an adult.  Puberty Blockers weren't even originally created for Trans People but for the rare condition of young girls starting puberty way too early.  The foreskin being technically "natural" doesn't make it not harmful.

But the real bigotry behind Anti-Circumcision rhetoric is Anti-Semitism.  It fascinates me how many things are considered Anti-Semitic dog whistles online simply for being something also believed by some past Anti-Semites.  But all this demonizing of a ritual custom that has been foundational to Jewish cultural identity since the first book of The Bible is apparently fine.  But it's not just Jews, it's also part of the cultures of a number of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia and other places.

I still remember the first Anti-Circumcision webpage I ever stumbled upon.  I was reading it genuinely sympathetic to the author's concerns, but then they just casually inserted an unsourced claim that "Rabbis lick the blood off the circumcised Baby's penis" and my jaw just dropped, that's literally an allusion to the Blood Libel and they just dropped it in there and moved on like it was nothing.

But if you really want to see just how insanely conspiratorial Anti-Circumcision people can get, watch this video on the Silent Hill Wiki.

That's the secular arguments, now I shall get to specifically Christian attitudes towards Circumcision.

Everything Paul says that sounds Anti-Circumcision is in the context of his opposing those who want to make it mandatory for Adult Gentile Converts.  But those I call Reverse-Legalists abuse these passages to claim Circumcision and other Jewish Customs are outright sinful for Christians to engage in.  

Paul also talks about how the true Circumcision is spiritual, but he does the same with Baptism often in the same passages and no one argues that the physical Water Baptism ritual is abolished by those verses [correction there are sects like The Quakers that do basically argue that, but they're outliers].  

In Acts 16 Paul helps Timothy get Circumcised, so he was clearly not entirely agaisnt doing it even for adult gentile converts.  

First Century Christians were still a sect of Judaism, and Jewish Paulian Christians like the Nazarenes continued practicing it at least into the late Fourth Century.

As a Credo-Baptist I believe the false Doctrine that Baptism has replaced Circumcisions is partly to blame for the origin of Infant Baptism.

Free Will and Personal Moral Responsibility.

On the issue of Free Will vs Determinism I am a type of Compatibilist, I reject hopeless Fatalism but also believe there are enough mitigating factors in the world to render no one truly ultimately fully responsible for their own actions.

My perspective on this has changed some but this is no complete reversal of any prior post I've made on the subject.  This is somewhat true of me in the past but it's especially true going forward that when I seem to speaking as a pro Free Will person I'm speaking agaisnt Calvinist Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace or Augustinian Original Sin or the Reprobate Doctrine as it is taught by some Arminians.  And I've also argued against Free Will being inherently incompatible with Universal Salvation.

However when I seem to be anti Free Will I am advocating a form of Determinism not Calvinist Predestination.  Determinism is what any Atheist who says they reject Free Will is talking about, but it's not only Atheists, if you're any type of Materialist then you're also some type of Determinist.

Determinism has unfortunately become a contentious topic among many people it shouldn't be.  Much of what I'm arguing in this post is controversial not just among my fellow Christians regardless of their politics but also among fellow Leftist regardless of their religious affiliation.

For example some Leftists think because we reject Scientific Racism and Eugenics then we should also reject any conception of "Biological Determinism" or inheritable traits.  The specific claims of those pseudo sciences are both factually wrong and morally repugnant.  But it's still true that we are the way we are in part because of how are brains are wired.  And acknowledgment of those factors should be a cause for sympathy and understanding not a justification for hate and discrimination.

Here's one good YouTube video on Determinism, but it is by someone not as Left Wing as I am and probably not as Compatibilist either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0GN4urbA_c

And all of that is just one aspect of Determinism, we Leftists also care about Historical Materialism, Material Conditions and Systemic Oppression and so on.  

As a Christian Compatibilist it is my position that when people do good they are by the Grace of God acting in their own Free Will.  But when they do Evil it is them falling victim to their conditions in some way.  That is equally as true of both the morally best people who've ever lived as it is of the morally worst.

To many in the Ancient World including Socrates and I firmly believe every author of the New Testament, it was oxymoronic to even consider debating if a evil act someone committed was or wasn't committed by their own free will because they believed Humans are innately Good and so any Evil deed one commits is by definition a deviation of their true nature and not something they could have possibly done of their own free will.  

To Socrates it seems it is chiefly Ignorance that is to Blame, and that can be supported by what Jesus said on The Cross "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".  But also when Jesus called Matthew and some objected He said that Sinners are sick people who need a doctor not criminals who need punishment, so that implies other factors as well.  

Mark 7:11 and John 8:31-36 talk about Jesus making us Free, as does Romans 8 verses 2 and 32 and Galatians 5.  Grace is spoken of as a Free Gift by Paul because we don't have to pay anything for it, it is given to everyone, permission is not asked.  The only NT verses that seem to truly speak of metaphysical Free Will are in Revelation 21-22 in the New Heaven and New Earth.

In Ancient Greek Gentile schools of Philosophy it is surprisingly only Atheist Determinism I can't find.  The Epicureans were Atheist Existentialists and Objectivists, the Stoics were Compatibilists but often seen by their Platonist rivals as more Determinist, the only hard Determinist was Aristotle who basically invented Deism.  And the Theistic Existentialists were the Middle Platonists like Plutarch who wrote against the Determinism of the Stoics.

In Josephus's descriptions of The Sects of First Century Judaism, the Essenes seem like Middle Platonists or Neopythagoreans on everything but their position on Fate vs Free Will, while the Sadducees seem like Aristotleans on everything but Fate vs Free Will.  It looks like Greco-Roman era Jews for some reason swapped that one part of those two ways of thinking.  However the Pharisees out of whom came the Zealots and Early Christians seemed to agree with the Stoics on both Fate vs Free Will and other metaphysical issues, the Stoics merely lacked knowledge of The Resurrection.

Pelagianism is a trend in Christianity that already existed before the person for whom it is named (in Early Arianism it's shown how the Arians were proto Pelagians).  That trend is the bizarre notion that it's because Humans are innately Good being made in the Image of God and given Life by the Breath of God that we are supposed to believe in Absolute Free Will and that each human is personally responsible for their moral failings.  It's actually absurd to believe those two things at the same time, but because Augustine normalized The Latin Church taking the exact opposite position on both those things Christians were conditioned to think they go together.

However I feel a lot of modern Internet SJWs are basically Secular Pelagians.  They claim to believe in the innate goodness of Humanity at least when they're refuting the Authoritarian Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.  But then turn around and are very against allowing "excuses" for the people they consider evil.

Like for example the notion that suggesting someone's Mental Illness or Trauma was even partly to blame for their wrongdoings is offensive to the people with the same issues who didn't do anything like similar.  And I wish they could see how that same Logic is applied to Economics by the Right.  Conservatives who keep thinking they can refute everything about how inherently unfair our current system is by pointing to "Rags to riches" stories of people who succeeded in-spite of their disadvantages.  And we correctly explain how that probably had as much or more to do with Luck then it does Merit.

Instead of jumping to call it Ableist to suggest that Crimes are a result of Mental Illness we should start considering that there is no such thing as a person not Mentally Ill, we just haven't diagnosed all the illnesses we have yet.

But another factor is how many of them have the same Vengeful Emotional Desire for Retributive Justice that leads to Conservatives attacking Democrats for being Soft on Crime have, simply directed agaisnt "The Nazis".  And make no mistake it is better to direct your desire for Righteous Vengeance agaisnt those with real Power, but at the end of the day it's still an unhealthy mindset.

We should be seeking to dismantle our current Criminal Justice System entirely, not redirect it.

Too many of the people who've figured out how Evil Capitalism is, are still buying into parts of it's justifying ideology.  Meritocracy, Individualism and Personal Accountability are all vital fundamentally linked to each other pillars of neoliberal ideology, believing in one of them will always eventually lead to the others.

In Platonist Philosophy 80- BC to AD 250 by George Boys-Stones chapter 12 talks about how the Middle Platonists and Stoics disagreed on Free Will, it's not prefect as the author seems to be on the Platonist side in this chapter.  He notes how the Platonists didn't even believe God is All Knowing, so even Bible Verses on God knowing the End from the Beginning (like Isaiah 46:9-11) make it more compatible with Stoicism then Platonism.

He says one of the problems with Stoicism is that it "removed moral responsibility" and doesn't explain why that's a problem, that conclusion is as an argument itself.   It reminds me of In Praise of Shadow's YT video on Lovecraft, after an hour of basically utterly debunking the notion that Lovecraft had Free Will he suddenly asserts that "he chose" to be a Racist.  Personal Moral Responsibility is such a given in our Capitalist Society that even many who say they oppose Capitalism refuse to question it.

Update April 2023: I've since learned that most Epicureans were not strictly Atheists but just as Deist as Aristotle.  So the Sadducees can then be viewed as Jewish Epicureans.  

The Essenes I think were ultimately more Pythagorean then Platonist and so that could explain why they had such a different position on Free Will from Middle Platonists.  

Homoousion Stoicism

The Irony is I began my flirtation with Christian Stoicism by considering certain assumptions all sides of the Nicene V Arian controversy agreed on regarding the Usias of God possibly wrong in my God and the Universe post.  But I have since found that the Stoics did sometimes use the word Usias in defining their distinction between God as the Active Matter and the visible material world as Passive Matter.  Meaning in that sense even Stoic Christians could agree that Humans other then Jesus are not exactly Homousian with God in the same way Jesus is.

However my argument was never that the Nicene Creed was wrong, and I still consider the fixation on various forms of Usias a partial distraction from the original point of the Arian heresy.  And what I've learned reading Early Arianism shows that Arius and Athanasius arguments did hinge a lot on both agreeing with Divine Immutability.

The reason why I'm making this new post on the subject is Tertullian.  Many Scholars have observed a degree of Stoicism in Tertullian including his willingness to argue that God is in a sense Corporeal.

https://williamhemsworth.com/2017/11/28/tertullian-and-stoic-materialism/

https://www.tertullian.org/articles/roberts_theology/roberts_04.htm

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2005/07/tertullian-and-stoicism.html

Now Tertullian's Stoicism is definitely tainted a bit by later Roman Stoicism when it comes to things like Sexual Morality so he's still fallen away from the New Testament in that sense.  But the Metaphysics is the point of discussion here.

He was still critical of some Stoic ideas just like I am, but what baffles me is how he thought Marcion who was more Gnostic then the Gnostics in his attitude towards the material world owed anything to the Stoics?

Tertulian is also famously cited as the only Pre-Nicene Father who even comes close to defining the Trinity in Nicene-Homousian terms with his use of Substantia which is arguably the Latin equivalent of Usias. So could even Tertulian's use of Substantia be influenced by Stoic uses of Usias?

According to Eusebius of Caesarea it was Constantine himself who insisted on the Homousian thermology.  But we also know that at Nicaea Constantine didn't know Greek very well, he was a firmly Western Latin in his language.  And since Tertullian was the first Latin Church Theologian, I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest Constantine got this Homousian idea from Tertullian's Trinitarian use of Substantia.

So it could be that in-spite of how much Platonism was already running strong in the Fourth Century Church that Homoousionism was one final win for the Stoic Theology.

Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple.

Now most people proposing that theory do so while claiming the Text of the Fourth Gospel must have been changed in some capacity.  I do not, the two passages commonly taken as distinguishing her from them are when analyzed closely actually saying the opposite.

John 20 verses 1-2.

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.  Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.

The key word here is "other" no other Beloved Disciple verse says that, the implication is that the primary Disciple to whom that title belongs was someone already in the scene, which only leaves Mary.  

Add to that how this is the only Beloved Disciple verse using a form of Philia instead of Agape and it clearly isn't good for ruling anyone out.

Now look at John 19:25-27, my personal translation.

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his maternal sister Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

As an aspiring writer myself it's clear to me that when Verse 25 describes a group of people including his mother standing by The Cross, then verse 26 says Jesus observed two people standing by, the intent is clearly that both people referred to in verse 26 are among those identified in verse 25, not merely one of them.

"But sons are male!" you may object.  It is already the point of this passage that Jesus is giving the legal responsibility of being her son to a person who's not literally biologically her son.  So likewise I don't think the biological sex or gender identity of the Disciple in question matters either.

Likewise the pronouns used here and at the end of chapter 21 may not be as gendered in the Greek as the translators assumptions have lead us to believe.  But even if they are it could be because of this legal sonship and nothing else.

I also now believe Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus & Martha are the same Mary.  In John 11 when you see a from of "love" in the English, in the Greek a form of Philia is used both times it's only referring to Lazarus in verses 3 and 36, but Agape is used when it refers to Lazarus and Martha and their sister together in verse 5.  Elsewhere in the same chapter the remaining sister is named Mary, I think this chapter which proceeded all the usual Beloved Disciple passages sets the precedent that Mary will sometimes not be referred to by name but as someone Jesus loves using Agape.  This also results in my concluding the other disciple who Jesus loved Philia in chapter 20 is Lazarus.

I've talked before about my belief that there has been some slight corruption in the letter of Polycrates.  

"We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumeneia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."[Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 24]

I believe the "John" of this letter was originally either not named at all or was named Mary.  I also think it's a misinterpretation of the letter to think this Disciple is wearing the Brest Plate of the High Priest, that reference is tied to them being the one who rested on the Bosom of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, I think they symbolically are the Breastplate with Jesus as the High Priest.

There are known traditions independent of this that say Mary Magdalene came to Ephesus, but they usually involve her coming there with "John" and Mary the Mother of Jesus, among those is Gregory of Tours.  Since the earliest Christians of Southern France were Ionians who migrated there in the 2nd Century the later tradition of Mary going to France could derive from the Ephesian tradition.  

Still I am skeptical of her even going to Ephesus, she may be among the Early Christians buried at the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mount of Olives.

You can't oppose Capitalism while supporting The Federal Reserve system

The fact that not all Capitalists support the Federal Reserve doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve is an inherent expression of Capitalism.

The problem is back in the late 90s and 2000s talking about the Federal Reserve at all on the Internet was largely monopolized by Paleo-Conservative and Libertarian Conspiracy Theorists, with literal Nazis from Stormfront sometimes worming their way into those communities.

I don't agree with the anti-Breadtube narrative of Caleb Maupin and Peter Coffin, but I do agree that Breadtube in many areas are poor ambassadors of Communist Ideology because they are Anti-Conservatives first and foremost, they say they know the American Right's conflation of Liberalism and Socialism is wrong, but to them the difference is often just a matter of extremes, to them Liberalism is synymous with Centrism and Socialism is about being even more opposed to Conservatism then the Liberals are.  The truth is much of the American Right unintentionally agrees with proper Socialism on some issues, not as many as Maupin and Coffin thinks, but still they do in fact agree sometimes.  This Breadtuber problem is why you have an epidemic of people online who think it's okay to call yourself a Socialist while supporting Gun Control, and it's also why we now have pseudo leftist defenses of the Federal Reserve.

There are three reasons to oppose the Federal Reserve system.  Well there is a fourth which is abolishing Money altogether which is the long term goal of Communism but that really can't be achieved without changing our economic system altogether.  Within the context of having Money there are three reasons to oppose the Federal Reserve, two are inherently capitalist and/or anti-capitalist in a way that is reactionary, the third can also be co-opted by liberals or reactionaries but is at it's core what Socialists should believe about Monetary policy.  

One reason is to oppose "Soft Money" and demand a return to the Gold Standard or something like it, the most well known form of this is the Austrian School.  Now I find it amusing when modern online Leftists act like calling for the Gold Standard is an Anti-Semitic Dog Whistle, because when the Gold Standard was what we had all Anti-Semites without exception opposed it, one of the sad blemishes on the classical American Populist/Progressive movement was how many people couldn't stop themselves from bringing their Anti-Semitism into their opposition to the Gold Standard.  You see Anti-Semites see Gold as inherently a tool of the Jews.  George W. Christians was a prominent American Nazi of the 1930s who's platform included Abolition of the Gold Standard.

Nazis only really started opposing the Federal Reserve when Eustace Mullins published his book on the subject in the 1950s.  The NSDAP Regime didn't abolish the German equivalent but simply put Party members in charge of it, one was literally a reappointment of someone who'd already ran it before.  Meanwhile in Italy it was specifically the Fascist regime that first gave the Bank of Italy the exclusive right to print the currency.

Breadtubers also don't seem to get that not all opponents of the Federal Reserve are Gold Standard supporters.  In Sarcasmitron's video on the subject he talks about Trump era conspiracy theorists being unable to reconcile their inherently Hard Money ideology with supporting a Soft Money president and even being unable to see the contradiction.   But Blackbigeonspeaks endorsed the soft money policies of Lincoln and JFK and based his narrative on the documentary The Money Masters which is an explicitly anti-Gold Standard documentary, I know this because I've watched it more times then I can count, originally over a decade ago as someone less critical of it then I am now, but I also rewatched it more recently with my new perspectives in mind. Sarcasmitron however seems to have not heard about it till it came up in an Alt-Right YouTube video he wanted to debunk and then just sorta skimmed it.  Same with Munecat, I actually endorse most of her anti Crypto video, but when she starts throwing in the Federal Reserve stuff she clearly didn't do as much research.

The Money Masters film makers are like a lot of people in the old Progressive movement who opposed the Federal Reserve's creation even though they had just spent decades calling for Soft Money, they feel that the Federal Reserve doesn't undo the problems of the Gold Standard but rather makes it worse.

The second reason to oppose the Federal Reserve is to be a supporter of Paper Money but feel it gives the government too much regulation of the Economy.  These people may have been fine with the original Aldrich Bill before Wilson and Bryan added more government oversight to it.  

The Chicago School is often confused with the Austrian School, but the core difference is the Chicago Boys are not Gold Standard supporters.  Some of them are fine with the Federal Reserve in fact many heads of the Fed have been Chicago Boys, but those who do oppose it fit into type two.

The third reason to oppose the Federal Reserve is feeling it doesn't regulate the economy enough.  When Marx made creating a Central Bank one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, he was NOT referring to anything like what the Federal Reserve wound up being, nor the Central Banks that already existed in the Western Capitalist powers he was criticizing like England and France.  He's referring to a Central Bank directly controlled by the Proletariat (The Working Class).

The Money Masters seem to also fall into the view that the Federal Reserve isn't regulated enough, that alone wouldn't make them Socialists, the movie gives me little to go on regarding their economic views outside of specifically how Money is printed.  The movie is wrong about certain historical subjects like repeating the Nathan Rothschild and Waterloo myth.  But it seems to Sarcasmitron it was inherently Anti-Semitic to mention the Rothschilds at all (yet his own making a secret supervillain out of Milton Freidman in his Covid video is fine), I however was shocked when I first watched it that they ignored Jacob Schiff keeping their history of American banking focused on J.P. Morgan who was a 100% Gentile, but that is more accurate Morgan was in fact way more influential.

Scarasmitron says it would be a bad thing to have the Printing of money directly controlled by the Government, and cites Turkey as an example.  That's because Turkey isn't a democracy, neither is the US of course but what I am calling for the US to do is have the printing of Money directly regulated by Congress, not monarchically controlled by a Presidential appointee.

Elections are incompatible with the Classical Definition of Democracy

This goes beyond even how we usually talk about the distinction between Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy.  

Even the most direct Democracy still needs magistrates of some sort to enforce laws and manage things, and make quick decisions in a crisis when there isn't time to debate.  In classical Athenian direct democracy these magistrates were not chosen by voting but by the Lot (Sortition), meaning a qualified citizen was selected at random.

The never implemented hypothetical constitution proposed by Hippodamus of Miletus is described as "less democratic then Athens only in that magistrates were chosen by Election rather then by lot".  In other words it's not just that Elections weren't required for Democracy, they were contrary to it.  Sparta is thought of as the antithesis of Athens and in turn the most anti-democratic City-State of Classical Greece, but Sparta did have elected magistrates in the Ephors, and they were often the actual Power in Sparta rather then the Kings.

Athenian Democracy considered Elections a threat because they didn't want one person to become too Popular, Popular enough to form a popular Tyranny, and choosing magistrates by popularity inevitably leads to cults of personality.  

The evangelists of Athenian Style Democracy considered the accountability they held magistrates to vital.  Elections make accountability more difficult, when everyone in power is also basically the face of a segment of the population holding them accountable for even the most basic of wrongdoings becomes politicized.  We see this in modern US Politics, in 2016 it was considered dangerous for Trump to make even the suggestion of criminally prosecuting Clinton a campaign promise, but now post January 6th a lot of the same people think it's a dangerous precedent not to prosecute Trump even as he's officially running for president again.

When people accuse modern western Democracies of actually being Oligarchies they usually mean that in the sense of how the Rich use their Money and influence to undermine how the system is "supposed" to work.  However Oligarchy as a Greek word is not inherently synonymous with rule by the Wealthy (that would be Plutocracy), it simply means rule by a small group.  Meaning even if American Democracy did work exactly how it claims it's supposed to, that would still be Oligarchy, that would still be rule by a small group rather then the masses, membership in that small group being decided by winning popularity contests (or being appointed by a winner of a popularity contest) doesn't matter, especially when there is no real accountability for representatives who brazenly defy the will of who they represent.  Whatever legitimacy Representative Democracy used to have was destroyed in the Anglosphere by Edmund Burke.

And as long as there are some people who are massively more wealthy then most people, they'll find a way to influence and control the representatives.  Any "campaign finance reform" you pass to address how they're doing it now will only result in them changing their methods.

Now one difference between Classical Athenian Democracy and ours definitely doesn't make theirs look better, and that is the restrictions on who could vote, women, slaves and non native residents were all excluded.  However the United States started with all those same restrictions and more, the Athenian Constitution to which I refer didn't have property requirements, but the U.S. originally did.  We also started with a from of Slavery far more brutal and dehumanizing even then how Sparta treated the Helots.  Women didn't get to vote for over a hundred years, and we still haven't enfranchised all non native born residents.  Plus we take the Vote away from convicted criminals permanently even after they've paid their debt to society.

There is evidence that there were people in Ancient Athens who sought similar reforms, perhaps the people being satirized by Aristophanes in The Assemblywomen, if the Athenian experiment hadn't been cut short by being conquered by Sparta, Macedon and Rome perhaps those reformers too could have succeeded in time. And then in the Hellenistic Era we get the Stoics who I've already talked about on this blog.

Class Struggle is Identity Politics

Politically Identifying with other people based on being the same Economic Class as them is also an Identity Politic.

Just as most Leftists agree that being Apolitical is defacto support for the status quo, rejecting "Woke" identity politics is defacto support for the White Supremacy, Patriarchy and Cisheteronormativity, and rejecting Class Politics is defacto support for the continued domination of the Bourgeoisie.

So when it comes to the little Civil War the Terminally Online Left is currently having, I have sympathies with both sides and frustrations with both sides, but they aren't equal.  And there are really more then two sides but for now I'm focusing on the "Woke Anarchists" like Thought Slime and Sophie vs "Anti-Imperialist" MLs like Caleb Maupin and PACD.

Both sides deny that they are what the other side accuses them of being, but the validity of the accusations are not equal to each other.  Maupin and PACD are Class Reductionists, doesn't matter that they pay certain lip service to other issues in ways that an old school Class Reductionists of the 1930s wouldn't have, and I also massively disagree with their "Anti-Imperialist" understanding of international Geo-Politics.  My position on the war between Russia and Ukraine is that both sides are bad and no sane Leftists should take a side on it.  But I don't think everything they are accused of is fair either, being a Class Reductionist is not the same as being actively Racist.  And you can't call someone a Class Reductionist and a Fascist or Nazi at the same time, because Fascism and Nazism were built on Class Collaboration.

Thought Slime and Sophie are not Class Collaborationists, I suspect they may agree with the title of this blog post and it's first full paragraph.  But they aren't as well read as they pretend to be.  I don't even agree with proper Anarchism anymore yet still there are better Anarchists then them on YouTube like Zoe Baker, Libertarian Socialist Rants and veritas et caritas.

PACD and Maupin like to say that most Working Class Conservatives are not horrible racist people, they are just misguided and we need to include them in our class solidarity.  And I agree with that sentiment, if that was indeed all they were doing in their flirtations with the Right I would be fine with it.  But they then turn around and engage in this massive demonizing of fellow Leftists who disagree with them, this whole "synthetic left", "Color Revolution" nonsense, and that's what makes their playing nice with Conservatives look like totally hypocritical BS.

But I also agree with them that we need to stop viewing the political spectrum as a simple Binary, or even just overlapping Binaries.  True Socialism and Communism is not simply to the Left of the Democrats and the Green Party.  It's really closer to being like a Venn Diagram, if your understanding of Socialism refuses to acknowledge that we sometimes agree with Conservatives over Liberals, most importantly on the matter of Gun Rights, then it is legitimate to accuse your Socialism of really just being edgy Liberalism.