Abolishing Capitalism Won't Abolish Patriarchy

Hello Reddit

I was bumping the thread so other people would go watch the video like me. Shitposting the general consensus > just saying "bump."

I don't think it's wrong to maintain that removing the engine of patriarchy from the base won't cause it to immediately disappear, but I don't really see how this critique should impact our praxis in any substantial way. Regardless of whether patriarchy will be slowly or quickly destroyed by the death of capitalism, killing capitalism is still what we should aim to do.

look at the god damn OP picture

kys

Hm yeah that picture is pretty fucking gay lol.

Sure but it would be weaker, so why are you letting perfect be the enemy of good?

I feel like he is ironically using the definition of Patriarchy wrong.

Patriarchy is the systemic system of sexism, so a worker still being an individual sexist after the revolution isn't Patriarchal.

I guess for this discussion, it might be helpful to define two different subsets of Patriarchy: economic and social.

Economic Patriarchy is a system which disenfranchises females for being females - ie: women are seek as less fit wage slaves, because they get pregnant and have to deal with children, therefore are not given as much job opportunities, earn less capital (even if they never have kids due to the expectation), and therefore have less power.

Social Patriarchy exists only on the backs of those perpetuating is socially: that sexist worker after the revolution. If there are enough people like him, the Social Patriarchy can continue.

However, on what basis is the individual sexist a sexist? Is it from old-traditionalism before the revolution? Or from a lack of a patriarchal consciousness? Both traditionalism and the economic foundation of patriarchy no longer exist, so in the long term it will become outmoded after a few generations.

Well his argument is that we need to employ and I quote 'intersectional class struggle' to deal with this.

because you're a fucking white male. that's pretty much it

What the fuck does that even mean?

This place used to hate all kind of IDpols. What the fuck happened?

I don't even live in the West

Whatever abstract solutions he comes up with to solve this abstract islike putting the cart before the horse. We will cross the bridge when we get there

Nah but seriously good post.

I'm bad at those wordy words :P

People retain their social mores long after the economic system changes. Look at how boomers still act like it's the 70s. Imagine how people are going to act when capitalism doesn't just morph, but is replaced altogether.

Looks like muke commented actually. I guess this is pretty much what everyone here is trying to say right?

...

anarchopac isn't from leftypol

It's also reductionist to pretend that those struggles exist in and of themselves rather than being the spreading tendrils to capitalism's tumor.

Reminder that saying shit like 'patriarchy' is a guaranteed loss for our ideas.

'Cos patriarchy doesn't real, my nigga

Yes, but eventually, all such people die. And outside of a culture of the glory days of the mid 20th century, the economic system is no longer perpetuating that mindset. Pretty much all millennials are disillusioned from the cold war era capitalist mentality at least.

I actually used the non third wave definition of patriarchy in my Dead Rising video, I'm doing my part, I guess

link?

Yeah, and it cuts both ways. They're also irrelevant in the face of material conditions, because if you fix those, then you fix the effects of sexism.

Yeah, that's what I was suggesting. The change happens at a generational scale. Capitalism would have failed a lot sooner if it wasn't for the memories of its booms lasting longer than the economic effects.

The material basis upon which patriarchy stood will no longer exist, so this means patriarchy will cease to exist. If it continues, that means people are doing it without being compelled or coerced into it, which implies that it's some sort of hardcoded part of "human nature", and it's very odd that feminists would think that patriarchy is human nature.

So? It doesn't matter if people are sexist so long as they don't have the power to act on their sexism to enforce some kind of gender hierarchy. Pic somewhat related.

Class politics unites people identity politics divides people.
The feminists are basically being the foot soldiers of capitalism, trying to maintain the patriarchal status quo..
The so called "brosocialist", is saying, sexism wont end, but things will be better after the overthrow of capitalism.

To which the feminist screeches in a fit of rage about how we should do nothing because sexism something something.

youtu.be/UkifvKOjs-Q?t=28m19s

talking about the petty bourgeois and their tendency to right wing/reactionism

I meant old style family patriarchy basically not the nebulous all-encompassing patriarchy of today

That's a good quote.

Top kek, m8. All that is is bitching about muh patriarchy and then blaming capitalism on men. Feminism is cancer.

...

It should really be Marxist Egalitarianism but Marxist Feminism is okay, I guess, but it hardly actually exists in practice.

Yeah, you seem well read

Then why is it that no "marxist feminist" ever seems to be able to explain why we need their shit? It's always vague statements about nothing. I'm not going to read a book if you can't even make a coherent argument for why your theory is at all valid.

Not really given it focuses on women and like any form of feminism (or pretty much any ideology at all) does a pretty good job of ignoring the ways gender roles shit on men.

Daily reminder that Lenin was a brocialist.

You're a fucking retard from the outset.
Feminism is a bourgeois ideology. This has always been the case and just because you want it to be good doesn't make it so.

Well that's what I meant.

"hey, maybe if we all worked together and united against the ruling class then we can implement our policies own the line"- lefty pol

"NO YOU RACIST WHITE MALE, LETS FIGHT AND DO NOTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGG"- idpol

It's almost like it's a complete nonsense term made up to smear genuine socialists.

Word. I thought you were pointing out the name not really fitting with the idea of gender equality.

Women are more likely to be classcucks/reactionaries, more at 11. What do people expect when women are the designated guardians of morality expected to inflict traditional beliefs onto the kiddos?

Ok. Here, have some actually existing Marxist feminism, and maybe work out your issues with women that make you unable to understand or recognize their oppression.

Why not? Shouldn't we stand against all forms of oppression within the capitalist ideological superstructure?

...

Except Cuba did that through actual Marxism, not throught endless feminist navelgazing and 'self criticism'. They went and seized the state without worrying if having white able bodied men lead the revolution was deeply excellent and triggering.

Stop trying to salvage this word. It's gone.

I haven't read any of Beauvoir's books, but some of the excerpts I've read make her sound like she pulled a whole lot out of her ass, turning me off from spending time reading more. She seems to be pretty influential though, what do other anons have to say about her work?

Notice how you just posted unsourced stats and not an actual argument. It's almost like you can't justify your retarded positions to someone who already believes in equality, especially with stupid conspiracy theories like "patriarchy".

Sure, but we don't need feminism with its retarded ideas of "patriarchy" and other shit. I already don't believe women are subhuman, therefore what have you to offer me? Oh, nothing, except more bitching about men, as if all men were oppressing all women.

Feminists are fucking retards, aren't they?

on one hand

on the other hand

It predates capitalism tho

Wow, feminists are really reaching here.

false dichotomy

Shit, I was paying too much attention to the "gender ratios in fields = gender equality" meme to realize that post was vid related.

Emma Goldman was against suffrage for similar reasons, tho she did identified as a feminist.

Well, if we ever needed confirmation that SJWs are just Holla Forums by another means.

Emma Goldman was exactly the kind of people Lenin was criticizing here:
She also had weak theory because she was an anarkiddie.

That picture is posted all the time because of how stupid it is, newfag.

And yet that is exactly how feminists think.

Cmon now you neckbeards, there won't be one. Certaintly not one that you'l be a part of.

Yes obv capitalism is not perfect, promotes greed well beyond need and mindless consumerism. But at least it doesn't discriminate or cause massive poverty as socialism tends to. Ultimately it is a lesser evil.

Also, i know you lefties can be.. emotional. But i thought you were at least intelligent enough to see your way past the feminist-patriarchy meme.
What you call 'material inequality' is little more than women being envious of wealth, there is no invisible hand making women this way, it is part of their nature.

No.

Ever wonder why rational people dislike liberals?

Anarchopac says the patriarchy was a major problem in the Russian Revolution without providing evidence or explaining by what metric he is using. In both women became soldiers including army officers yet somehow women commanding brigades is not moving equality. That when women in the revolutionary army are commanding tanks and piloting fighters they are still being oppressed by men at the same level as before the revolution.

The next problem is when looking at the comecon nations that women where thrown in heavy industry. Under Stalin women were expected to risk their necks riveting steel girders in dangerous icy conditions with the same risks as men. So it still patriarchy when Stalin expected all workers (male and female) to got into the meat grinder of dangerous heavy industry with no culture for safety?

Kek

Then maybe patriarchy is just natural?

Why do people care so much about ending patriarchy? Women literally have it better than men as it is.

Loads of people identify as feminists. That doesn't make them feminists anymore than Cousin "I'm not a racist but…" Cletus is anti-racist.

t. /r9k/

Bruh I'm openly an MRA (and women's rights advocate) but that's a bullshit claim. Women have a lot of advantages and you could maybe argue more advantages than men but you can't just make blanket statements like that. Comparing how well off one group is over another is fucking meaningless when individual variations account for so much more. There are men and women in all strata of life and dick waving over who makes up more of which strata or who has more advantages is the same bullshit that feminists pull. Gender roles isn't a zero sum game and as much as men's problems warrant attention you don' help anyone but Porky when you turn shitty situations into the oppression olympics. There's zero reason to foster competitiveness instead of cooperation. Before you pull the "feminists started it" line, we're aware of that here; take the high road champ.

...

I think the point of that pic is to call out how ridiculous the idea of muh privilege is. It's basically holding up feminists to their own standards, which don't make them look very good. We should instead ignore their shit and liberate workers, because I don't really care if someone called Obama a nigger or Beyonce a cunt. I care about the guy(or gal) that works for a living, white black.

Capitalism will abolish Patriarchy, as it is a feudal institution.

I actually did, majority cares more about circlejerking with Holla Forums or just muh hivemind.

'when individual variations account'

'There's zero reason to foster competitiveness'
Nigga, competitiveness is the most natural state.

You know, there was a time i thought libs were pretty fucking cool, back when you were actually opposed to corporations. All this gender noise has made you a bunch of cucks.

Have any of you ever considered that perhaps inequality-meme was a psyop to create division?

good, but other men, consciously or subconsciously, may not feel the same way, and it would be nice for you to help with changing those attitudes by at least showing solidarity once and a while.

No. Those attitudes are unimportant in the face of the workers' struggle. What you describe just leads to attacking the working poor with idpol bullshit and telling them to check their muh privilege. Kill yourself.

Try again.

Real patriarchy was a problem during the Russian revolution given that it was a function of agrarianism. It was a problem, because it helped to maintain the peasant class. Of course, in this instance we are talking about the real patriarchy that Engels wrote about, which is all but gone in most of the world along with the agrarian system that utilized it.

So what?

First off
We're not liberals. We're communists.
The whole point of my post is to call out this bullshit and say fighting over it is a distraction. What did you think I meant when I said oppression olympics helps porky?

>>>Holla Forums
Natural and good are not the same thing. Eating raw meat and wiping your ass with leaves is natural but you're not about to advocate that are you?

What did he mean by this? There is no such thing as an average person, that's an abstraction. You can't judge huge populations' lives according to an approximation.

This, the guy is a fucking retard; Capitalism if anything helped eliminate the patriarchy through its equal proletarianization.

Those stats seem like nitpicking. Besides nothing wrong with some population reduction, especially in backwards 3rd world countries, which the majority of those stats are from.

Truth is, socialism has failed every time it has been tried. It doesnt work. Capitalism despite its fallings, lasts.

youtu.be/zIddCEBCKHQ

This is why i can't support the left even if i want to. Stop thinking in your made up middle class problems. Grow the fuck up

That's not a bad thing
That's keynesianism, not Capitalism.

You're aware the invisible hand is a description of the natural functioning of market relations, right? It's invisible because it's not intentional, jesus christ.
Is "greed" part of their nature or poverty part of their nature?
Both are true for all humans and not just women.

...

It actually isn't, and your refusal to let go of idpol is hurting our chances for revolution.

...

...

I have no idpol, patriarchy/gender-roles are a very real social construct in capitalism though.

Yeah, Nah

Whats the difference? You all appear a bunch of sjws. No modern distinction to me.

You're funny. Don't bother responding if you're one of those naive idealists.

Yet in every graph or piechart both left and right, it comes down to that. So that's moot.

It's like we're agreeing but not agreeing. Socialism in a nutshell kek.

Someone puhlees prove to me that patriarchy exists in the modern western world without refering to a chart/book/vid. Make an argument.

I do agree fellow leftist. Sure is a good job the mods here have turned into cuckolds, like myself and you also.

Reminder both Marx and Engels criticized the patriarchy

I can't imagine how someone becomes this jaded and fucking stupid.

Patriarchy doesn't real. Notice how nobody can prove it exists, especially in the face of:
And capitalism didn't create gender roles either, you nutter.

That vid has tons of examples with a menu for you to navigate. Click on any of them, you illiterate nigger.

They were talking about agrarian society, you stupid faggot. They certainly weren't talking about how all men oppress all women by the virtue of their sex. Go eat a dick, nigga.

I never said capitalism created gender-roles you idiot. If you can't see how capitalism creates and perpetuates its own arbitrary divides then I don't know why you bother calling yourself a leftist. That picture just proves it for me more then it does for you.

kek

We want to get rid of capitalism instead of making it more polite.

Any decent leftist is a materialist, not an idealist. "Thinks nice things can happen" is a normalfag definition of idealism.

No it doesn't you fucking retard. There are as many statistical metrics as mathematicians come up with. One of the most basic is the standard deviation which is a measure of how poorly the average represents the population.

good reasoning, enjoy Le Pen, retard

Right but this for the partially dissolved. Women were swept up into the ranks of the revolutionary army and the industrial working class.

how does he manage to not see how ridiculous he sounds? is he pretending to be retarded?

Where does he say anything about ignoring them?

True.

Care to try that sentence again?

Muke is an idiot, but he is right about that.

Saying that patriarchy is real means that we are facing a system which creates massive disadvantages towards women and massive advantages towards men. I don't think that's case just by looking at this

The reason why patriarchy existed in the first place was the agrarian aspect of agrarian societies created disadvantages toward women.

Nowadays we live in a post-industrial society. There aren't too many material factors which force men and women in roles which are capable of creating huge power imbalances between them.

Of course, sexism still exists because capitalism divides people, but that doesn't mean that we live in a patriarchy.

Socialism has never failed. It has always created a dehumanizing tyranny as intended.

I guess you think Marx and Lenin were ridiculous too. Kill yourself, SJW scum.

we will.

...

t. (you)

Maybe I am /r9k/, maybe I'm not. Why does it matter?
I will not sit by while this bullshit goes on

yes and pepperidge farm makes natural food

A lot of that is caused by capitalism so no need to get all reactionary.

Nobody is saying it isn't, retard. The problem is that feminists blame the same sorts of problems on men(muh patriarchy) instead of capitalism or the inherent nature of things that they do due to free choice.

...

Your """"infographs"""" are terribly phrased so

Even in capitalism, you have choices to do or not do certain things. The problem is that making a higher wage doesn't stop your exploitation, and it isn't like women are forbidden from working those jobs, even dangerous ones. For example, I worked in the oil fields for a time before I realized I didn't wan to die. Women have a choice to try to get that job or not, since I saw women working with me as well. What you don't have a choice in is having to work for a living period. I had to work there, and got the fuck out only because I thought being starving was at least a better opportunity to find a solution to my poverty than being blown the fuck up when venting a tank.

Socialism btfo then I guess

The problem of patriarchy partially dissolved in like of women being swept up into the revolutionary army and into industry.

When there are women that commands brigades of men, patriarchy no longer works as a good model to explain sexism.

You just had to say, fam.

Name one country where "socialism" took hold that wasn't impoverished before the socialists came in.

In addition, what do you think is causing massive poverty in the world today if not capitalism? Satan?

No. It's a volitile, exploitative system that's actively collapsing as we speak.

kek

We're the most cool headed and objective of the bunch.

We're not liberals, shit for brains.

why does he have two left hands?

...

mind blown

off topic, but a fun fact about the person who drew that comic is that she's friends with rapists irl and generally a pos

r/socialism allegedly covers up rapes when it was about some Trot group.

And I still can't get over how they can't defeat their own strawman. If a socialist revolution isn't that woman's revolution, then she must be a bourg pig. Quite telling.

...

An undesirable social institution (e.g. patriarchy or racism) can exist in different modes of production. It doesn't follow from that that it can/would be sustained under all modes of production (including communism).

anarchopac is a white knight pussy, end of story.

Why does it smell like a tomb in here? Oh right, because Marxists spend all their time poring over dead bodies looking for justification for their bizarre antiquated belief systems.

Feel free to join the 21st Century any time.

What new philosophies have been developed in the 21st century?

Honestly curious.

Yeah, let's get rid of the concept of "atoms." Soooo 19/20th century. Time to get with the times.

for you OP

Anarcho-Eroto-Zizekism

Random fistfuckings for everyone, especially whether they like it or not. Doubly true for all cat owners and creamless coffee drinkers.

I'd ask Pac if he would apply the same logic to the people who prioritize national liberation before all other issues (including anti-capitalism and feminism). There are no shortage of women from "colonized" cultures (black women, Palestinian women, etc.) who believe falling back into traditional gender roles is a means of offsetting ideological influence from colonizers. Take, for example, Muslim women in France who WANT to wear the niqab and pump out six or seven kids: they do so because they want to give whitey the finger.

This is great.

Feminism being cancerous idpol doesn't excuse your cancerous idpol.

I do not believe that the economic system is sexist because it stomps on woman-kind, it is sexist because it doesn't. Women are being coddled and patronized again, and again. Standards get lowered, eggshells get walked on, special treatment gets issues. This is treatment equal to children. Special needs children. Virtue signalling of the worst sort.

Sounds more like Eroto-Foucaultianism tbh

Who'mst'd've thought?

It sounds like his critique stems from the structure of existing social relations, though, and not supposedly "essential" characteristics. It is true that women have been the primary caregivers under parts of capitalism, and that implies a role in propagating bourgeois morality. Though recently we've seen this "responsibility" shared more evenly.

both what you said and what I said are simultaneously true

radical feminists actually acknowledge exactly what you are saying, but refer to it as "female socialization"

Since when are women more responsible for that than men? It just sounds like /r9k/ tier rambling to me. No gender is to blame for ideology.

...

Someone with a YT account do this.

Does he have a point? He's basically saying Marxists suffer from confirmation bias. Doesn't that apply to him too?

From what I know of him, his understanding of Marxism is terrible, very over-simplified and full of appeals to "gotchas!".

and into the trash it goes

What a fucking meme, do you honestly believe that drivel? Under a capitalist system, women can just opt out, like they ALREADY DO. Under a system where the means of production are centralized, do you really think that the old boy's club would go away? Fuck no, look at every communist nation in history. The reality is that patriarchy exists because men are more able to enforce their will on others than women, simply by sheer virtue of most men being more capable of being violent. No amount of changes to the economic system will alter biological reality.

Patriarchy predates capitalism, firstly, and secondly capitalism does not create jack shit. I see this constantly, where people insert a narrative into economics, where capitalism 'creates' or 'causes' things. No, it doesn't cause anything, because the system isn't a sentient entity that is capable of making a centralized decision. 'Capitalism has lately been eliminating the patriarchy, because the more individualized people are and the more equal, the more they compete with each other to enslave themselves to the debt monster.'

Is this the real life? Reddit doesn't give a fuck about real anticapitalism, they are the most feminism > economics group on the internet. Kys.

As opposed to individuals under capitalism, where they are just individually sexist. There is no grand conspiracy, just the random interactions that lead to cultural memes, such as patriarchy. There is no secret cult controlling all gendered interactions.

Indeed. Why would he even be a communist if he does not see class struggle as the primary motivating force of history? That doesn't make any sense.

Maybe he's a Bookchinite?

Then he would be a communalist, wouldn't he? Not an ancom?

Maybe he thinks both are essentially the same?

So he is a communalist without a basic understanding of theory. I guess that figures.

Gee, don't hide your power level on account of us.

Fuck me

I'm having a discussion with him, and that doesn't really help undermine his points. On the other hand, every time one catches him, he just doesn't reply.

I know he's not a communalist, but I am not even sure he's if he's an ancom, even though his flag would let one think he is.

As a sexual minority, he certainly places a lot of focus on gender issues, I belive more than class, even though he won't admit (ie. "Intersectional class struggle, aka. I promise we won't forget about classes) that's all I know for sure.

Ask him this:

So patriarchy is a good ol' boy club?

Ah, I get it. He's one of those guys who practices the dialectical science of intersectional materialism.

Will do, but I first need a response to his points.

He studies analytic philosophy. I doubt he supports the use of dialectics.

What's he arguing?

"The dialectical science of intersectional materialism" is a nonsense term that reddit unironically couches as actual theory.

Does Pac use it though?

Basically, he is claiming that claiming than class struggle is not only secondary, but de facto irrelevant for history, and that the base-superstructure model is flawed while patriarchy is imminent. I'm not an expert, so I probably not the best to debate this either.

See: youtube.com/watch?v=aO5KayvhCdI&lc=z13zhfup1rmqeppia04cd534moalirtjo4c

Found this: anarchopac.wordpress.com/

(The problem already begins with the fact that he "identifies" with a political philosophy…)

I also know he posted a video once, complaining about all the "labeling" on the left, saying that it prevents anarchists to use theories devised by communists, vice versa, etc. But the way I see it, is that it's a fantastic excuse to cherry pick what he wants from each school, without having to change his mind on preexisting topics.

Lel. just call it "materialist idealism".

Good thing patriarchy is a fucking spook then.

...

So, he's a Bodigaist?

t. a white cis male

i will never not find it hilarious that the most annoying sjw types are either trustfund babies (class doesn't matter because everyones dads pays for stuff right?) or white guys who drank the sjw koolaid while cruising for poon.

Many people wrongly consider Luxemburg as a feminist just because she was a woman. I cannot recall a single thing she said about gender other than the ultra left statement that women's suffrage should be opposed and wont help the working class. I honestly can't think of a more "brocialist" communist figure in history than her.

Probably because the feminism in her day wasn't Marxist influenced at all.

If you don't have a hierarchal government and hierarchal economy and hierarchy of certain religions a patriarchy could still exist in a social level but without these hierarchal structures it will fade away over time on its own fairly quickly in places it still exists.

Read the SCUM manifesto ok??
Raise Valerie Solanas

No idea. I was just memeing.

There is just no hope for some people.

Good book.

The answer to this question is. Feminism won't abolish capitalism and capitalism affects more people, also there is no reason why socialism should not be feminist also and indeed there is every proof that it always has been so shhh sweetheart let the men do the talking

They've shown that this is just an artifact from the past actually. As more women take on the kind of labor-intensive jobs that men used to primarily work, the lifespan gap closes to nothing.

You mean beyond the fact that feminism adds nothing to the movement and splits the proletariat against itself?

But socialism is already pro women's right .

youtube.com/watch?v=aO5KayvhCdI&lc=z13zhfup1rmqeppia04cd534moalirtjo4c.1489570056523876

He answered