Legitimate question please don't shitpost

"Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included)."

Marx, Letter to Kugelmann (1868)

nah, that's a really growing sentiment. You can just go to that Chapo Trap House, Jacobin, New Star, Platypus milieu and they're all set against SJW shit.

And you're not going to get rid of things like queer marxism or black marxism or feminist marxism because that would not be denying SJW politics, that would be denying the value of Marxism as a tool of analysis of society. All social phenomena have material and class underlines that Marxism investigates. If something as major as racial and sexual differences become incompatible with this, then it's because the method of investigation is flawed.

You imply there is anything wrong with Marxist feminism.

Why not just fucking separate them?

...

That isn't possible. You cannot achieve women's liberation whilst still shackled to the capitalist system, nor can you achieve true liberation for all without women's liberation.

Separating feminism from Marxism is a bourgeois tactic to declaw feminism.

Female workers should be organized in order to pursue the interests that effect them particularly. Every concession from the bourgeoisie is a victory for the proletariat, that weakens the position of capital and strengthens that of the worker.

The point where is passes from "workers' self interest" to identity politics is when it starts to become an end in itself rather than a stepping stone on the way to the ultimate defeat of the bourgeoisie, or like it is currently where it's just used to divvy up ruling class priviIege and distribute it among the ever-shrinking middle class.

We don't get them. They get created by the bourgies to divide et impera and get stuck on us like parasytes.

Capitalism has liberated women, by giving them the same chains the men have. … Only in pink.

There is quite a bit wrong with it. Like the idea the state will just wither away and won't degenerate into capitalism.

It will wither away, as long as you have an educated people and there is not capitalist superpower to sabotage you.

…

oh, you're not talking about Leninism, are you?

...

Do you want to go back to the feudal age and enjoy your servitude to your husband?

That would imply men are free either.

Not to mention women don't enjoy the same muh privileges as men given how many women get raped and for exactly nothing to be done about it.

I don't want to live in your reality where hamburgers eat people and people wear hats on their feet.

Again, you have the same chains as men, only in pink. What else do you want? Do you want to lose your fashion magazines? We can do that. I like soviet fashion. Do you want soviet fashion?

This is the thing. As I said earlier you cannot achieve women's liberation whilst still shackled to the capitalist system. Any "liberation" that happens under capitalism will always be incomplete by virtue of the oppressive system itself.

Feminism is a goal and Marxism is a means. If you want feminism, you have to have Marxism.

Part of the point of my greentext is also that it's laughable to say "capitalism" has liberated women. That's retarded, proletarian women have liberated women (to the best their material conditions allow).

into the trash it goes

Ye, ok, the problem is my goal is communism, not feminism.

...

Having feminism is implicit to having communism. If you achieve communism full equality and freedom for women is a natural consequence of this.

I want sexists to leave

The thing is you argument had no merit, it was a pure shitpost.

And the reason I say it's "mansplaining" is more so to do with the fact it's just being condescending.

Yes, but it's a byproduct.
Communism isn't a byproduct of feminism. You can have feminism and capitalism just fine, IMHO.

As you said, its a shitpost, and you feel the need to call it out on being condescending? Wow, much insight fam.

this tbh

I know it isn't a byproduct of feminism, I'm saying the reverse is true and that feminism can only be achieved through communism.

You can't, as you should know no prole is free under capitalism.

Yeah so I shitposted back but apparently that shitpost was too triggering.

Fuck I've been outplayed

But "every prole being free" isn't what feminism is about.

So it sounds like you and groucho are mostly in agreement.

No, it's about women being free.

Which they aren't, by virtue of the capitalist system. And as you pointed out neither are men. Thus is the need for communism.

But, far in the future, theoretically prole women can be exploited just as equally as male proles, but male and female bourgeoise. Hence, gender equality.

*by male

Yes, but if it's a bourgie feminist woman, why would she care about prols?

You see, my goal cannot be feminism, as I don't care about women, more than I care about men, criples, niggers, muslims, slavs, child soldiers, whatever.

My basic dissagreement with feminism is, why should I give a fuck ESPECIALY about women?

As you yourself state, it's about WOMEN being free. Not humans, not prols, not aliens, WOMEN.

So, as I am not a woman, why should I care about feminism? Even if I was a gay man or a woman that identified as a man, why would I care? Same with BLM, for example. Since I am not black though am I white? I don't know why should I care?

If you don't fight for me, why should I fight for you?

So what I gather is that we agree on

Is the big deal over whether to call it feminism or not? Because that's a pretty petty argument over bullshit.

Equality, yes in a manner of speaking. You'd also have equality if everyone of equal genders was a slave. This is why I hesitate to say "equality" and talk more about "liberation". It is of no consequence how equal genders are in theory, but what matters is how free they are as individuals.

As we can see prole women are being exploited. This is bad. Thus is the point of Marxist feminism to analyse this specific section of capitalist exploitation.

No one is saying you should. I just came in to say that there's nothing wrong with Marxist feminism. Especially since it is relevant to the interests of 50% of the proletariat.

As I've also said feminism isn't the only goal, the chiefmost goal is communism. It just so happens that with communism comes feminism/

I do not think this is at all true.
Socialism in and of itself does not emancipate all peoples.
There was still oppression of women in historical societies that commonly would be described as socialist, for example.
Socialism is required for emancipation, but a feminist/race/etc. struggle is still required for emancipation.
The point is just that the liberal method is useless and the liberal goal is not true emancipation.

No it doesn't. It only does if you want to call "all people are equal" feminism. Pure ideology.

Again, am not that sure…

In merit or value? What are you getting at?

this

Equality of oportunity and so on. Basic marxism.

Am getting at, it's marxism not feminism, and calling it feminism is pure ideology.

If all women are free from systems of oppression that's the feminist dream no?

Likewise if all people are free from systems of oppression that's communism no?

So since 50% of those people would be women, would you not by achieving the latter have also achieved the former?

So, Communism is 50% Feminism?

If I mix 50% milk and 50% water, is it milk or water?

Can't I just be a brocialist and be ok, work all night and sleep all day?

Not an argument.

A basic tenet of Marxism is class struggle for emancipation, why deny that from females? Why deny giving them a word to describe that struggle separate from the general class struggle?

You're legitimately retarded and/or have reading disabilities if that's your reading of anfems post.

Well yeah, of course you can.

I'm just saying that communism itself will have implicitly achieved feminism. So there's nothing wrong with Marxist feminism.

I know. I don't have an argument, am only suspicious.

Because it's separate. Sectarism is bad as it is. We don't need further schisms.

Feminism is wrong. :^)

Why wouldn't a solidarity minded socialist movement/revolution emancipate all people? It's fair to say Capitalism is what currently provides the ability to oppress people based upon biological characteristics or spooks, wouldn't removing that power remove oppression as well? I mean you can't force commisar cletus to not hate niggers or whatever, but if he can't oppress them that what does it matter?

But anfem is exactly telling you why Feminism is a/can be a subset of Marxism. If it's a subset then it's not sectarian, but it's still useful to have a word to describe it.
You're really unable to picture feminist struggle as happening with Marxist principles?

The key word being 'solidarity'. Point being that solidarity is cultivated, not inherent to socialism.
As I said earlier in this thread: I don't think this is self-evident. Ask a woman in kekalonia (Or any other socialist society, just one counterexample is needed) whether or not she was completely emancipated the day socialism was enacted. Because that's sort-of what you're implying. That the minute capitalist hierarchy is removed, all other unjust hierarchy is also magically removed.

There exists other hierarchy in society than the one between capitalist and worker.

I can picture it. I just can't find a reason to support it and think it's disorientating the masses. Oh, and it's being used by bourgies that spoil the name of marxism.

Ah, so your argument is that you shouldn't support using the term marxist feminism to describe marxist feminist struggle because it's "disorientating the masses", and because stupid people use the word wrong.
Nice. Fucking. Argument.

I never said it's a good argument. But it's my argument and am sticking with it.

...

Well, you're being irrational then.
When faced with a case where evidence and arguments are against you, it's expected of you (and other reasonable human beings) to change their views to fit rational thinking. Since not doing so results in a world-view that is either inconsistent or intellectually dishonest.

So I feel pretty justified in saying that you are a narrow-minded reactionary. And that you should read a fucking book, or just shut the fuck up when grown-ups are talking.

I do not change the views I publicly express, as I only use them when needed.

Praxis has nothing to do with propaganda.

Fair enough. What can we do to cultivate solidarity?

The point is that if the power that created the hierarchy is removed, it becomes a toothless thing. Commisar Brosef may not like women and view them as weak creatures, but if women are able to have self-agency then his dislike of them is irrelevant as he can't oppress them. I see no reason why a free socialist society would not enact such things as part of the liberation of the worker from capitalism.

Even when faced with better alternatives? That sounds counter-productive.

Propaganda is rooted in praxis and theory.

Here it gets difficult, because we move away from theory and philosophy and into praxis.
I'm not an expert, but I will wager that failing to hit the right balance between cultivating solidarity and mindless inclusion is what caused the left to turn to idpol.

A socialist society is nothing but a society without private property and with collective ownership of all MoP. That doesn't eliminate the hierarchy between man with gun and man without gun, for example.
A socialist society can be a slave society, if one is able to convince the working class that some subset of humans can be regarded as property. In that case there is no hierarchy between capitalist and worker, and there is collective ownership of the means of production.
The problem is that 'socialism' as a sole term is too permissive. While it's obvious that no Socialist in the real world as the word is used commonly would ever be in support of a slave society.
But because the word socialism (and leftism in general) describes a political system of production, and not one of law or of rights etc. it means that there is no agreement on where this line of what obviously does not belong in socialism (Slave society) and what might (Slavery of animals? Limited rights of violent criminals?).
You say you do not see why a free socialist society would not enact emancipation of the female. Well what about an emancipation fight that you'd disagree with?
I could say, "I do not see why a free socialist society would not enact emancipation of violent child rapists", and my argument would have the same strength, since your argument rests on the assumption that socialism emancipates all equally, even though there are some groups whose complete emancipation is not wanted.

I just realized that I forgot the point of the post.

The point is that the political concept of emancipation from unjust hierarchy - that is, hierarchies that are not not the hierarchy between capitalist and worker - is not related to Socialism in and of itself.
And since this emancipation is not directly tied to socialism, it needs separate justification.

I obviously believe that such justification exists, and that one can reach this justification using Marxist thought (though maybe not in isolation).

m8 I'm drunk right now so I'm blurring on most of your shit. I do think we need to work on building a large solidarity socialist movement if we want a chance. I don't think violent child rapist emancipation is an analogue to women's emancipation because the former relies on removing agency from another group to exist while the latter is about agency for a group.

I like women and treat them like I treat men. When I'm interested in them I get awkward because it seems the only time women want me is as a fuckboy and I just want someone to read books with and cuddle and do cute shit with. I'd fight for the right(liberal spooks I know) of agency for everyone because Socialism without Freedom is slavery and brutality. I've had way too much whiskey right now and can't makes sense of shit but I'm tired and it seems the best I can do is a couple of hours of fucking before I get left alone to stew in my thoughts. We need to dismantle the capitalist hierarchy and replace it with a system where hierarchy doesn't exist and can't be enforced, if that makes me a feminist or whatever fine but that's what needs to happen.

Well, they're not really I know. But that isn't integral to the point.
The point is that socialism is just a mode of production, and that emancipation does not follow from socialist mode of production.

Have a nice drunk, been too long since I got piss-drunk. Hopefully that will change when uni starts again.

Just as a final note,
Some hierarchy is justified, e.g. the hierarchy between child and parent.

Kek now feminism is the goal of Marxism because women's equality will be a benefit. It's like saying that free ice cream is the goal and Marxism is the way to reach it. It's just grasping at straws.

Propagand is to counter the arguments of the enemy.

It is. But some spooks are better left alone. After all, if we start saying, "ye, ok, you can have your group that fights for women" they'll want to take over more stuff! They already do!

Nobody said this.

That does not refute what I said, I think in fact it supports my statement. The ability of propaganda to convince people and "to counter the arguments of the enemy" is related to being rooted in theory that is right and that has use.

That's one of the weirdest slippery slope arguments I've ever fucking read.
I've said it already and I'll say it again: you are a narrow-minded reactionary, and I think it's about time for me to stop replying.

My question is why would women be granted

?
In fact, I'd say that these things are mostly present in the West. Housework can hardly be said to be unpaid, when there are studies that show it's women who do 80% of the spending, even though they do less than half of the earning.

Say a woman does something like pic related, probably raises a bunch of homeless or criminals (which single moms tend to do) why would she be entitled to the fruits of my labor?

In my opinion, females and males should be splitting parental and professional duties, as it's far too common that since the father is away from his children and they become estranged, while the mother out of work and becomes unemployable since she has no skills.

Why they were granted. Because Soviets decided that it should happen. Do you have anything against the right of the people to collectively decide things?

Were they present before Soviets introduced them?

Personally, I don't do much Marxist Feminism. My area of interest is Marxism itself (organization/economy). I'm mostly looking into it to understand how to properly incorporate Green and Idpol followers into real Socialist movements (I've come to conclusion that my anti-Green stance - while correct - is a bit uncompromising). Well, that and as a part of historical processes (revolutionary morale and so on).

1. Show me some references about this. I am from eastern Europe.
I just asked, my grandmother had been on maternal leave for exactly 4 months before having to return to work.
There were no kindergartens in the village.
Unpaid housework I addressed earlier.

2. It's possible that they made a wrong decision, or what worked back then doesn't hold now.

Uhm… why does it matter anyways?

To what? And I don't care even if you are from Mars. Give me place and time to specific events. Maybe you are talking Poland in 1938 or something equally irrelevant.

You are not making much sense here. I ignored this before, but if you wish to persist, then I'd like you to properly explain your position here. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

What do you think my position is, what exactly are you trying to prove, what specific facts you present, and how exactly they prove your point - those things should be addressed, at the very least.

I'm making a wild guess here and assuming that you imagine people having something like 3 years of paid leave for mothers since 19th century.

A cursory check gives "exactly 4 months" being equal to 112 days. I.e. 16 weeks with fully paid leave (if we are talking USSR - Eastern Europe is big). Apparently, since the 30s, if not earlier, but I'm not digging that deep.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternity_leave_in_the_United_States
That's less than 3 months and it's not paid. That's after the reforms of 1993, by the way. State laws might be different, but that's not the point here.

I.e. chances are your grandmother would've been fired, if she was living in the US.

Because it means that it was Marxists that introduced those policies to the Capitalist nations. It means that Western states were forced to adopt those policies under the threat of having significant chunk of population turned into potential Soviet agents.

Czechoslovakia early 60s.

I was addressing your point of

You were the one to make it about the soviets, I don't think this really relates to them. Unless of course you claim that what they have done is all that we need, in which case we can bury the whole issue because it was solved decades ago.

Which I didn't assume because why worry so much about a solved problem.

Now, on the other hand, if you meant that these benefits should be extended, I expanded that they should be extended to males and females equally since an imbalance is likely to cause abuses on a massive scale (see divorcees paying fortunes to their ex wives while they are raising literal failures)

To clarify, in some aspect we have a better social security than western europe proper thanks to the 'communist' heritage, and standards of living dropped after 89. But to claim that all social reforms were achieved thanks to the soviet union and take it as a golden standard is falsely guided, and unrelated to the issue at hand.

I hope we understand each other better now, friend.

Since my very first post, because I needed Socialist state as an example, and early USSR is the best example - being sole Marxist influence on the world before West started reacting to the threat.

It's not my fault you are trying to use anecdotal evidence about something that happened 30 years later in a non-Soviet state, a decade after USSR itself went full-revisionist.

I'm quite certain that even Czechoslovak cities at the time had kindergartens, diners, and a full assembly of useful stuff for making housework easy - while having much much less of those in the 30s. If you want to refute my point you need to prove that Soviet influence did not increase speed of it's adoption and quality of service.

It does.

DiaMat? No?

Socialism is a process, not a static state. I.e. process of changing society, of continuously introducing new and changing old policies. Not a set of specific policies. Until we get to Communism (which is also a process), nobody can expect to have Socialist state that had done "all that we need".

Capitalism is also a process. But while Socialist states can (and generally do) change policies that benefit society (including feminist policies), Capitalist states change policies to better fit the economic laws of market - because there is nobody actually in charge of anything.

Why do I even need to explain it all on Holla Forums?

Marxism. And I'm not claiming "all" - that would be idealism. I'm pointing out that if you need consistent changes, you need to use Socialism. Any gains under Capitalism - which are much harder to make - will be ephemeral.

If you are asking how we got to point with things like marxist feminism and queer marxism, it is due to a certain tribe of unbridled, evil-minded cosmopolitans, profiteers with no roots and no conscience… Grown on rotten yeast of bourgeois cosmopolitanism, decadence and formalism… non-indigenous nationals without a motherland, who poison with stench our proletarian culture. They like to whine about muh 6 million a lot but Stalin knew what to do with them.

>>>/gulag/

עץ רע לא יכול לייצר פירות טובים

All words ripe for filtering tbh.

Female gender roles are inherently inferior in a society that is extremely materialistic such as one under socialism. As such, the only solution to gender inequality under socialism is for everyone to share everyone else's children, and to drastically reduce the birth rate, which are the main strategies of feminism that don't work in the real world.

Explain.

Marxist Materialism does not mean what you think it means.

What.

Why?

Ah. So that's what it was all about.

women need their 3 months after giving birth, because control muh bodies

this is interesting, what do you think that I think it means?

open a history book

full-throated support for muh burf controls, because show me what a feminist looks like

yep