[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

 [Last 50 Posts]

So I read this book first a few years ago but it came up again in conversation recently. I wanted to make a thread about it so we can have a proper discussion about its positives and negatives, because I think it has both. First of all, I believe it was maybe the first book (that I know of) to give a properly dialectical treatment to the historical development of reproductive labour relations, building largely off of Engels' work. De Beauvoir had her own stuff but a lot of the marxism in her work is under the surface and indirect, whereas Firestone makes constant reference to Engels.

I shall sum up the argument for you, since I know many of you dislike reading. In primitive society, reproductive labour relations for the longest time worked such that matriarchy was the dominant mode of relations for reproductive labour, with differing cultural units for reproductive relations (clan, family, etc). At some point there is a 'flip' under which patriarchal relations begin as the dominant mode, which can be tied to the dawn of 'proper' technological civilisation as we know it (takes place after Engels' notion of barbarism with the rise of aristocracy), occurring as the west begins to exert its power over nature and systematises these relations. Firestone's conclusion is that biologically speaking, woman cannot truly be free until liberated from her biology.

I think in many ways it's a beautiful analysis, but also very flawed in the same way of de Beauvoir- namely, Firestone, rather than critiquing the focus of capitalism on productivity and power over nature, instead believes that women should be changing to conform to be 'more like men'. Moreover, I think it must really be supplemented with more modern treatments of gender (like via Judith Butler) given there's I think significant evidence that gender takes on a life of its own (and in many ways always has) which rather than being recourse to mere reproductive labour, also has its foundations in various other intersections of political life (capitalism, etc). Freud I think gives some good insights as to why sex and sexual relations and gender relations by extension have more to do with the human drive for power rather than reproductive relations.

Nonetheless, wondering if anyone else has read the text. I think it's a great piece of radfem literature.



So all hitherto history is the history of the struggle between the sexes?

White woman you are not a uyghur.


history is the history of struggle between class against class. material struggle. one such material struggle is the struggle for reproductive labour



you do realise that extra analysis at the end was my own and not firestone's right you absolute fucking idiot?


lmfao, discussions about material reproductive labour relations are idealism.

holy shit marxists are doomed!


These aren't marxists


as an anarchist, we also do not claim them!


>OP pushing radfem misreading of Engels vs. resident incels and christoids desperately trying to prove a point


>noooo you arent allowed to do material analyses of reproductive labour relations >:OOO that's a misreading!

what exactly is it a misreading of, genius?


>Shulamith Firestone
Bitch might be wild as fuck but I respect her uncompromising vision.


Engels' critique of Morgan's categories


i dont think shes really wrong at the core. she wants to abolish sex, I think it makes sense. Society is probably is heading for that in some way (if climate change doesn't kill us first)

explain why it's a misreading


I am not interested in making moralist propositions or even really talking about positive ways in which to solve the problem but rather I'm more just interested in making a material analysis of the history of sex classes. One sex performs the labour, the other does not. There are definitely material analyses to make about that, and it 100% has an effect on how society has been structured (cultural units like family, clan, etc). The interplay with capitalism is very interesting.


If you think staying at home and watching over some kids is harder than a 8 hour shift in some manual labor job you should probably kill yourself now to save the rest of us all the embarasssment of having to interact with you. These ridiculous ideas are so prevalent in academia because they fail the real world inspection test. Find me a woman over the age of 30 who is happy working a service sector job. Spoiler: even women working something as simple and easy as being a waitress are miserable. So nice that le patriarchy has been abolished so that women too can be squeezed to nothing by porky. As for reproduction you have completely dodged the point that pregnancy has become totally optional in the modern era. How can you claim oppression over something that if you choose to you will never experience in your entire life? So fucking stupid.


least misogynistic leftist


dont know if youve noticed, but women are currently expected to do BOTH those things because women are subject to both productive labour relations as part of the proletariat AND to reproductive labour relations as part of being female. Not that hard to understand is it?


>no actual arguments so resorts to name calling and social shaming to try to win through popularity polling instead of addressing material reality
I'd say you're a disgrace to your fellow women but sadly this behavior is par for the course.


I am looking at the chart in the picture and it's so fucked up. Whoever made it up was retardedbooklet who never read authors he mentions.

For example savagery and barbarism are not " Engels' ", those cathegories are from Morgan's "Ancient Society". I mean Engels used them, being influenced by Morgan, but that just shows severe lack of reading, even by reading Engels' works you know those cathegories were proposed by Morgan ffs. Also, "middle class", lol.

Not even gonna touch the rest, it's some idealistic bullshit.


dont you boys have some andrew tate to go consoom


And who is subjecting you retard? Do you even know what a morning after pill is? Why do you insist on re-classifying a totally avoidable experience as a permanent and unchangeable reality? Your entire ideological framework collapses to nothing in the face of modern advancements in contraceptive technology.


as someone who just got finished reading Engels' origin of the family, he re-uses those stages of development, so yes, they also belong to Engels. Saying 'well actually they originally belonged to Morgan' isn't a valid criticism of the content of the book whatsoever.


File: 1683576362334-0.png (9.13 KB, 101x74, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683576362334-1.png (522.57 KB, 911x731, ClipboardImage.png)


Are you as illiterate as the author of that schizo book? First of all, why are you reiterating that Engels used them when i already said that in my post? Second, the point is that the terms were coined by Morgan and anyone with basic reading comprehension who read Engels would know that.

It is a criticism because you can see author not engaging properly with the supposed (because i doubt the author actually read Engels) source material. It's looks like someone made a patchwork of different systems of analysis without understanding what they are about. Hence there is "middle class" and other crap like that.


so you have zero criticism of the book then


Well, if i see something that looks like shit and smells like shit i am not getting on all fours and start eating that in hope my sight and smell were mistaken and it's actually a cake down sitting down there.

And stop shittting the board with your pseud threads, it's clear that your engagement into those topics is on the "skimmed the wiki page" level.


apparently, im the only marxist here given that I am willing to make a material analysis of history in this case without recourse to emotional ideological baggage.


so you have zero criticism of the book then.


The author enver read a book properly and was an illiterate idiot. And so are you. Here is your criticism.



>apparently, im the only marxist here given that I am willing to make a material analysis of history
So, what is "material analysis" behind middle class?


you realise this diagram isn't firestone's so naturally its going to have some misgivings? cherry picking some phrase you dont like from a diagram she didnt like to disregard her entire book is tantamount to poisoning the well


There's this phenomenon which is a tendency of liberalism. It is the tendency to endlessly debate, to engage debate, to always turn the world on its head (again) and deal with the abstract world of ideas, which is decorated with materialist phrases. It is frankly the usual bourgeois individuality and need of uniqueness that gets reproduced in the proletariat as someone who critiques the critiques themselves. There is no substance here. There is no sensible praxis to post-Marxist theories, because the theory is the praxis itself. It is the highest form of false consciousness narcissism.


I love reading threads like these. Someone insulting anyone who doesn't agree with their obscure point. Most people who'd fall in line with basic ideas about socialist economics scratch their heads at (for example) trying to redefine the family in an esoteric way like this.


File: 1683576987569.png (73.53 KB, 469x733, Screenshot_13.png)

THIS is the original diagram


i think you guys just hate materialist dialectics to be honest


I can't imagine a working class person giving a shit about this. You come off as incredibly entitled, the perfect portrait of the petite bourgeoisie.



i cannot imagine having THIS much of a hair-trigger response to ANYTHING frankly. i must be really striking a nerve here. it's clear that a lot of you see marxism more as a religion than as a scientific method


File: 1683577274117.png (492.66 KB, 893x748, ClipboardImage.png)

That is entirely correct comrade.

Nice turn of the phrase – it is no longer dialectical materialism, but "materialist dialectics". Yes, your method is dealing with dialectics (an idea, lol) using materialist methods, but we engage with matter using dialectical methods. That's what makes us revolutionary and not just Neo-Kantians with more categories.


bro you are so hung up on phrases that you can't for one second have a discussion about the content. get a life. this is a materialist dialectical analysis. plain and simple. it IS diamat. you havent read the book, so why do you ahve such a strong opinion on it already? speaks volumes to me


>it's clear that a lot of you see marxism more as a religion than as a scientific method
Ding Ding Ding Ding


Yes, it can be called that. Socialism is a feeling, not an academic study to be debated ad nauseum in service of the ego. The idea of socialism is to have real people care about it. Not graduate students.


this is why i gave up on marxists and embraced anarcho-nihilism. there is no 'global' future. even the so-called marxists are simply idolators



i don't even disagree with op what's wrong with acknowledging reproductive labor is still labor hahahaha i think you really did hit a nerve and they're just calling everything you're saying pomo shit to dismiss it and not think about it any further


I have a strong opinion because I don't deal with ideas. I was actively engaged with anarcho-fem places in my city and their work is dogshit. That's Marxism: looking at reality of these ideas and seeing that they lead nowhere but endless critique which leaves nothing. There is a reason the CIA never was actually afraid of post-Marxists theory, let alone praxis. Do more, because reading too many books is harmful.


Marxism: ruthless criticism of all that exists

you people: nooo dont criticise that!!!


Nurturing a child is labor. That's not the issue lol

Sure, then shut up and read your books on your own. This post makes it clear that this is mere entertainment to you


pretty clear who is and isn't a former /pol/tard here


File: 1683578149551-0.jpeg (174.29 KB, 960x1280, 1.jpeg)

File: 1683578149551-1.jpeg (219.07 KB, 1280x960, 2.jpeg)

File: 1683578149551-2.jpeg (125.92 KB, 800x600, 3.jpeg)

File: 1683578149551-3.jpeg (195.92 KB, 960x1280, 4.jpeg)

>here's your theory for the 21st century bro
>wdym it's dogshit?
>you must be a /pol/tard
I hate anarcho-idealists.


society is great for women because they're all petty porkies by virtue of having female bodies and being able to make money on onlyfans


you're doing more for the optics of radfem than i ever could


jesus christ dude. is all your politics based on what 'looks good to the normies'? why dont you just go be a fascist if thats how you feel.


File: 1683578966182-0.png (538.46 KB, 571x380, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683578966182-1.png (1.07 MB, 610x702, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683578966182-2.jpg (349.98 KB, 1190x1200, anarcho fem dunce cap.jpg)

>Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.

>Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism.

>People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well–they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.

>Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.

>We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist.

>All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.

All anons that further reply to this glowop will have to face the dunce cap.


i agree, keep your anti-intellectual moralist kind away from my based spiritually-aristocratic large-brain diamat posts


Anime meme. No further comment needed.


The fact that anfem ignored actual experiences from (me) with a snarky "you don't like le aesthetics" instead of actually engaging with the fact that anfem praxis literally amounts to writing feel-good endgy messages and squatting in abandoned buildings instead of actually building socialism tells you everything. The fact that they also need to distinguish themselves with a flag also signals their petit-bourgeois individualism. It's a shame that we got here even in the first place.


:( man its so depressing i just wanted to do some class analysis and introduce people to marxist feminist theory but /pol/ is so mad. i cant believe all 30+ of those posts were the same person samefagging they really love me../.!!!


Most people have terrible praxis


>safe space
>really excited about violence against women
this guy's telling on himself


idk why the title was taken away but its called the dialectic of sex. maybe the title not being there is why some people had such a hair-trigger reaction.


If you think dialectical materialism is postmodern dogshit, then idk what to tell you.


File: 1683580759867.png (94.87 KB, 290x333, Tails.png)

idk whats actually going on but i'm just going to use this thread as evidence on whether to transition or not


So what's the verdict?


second i also wanna know lol


File: 1683581053493.png (261.96 KB, 432x594, ClipboardImage.png)

Very nice! If I didn't know better, I would say that anfem is avoiding the painful points I've raised by making this thread about language. This is a favorite tactic of a wrecker in a leftist space trying to stop actual practical tactics to be discussed and developed. Take note, comrades!


there is no feminist Capital to be honest. this is the closest we have to a comprehensive marxist critique of reproductive labour relations. such a thing remains to be written.

'The Second Sex' by De Beauvoir is the closest thign that exists to a magnum opus for radfem but it's not explicitly marxist. it's also incredibly depressing to read because it's full of horribly depressing misogynistic cultural practices that will make your blood curdle. it gave me pretty bad paranoia when i read it.


dunno yet cause reading this thread feels like i'm just filling my brain with tv static. doesn't help that mods deleted most of the comments i read and i now forgot what they said


you didn't raise any painful points whatsoever though. in fact you didn't raise a single point. you got mad at a tertiary source for using the word middle class and then said 'im not reading it'


im conflicted. on one hand, im glad the number of posts got reduced bc my thread will slide slower. on the other hand, i kinda wish they kept those posts up because it displays the level of intellect (or lack thereof, mainly just raw unadulterated aggression and emotionality) we are dealing with here.


(all me)

<Raised no points.

Lol. Even possibly Lmao.


Yea, the wrecker is deffinetly OP and not the guy who comes in to the thread to say nothing of relation to the OP and just tries to start arguments.
100 percent makes sense. i am convinced by this logic.
You stupid fucking retard faggot you are the reason this site is the way it is. Kill yourself.


if you don't want to get made fun of for being reactionary tards in red paint maybe don't use lexicon associated with reactionary tards while also plugging your ears and shouting la la la without actually saying anything simple as


ok sure buddy, i addressed a bunch of these but I'll compile everything I said into one place for you.

this isn't a criticism. this is you posting some optics you don't like. this is tantamount to propaganda.

Marxism *is* the ruthless critique of all that exists. Praxis requires an understanding of the world and ought be fragmented and provisional. Going around a merri-go-round and saying 'look! at least we are doing something' is not real praxis. we have plenty of praxis, mainly we engage in direct action. im sorry you didnt agree with their praxis, but this is just a strawman frankly.

this is a linguistic dispute and not one of content. firestone is explicitly doing diamat critique. you haven't actually made any criticism of the method used, you simply criticised my use of language.

the top line of posts last time i checked included a shitpost about mucus and people being sad about chomsky. how does this constitute an argument? it doesnt.


<Nothing of relation to the OP
>>13514 (me)
Now you're gaslighting! That's great. I'm girl you girlbosses don't gatekeep this post-Marxist shit to the masses. Wouldn't want ideological confusion among the proletariat, or anything. The more incoherent, more proletariat it is. Or something. Idk.


He's probably talking about the incel
just guessing


buddy. marxist critique isnt post-marxism. pull your finger out. we are allowed to have a critique of reproductive labour relations. its important to determine proper praxis. theory and praxis are both necessary. this feels like an attempt to silence any discussion of what we should *do* about the issue.


okay so from memory what i got from the deleted comments were a mix of

>this isn't marxist theory this is postmodernism

>men's labor is way worse than women's labor

i got mad brain fog so nothing isn't really making sense, i'm probably gonna get some work done for a few hours and then come back if the thread is still up


>this isn't a criticism.
It is criticism of the content it presents and not in the form it is presented. If you cannot see beyond your (projected) critique of my 'misunderstanding' that the only thing that zine is, is a handful of empty phrases, which get handled out at their protests to – propagandize? I guess. I don't see people talking, not even thinking in these 'radical' terms you want me to learn of. People are not responsive to these ideas because squats are a dying form of organization due to gentrification and due to the lack of coherent ideological behind any kind of anarchist theory (which the zine and the diagrams I saw are examples of).

>Praxis requires an understanding of the world and ought be fragmented and provisional.

This is situtationalist drivel warped in a new clothing. 50 years since the SI published their Manifesto, and yet no socialist revolutions anywhere. Lenin and Mao, together with their parties, managed to do revolution in that time. It is clear that one of these tactics is the one we should take as our basis for continued work on developing theory, and not engage historical nihilism by denying socialist history, like the SI, and all of their derivatives today, practice.

>this is a linguistic dispute and not one of content.

It is a point of interest either way, since language is a product of class relations, and being conscious enough to see the need of dialectics but refusing to give matter is primacy in the descriptor of communist methods (i.e. dialectical materialism instead of materialist dialectics) is something you should self-criticize, because language shapes our ideas as Marx showed in the German Ideology.

>how does this constitute an argument? it doesnt.

Debate. Not argue. Endless squabble. That's what you are doing.

It's critiquing your petite-bourgeois individualism which I've already hinted upon in many of my posts. If you can't stand the ruthless criticism of everything, including (You), I dunno what to tell you. Go back to reddit, maybe? Idk.


This would have been instantly banned in old leftypol


it's a criticism of some content someone put out, not of the content of marxist feminist critique, and in this regard, you're merely critical of form.

i have nothing more to say on this issue. if you cant see that it's your problem.


you definitely did not use old leftypol.


that's pretty much it yeah. baseless screams that it is postmodernism + conflations between productive and reproductive labour


This thread replies are shit and don't deserve to even be in it, you all did no justice to OP and yet posture as super Marxist or something, useless tools


File: 1683582952317.png (160.42 KB, 850x400, ClipboardImage.png)

Buddy if you can't see that I'm showing you explicitly what the last 60 years of this post-Marixst/situationalist/anarcho-w/e theory amounted to, then that's a (You) problem.

The reality of your theories are showing them to be not revolutionary. That is the reason why there's no point even engaging them. That is the point I argue for. That is the point your narcissistic, individualistic first-world fuckface argues about.


>That is the reason why there's no point even engaging them
And like every retard leftypoler 'not engaging' really means having an autistic fit and trying to ruin it for everyone else instead of just ignoring topics you are not interested in like a half normal person.


Yeah this site isn't great for thoughtful and stimulating conversation, perhaps digital communication isn't in general


File: 1683583145180.png (344.53 KB, 323x945, ClipboardImage.png)

And I'm giving myself the dunce cap for even caring this much tbh 😫


It's always nice to see people that can see things as they are


so since a lot of people on leftypol don't grasp diamat despite claiming to be diamaticians, here's an intuitive explanation.

suppose I am a biologist and I want to understand animal behaviour in ecosystems. I might conceive of two categories to represent material relations - predator and prey. i can use these concepts to then explain and understand the dynamics of an ecosystem. E.G., predator overfeeds on prey, prey pop dwindles, causing a feedback effect on predator population. Everyone accepts this to be a valid way to do science. This is not dialectical materialism, but we can use it bootstrap ourselves up to an intuitive understanding.

So Marx comes along and says 'hey, I noticed that we can broadly split the political economy into two groups- capitalists, those who hire and extract value from workerer labour, and labourers'. And then we can use those two groups to come to an understanding about how the political economy works.

Firestone wants to do the same thing, but in her case she wants to understand *reproductive relations*. So she takes the categories 'male' and 'female' that represent reproductive biological differences and understands how that affects reproductive labour relations. E.G., initially women held power over their own bodies -> man starts to benefit due to ability to dominate over nature -> hilarity ensues.

hope this helps lol


File: 1683583627063.jpg (665.58 KB, 1200x822, 1569781833711-b.jpg)

I've never read Firestone and I'm only just about to get started on De Beauvoir, but what's this about
> At some point there is a 'flip' under which patriarchal relations begin as the dominant mode
That doesn't explain shit to me.
>Freud I think gives some good insights as to why sex and sexual relations and gender relations by extension have more to do with the human drive for power rather than reproductive relations
Does he? Where? What's this "human drive for power" malarkey?
I would love to engage with some good and good faith radical feminism, but do you actually care about the material and cultural problems modern women face under capitalism or is this just some big book reading club bullshit? Cause I'm not gleening any applicable take from anywhere in this thread. Please explain nicely I'm actually trying to understand.


File: 1683583662781.webm (417.96 KB, 426x240, LOOK AT THIS GRAPH.webm)

I don't understand the point of trying to diagram these concepts. It just seems like it further obscures the concepts rather than explaining, demonstrating, or focusing them in any helpful way.


Does Origin of the Family Private Property and the State count?



i only explained the gist but not the actual mechanics. if you want that you should definitely read the book it's really interesting.

fun fact she wrote it at 25 years old. (a year older than me). goddamn.

> do you actually care about the material and cultural problems modern women face under capitalism or is this just some big book reading club bullshit? Cause I'm not gleening any applicable take from anywhere in this thread. Please explain nicely I'm actually trying to understand.

No of course we care. Important to note this stuff about Freud is my own analysis and additions because I don't think a sex-class analysis is sufficient on its own to understand gender. The idea is that in pre-civ we didn't really have concepts of family units, it was more like clans and tribes. the 'family' has only really come about as a way to harness and organise control over reproductive labour. in order to truly solve the issue, firestone thinks we need to abolish biological sex through technology as much as possible. however it's important to note she's kind of following engels into the 'make women productive that will save them' idea, believing that the sex revolution must occur at the same time joined with the proletarian one. when im talking about freud and the drive for power im talking about how sex is more than just the drive to reproduce– think about shit like BDSM that isnt even related to reproduction. sex is about power.


File: 1683583914152.png (289.54 KB, 612x444, ClipboardImage.png)

Pfff anfem even has her yesmen. This is how they take over communist spaces, comrades, and subvert them to squabbles about inane, spectacular things. Most likely, they coordinate themselves via fbi.gov. I've seen it with my own eyes. fbi.gov servers subverted and used as nodes to expands. They have applied Marxist-Leninist techniques without even knowing. This is false consciousness and they continue to pretend that us, Marxists, are the ones staying behind on 'theory'.


do you think refusing to engage on dialectical inquiry into reproducive labour relations is an effective way of doing 'scientific socialism'?


You on the other hand are not good at seeing things as they are


next you'll say we shouldn't do dialectical treatments of colonialism and imperialism either, even though you're posting Lenin.


we shouldn't do dialectical treatments of colonialism and imperialism either, even though you're posting Lenin.


why shouldn't we do dialectical treatments of imperialism?


Who is we?


File: 1683585238994.png (767.38 KB, 2498x4000, ClipboardImage.png)


The real graph


File: 1683585356448.png (144.33 KB, 500x347, ClipboardImage.png)


ctrl+f "postmodern" 21 results, wow! Always funny to see reactionaries attempt to use that term as an insult. Imagine pretending to be a historical materialist while shrieking about people acknowledging the 20th century's material effects on human consciousness. You aren't a Marxist, you're just a dead, ossified piece of bone rather than a green, living tree root working through the contradictions which currently afflict the living.
>So nice that le patriarchy has been abolished so that women too can be squeezed to nothing by porky
Hillary Clinton: "will abolishing patriarchy end capitalism? No!" (audience cheers)
>How can you claim oppression over something that if you choose to you will never experience in your entire life
"oppression" a guy denying the EXPLOITATION of female working class is using the radlib term oppression, sounds like you're the real post-modernist here haha. These incel Reaganite neoliberals use the framework of "rational choices by individuals in the free market" precisely because they want to obscure any material conditions that cause workers to be alienated and then victim blame them for being responsible, not the managed austerity of the state. Your redditor post denying grooming and rape culture is typical of incels who celebrate women being coerced to live with their (animal) husbandry property owners.
>These postmodernist threads are even more dangerous and derailing than nazi bait threads.
(scared Jordan Peterson) "nazis are preferable compared to communists who are actually the real fascists for polluting the volk with their evil ideas, which are ruining our Historical Progress (tm)"
>you can debunk them because they have an essence. With postmodernist dogshit, there is nothing
Leftypol: "I haven't read any books written in the last 100 years, but workers need to listen to me! I am a scholar!!!"
>society is great for women because they're all petty porkies by virtue of having female bodies and being able to make money on onlyfans
<trans are lumpenproles not working class
<blacks are lumpenproles not working class
<women are lumpenproles not working class
<people who lost their job are lumpenproles not working class
<immigrants are lumpenproles not working class
"Huh??? Why is everyone saying that 'socialism is idealist utopian fascist ideology for middle class redditors sitting on comfy gamerchairs instead of actually talking to the workers they pretend to champion'??? They must have read (((postmodern textbooks))) that have ruined the volk's clear minds! We would have communism by now if those books were never published, I'm a historical materialist btw, please ignore my complete and willful silence about any economic obstacles towards liberation"
>Anime meme. No further comment needed.
yeah leftypol is not an anime nazi forum like 4chan! it's just a nazi forum LOL


File: 1683585769425.png (74.12 KB, 234x314, ClipboardImage.png)

>i love pure and infinite negation of all things

>even capitalism has never been global.
>i wish to enlarge and expand pockets of anarchy
>nurture the aristocracy of your Dasein
>one day God will call upon me
>ascend us all to the next circle of existence
>uphold anfem poster thopught


I do like how what you did there. Ignore the points I've raised to argue with someone about the words they use. Hahaha it's even like this in my org. Endless squabbles about words and meaning of meaning instead of saying, look, this got nowhere, back to the drawing board. You're not get revolution once everyone speaks the language you speak. Language is a product of the material base. Start there, hmm…?


> At some point there is a 'flip' under which patriarchal relations begin as the dominant mode, which can be tied to the dawn of 'proper' technological civilisation as we know it (takes place after Engels' notion of barbarism with the rise of aristocracy), occurring as the west begins to exert its power over nature and systematises these relations. Firestone's conclusion is that biologically speaking, woman cannot truly be free until liberated from her biology.
I'm not really sure if this person believes this, but is the point that the sex division happened before or at the same time as the technological shift? Is this an argument like "prostitution is the oldest profession"? Some people frame the division of the sexes as the primary contradiction in society because they think it happened first. I don't think this is accurate, the division of the sexes happened because of the technology of sedentary agriculture which allowed for surplus population and the division of labor. So the subjugation of women isn't rooted in biology, its comes from property, which comes from agriculture, which means that womens freedom is tied to the method of production.

Even if its the case that it did happen first I think that the correct solution is similar to the solution to the race question, that the particular demands of sexual and gender minorities have to be incorporated into universal demands of a communist party platform, not tackled individually because the material basis of that oppression comes from class derived in the method of production of a given society, not from biological differences. This is almost akin to saying that the biologogical root of oppression in society is physically weak manlets letting strong tall people boss them around or that black and brown people are innately easier to trick into voting against their interests so we need to change them to be physically equal because it is not possible to prevent domination by larger stronger people when technology has already made people physically equal in the realm of dominating others.

The goal of flattening biological differences through technology is a good one, but its kind of a first world problem, and not really a primary concern to internationalists when many people of the world still don't have regular access to clean water, plumbing, housing, food, electricity and infrastructure. It reminds me of the preoccupation of some people with transhumanism and cyborgs under capitalism, in which technology advancements will not be widely distributed to the masses for free or at cost but instead restricted a select few very rich individuals and locked behind patents and copyright. I think in a communist society it would be good to allocate state funds for this kind of theoretical research and development but that would start small while other more pressing issues are fixed first.

I don't think advocating for gender abolition immediately works very well even though it is the logical conclusion of Engels Origin of the Family. People resist now because they see the commodification of their identities as a threat while capitalism dissolves all that is solid into air. Its not really something we have to 'do", it will have to be something that happens two or three generations after the material conditions of society are changed to facilitate that transition and peoples spooks start to fade.


File: 1683588334492.pdf (25.06 MB, 154x255, Caliban and the Witch.pdf)

>'The Second Sex' by De Beauvoir is the closest thign that exists to a magnum opus for radfem but it's not explicitly marxist.

>Federici is considered one of the leading feminist theoreticians in Marxist feminist theory, women’s history, political philosophy, and the history and theory of the commons. Her most famous book, Caliban and the Witch, has been translated in more than 20 foreign languages, and adopted in courses across the U.S. and many other countries. Often described as a counterpoint to Marx’s and Foucault’s account of “primitive accumulation,” Caliban reconstructs the history of capitalism, highlighting the continuity between the capitalist subjugation of women, the slave trade, and the colonization of the Americas. It has been described as the first history of capitalism with women at the center. Federici's work in Caliban has crystallized her reputation as a member of the Marxist and feminist theoretical canon.


I've actually never read Federici (take my anfem badge away) but I'll try to at some point


Firestone sort of follows Engels in the belief that first we need to bring all women to level of proletariat and have a proletarian revolution alongside the sexual revolution. a bit hazy on this bc its been a few years. sometimes she does veer into 'women need to be changed to be physically equal' i will admit.



>adopted in courses across the U.S.
So it has been subsumed by the bourgeois state, got it.


Marx has also been subsumed by the bourgeois state. Does that mean we should not read Marx?



File: 1683589489607.png (83.5 KB, 496x172, ClipboardImage.png)



>Marx has also been subsumed by the bourgeois state.
Not in his lifetime.


Checks out. It's a graph so it must be true.


Woah there anon! You're on the verge of commiting transpho class reductionism! That's very problema reactionary!



please see >>13472
that chart is actually from a tertiary source and isnt trustworthy.


Thank you for posting a lot of crap your don't agree with. Quality thread.


actually, i am the one trying to make a class analysis, and it's you who is yelling at me for it. i dunno how you can have things so backwards.


File: 1683590054281.png (21.86 KB, 198x284, ClipboardImage.png)

Are you implying that this is somehow better?


given that it more accurately reflects the position of Marxism, yes.


File: 1683590112334-0.png (102.67 KB, 1568x656, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1683590112334-1.png (164.01 KB, 2109x659, ClipboardImage.png)


>Firestone argues that the "sexual class system"[3] predates and runs deeper than any other form of oppression, and that the eradication of sexism will require a radical reordering of society: "The first women are fleeing the massacre, and, shaking and tottering, are beginning to find each other. … This is painful: no matter how many levels of consciousness one reaches, the problem always goes deeper. It is everywhere. … feminists have to question, not just all of Western culture, but the organization of culture itself, and further, even the very organization of nature."[4]


You already said you only selectively embrace marxism for sophistic purposes


You can't be serious. Hahahahaha oh my fucking god i'm done, kys and a happy victory day


File: 1683590198914.jpg (82.76 KB, 572x546, 1675534147833.jpg)

>that chart is actually from a tertiary source and isnt trustworthy
then why did you post it in the OP? i just opened the thread, was i supposed to just know that the image YOU CHOSE to post wasn't trustworthy?
also that other chart is shit too



yes those are sections from the book. i dont necessarily agree with that position since im not a monist who thinks we need to care about 'the primal class divisions'


ok well yeah i think that part is wrong. the idea that we can and should change nature and cyber/xenofeminism are cool its just kind of theoretical and way down the road from where we are at and overfocusing on it exclusively can be detrimental to actual organizing.




Can you answer actually answer this question?:

>that chart is actually from a tertiary source and isnt trustworthy
then why did you post it in the OP? i j

No troll. It's a straight forward question.


a genuine mistake thinking it was the latter chart.


File: 1683591164513.png (91 KB, 469x733, ClipboardImage.png)

So the second one is the good chart?

It's not any better, but thanks for your clarification.



i noticed before other people pointed it out, but i figured people here werent so petty to get hung up on something so non-central to the point. alas i was wrong. you all feel a license to talk as experts about books you havent read. i forgot that is the way of leftypol. the second chart is obviously better since it doesn't use some pseudo-keynesian class distinction but more properly describes the marxist divisions of history (with supplement from Engels)


Before some genius says 'you forgot X'

From Engels' Origins of the family:

>The sketch which I have given here, following Morgan, of the development of mankind through savagery and barbarism to the beginnings of civilization, is already rich enough in new features; what is more, they cannot be disputed, since they are drawn directly from the process of production. Yet my sketch will seem flat and feeble compared with the picture to be unrolled at the end of our travels; only then will the transition from barbarism to civilization stand out in full light and in all its striking contrasts. For the time being, Morgan’s division may be summarized thus:

>Savagery – the period in which man’s appropriation of products in their natural state predominates; the products of human art are chiefly instruments which assist this appropriation.

>Barbarism – the period during which man learns to breed domestic animals and to practice agriculture, and acquires methods of increasing the supply of natural products by human activity.

>Civilization – the period in which man learns a more advanced application of work to the products of nature, the period of industry proper and of art.

>The distinction of rich and poor appears beside that of freemen and slaves – with the new division of labor, a new cleavage of society into classes. The inequalities of property among the individual heads of families break up the old communal household communities wherever they had still managed to survive, and with them the common cultivation of the soil by and for these communities. The cultivated land is allotted for use to single families, at first temporarily, later permanently. The transition to full private property is gradually accomplished, parallel with the transition of the pairing marriage into monogamy. The single family is becoming the economic unit of society.


> t. Moid who makes his wife do all the chores


Not a single point was raised in any of those posts.


Caliban and the Witch


Idolatry is the way of /leftypol/


File: 1683620564353.png (50.58 KB, 179x235, ClipboardImage.png)

>To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type.


Anarchofem threads (or theory, in general) are not just a waste of time but are actively harmful when it comes to revolution. Had the very smart anarchofem poster actually read the authors they proclaim are their ideological predecessors, they would've seen their mistakes. Anarchofem in principle does the following:

>Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire, into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests of the ruling classes). Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness—voilà the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscrutantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge.


The fixation on the single dimension of class society, namely the remnants of sexism rooted in primitive class divisions (according to ability, age and gender) without further, deeper, proper class analysis is fideism. It leads to subjectivity and to ideological confusion. This is most clearly demonstrated in the OP, where empty phrases decorate the shell of dialectical materialism.

<woman cannot truly be free until liberated from her biology.

<gender takes on a life of its own.

Take note and avoid such ultra-radical deviations from Marxism into idealism.


it's crazy how you can say so many words without absolutely zero content


I've just realised I *have* read something by Federici


Wages Against Housework


Yes go watch Putin's speech instead of trying to sit at the adult's table


>>13585 (📽️)
>>13587 (📽️)
Take note* Marxists. You may not like it, but this is what peak theory looks like.


Anarcho-Nihilism with cannibal characteristics is the future


File: 1683625384617.png (202.52 KB, 993x333, ClipboardImage.png)

You are a mentally ill pseudo-reactionary. You yourself admitted this.


are men really this fragile?


>You aren't a Marxist, you're just a dead, ossified piece of bone rather than a green, living tree root


Why tf are you assuming my gender? Look at any of my post, it is written to you but in a gender-neutral language. This is the least you could do for me as well. But you are a mentally ill, petite-bourgeois hypocrite, so you get to the decide the rules of discourse but they are not applicable to you. Quite Stalinist, indeed.


>implying you actually raised any points instead of vomiting out bullshit


Very nice! Accuse those who understand dialectical materialism and has practical lived experience of anarcho-fem organizing not to have any points! Dishonest little poster. Every post of yours reeks of revisionism and extreme left-deviations.


stop weaponising mental illness. a lot of people on this board are 'mentally ill'. its not appropriate or kind but a mere tool of power and control. if you really think i am mentally ill, then congratulations, you are harassing a mentally ill perosn.


Postmodernists love to claim they're profound
With their ideas so complex and unbound
But in truth, they always come to common sense conclusions
And wrap them up in thousands of pages of confusing and idealistic llusions.

They call me a bone and portray themselves as tree roots so green,
This is but a poetic dream.
Their words are but falling leaves, detached from any real root,
Falling to the ground, failing to bear any useful fruit.

Their ideas are shallow, their analysis thin
And all their complexity is but a wokeshow for their libkin.


At least you tried to say something instead of whining crying and throwing a tantrum
My issue is not with you


File: 1683630675239.png (760.51 KB, 612x685, ClipboardImage.png)




Desire for a day
Broken futures, fragmented
History's hopeless


I text a lot of boys, but I rarely fuck em
Ducking clouds, breaking down, got my head up in an oven
Shut my mouth, blacking out, yeah my brain is fucking bludgeoned
Though I've had my doubts I know my stuff is straight disgusting
And I mean that in the best way
Flipping shit like burgers or fake furs or a sex change
Right onto the next phase, got my buddies in the backseat
Don't like what I do then get your lips up off my ass cheek


"Theories come and go," the anfem yells,
"All is to be criticized, no page left unread."
To the Marxists in the thread he tells,
"Listen to me, I am redder than red"

"It's simple, almost banal really,
Class analysis is for the angry men I hate;
All the 'materialism' you hold dearly
Is to be turned into radical bait"

"Dialectics is but a curtain,
Which favors the not so certain;
I am Kantian in all but name,
And a Humist too – it's all the same!"

For this defect, there's no one to blame,
But (You), dear comrade, for engaging the dame.


>You are actually the cancer which
>prevents spontanoeus outbursts of popular opinion with over-moderation and ivory tower theory
>gatekeeping, accusing those who do not want to engage in philistine, fideistic behavior,
>to just 'not get it'.

noble taste defeated;
rabble rises to the top–
with your dialectics!

lovely poem though, im actually quite flattered


Now, look here. Because you sicced the cops on this thread, less people will be able to see your writing. That's a paradoxical behavior.


You people are stupid but fair play for taking a stand for once


Firestone is right and this thread is Full of incels. Artificial wombs will save women.


You lying weasel shit faggot! Your """points"" have already been BTFO by anfemanon. Cope and sneed.


They have just policed my language. They think that calling things by different names changes their underlying idealism and ideological incoherence. Nice use of a slur, + the /pol/ dictionary really shows the incel to fascist to white gender-non-conforming aristocratic radical theorist (ala Contrapoints) is true. (I am replying feom my phone, if the mod wonders about the different IP)


No, it wouldn't have. It would've been attacked, just for largely different reasons.

Why was this thread put on auto-sage anyway? The OP is only antagonizing the "books are harmful" faction of this board, which we hardly need anyway. They weren't engaging with anything she said and apparently considered it a personal virtue not to be able to understand, rather than the effect of their own self-induced stupidity.

Even though I disagree in some way with most of these threads, every time I start to write something critical I see the moron brigade out in full force and have to stop myself. If you want to moderate these threads, make examples of them and get rid of their posts rather than the discussion.

Using "communism" as an excuse for this behavior is disgusting and the anti-intellectualism is reminiscent of fascism. It's also ironically one of the most American things about this board.


>"books are harmful" faction of this board
Yeah, about that
That's the whole board with few exceptions


Not even a fan of most radfem thought but OP is right tbh.


Damn, it's incredible how the OP immediately triggered those incels. We really need to clean up this board.

t. misogynist who's tired of the incel spam


A misogynist is a failed misanthrope

Unique IPs: 31

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / edu / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ wiki / twitter / cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]