everyone with half a brain knows the mere idea of "proletarian nationalism" makes no sense yet tons of people believe you can have "proletarian feminism". a communist movement that tries to unite proletarian women with the rest of the class isnt really proletarian feminism, because its focused on class interests, not womens interests
if you really care about womens liberation, you need to explain why their goals cant be fully achieved under the current system and point out the directions they might be going wrong. for example, things like the hijab wont really change unless there are major shifts in womens economic, social, and political conditions in those regions, but its still under the scope of capitalism. the bigger point is that if the goal is to end class society, the focus has to be on class itself. womens issues should be understood through the lens of class they reflect class interests and can help unite the proletariat. treating women as a separate unified category just creates divisions that work against class. women exist across all classes, and their interests are shaped by both class and gender. you cant lump them all together under one banner for a struggle that might go against their own class interests. thats why feminism as a movement is basically ineffective. again you could call it "proletarian feminism" but women workers act in unity with the rest of the class not for unity of women, its not about women as women, it’s about class. in the end its a class movement not a feminist one
the full emancipation of women would come from ending class society itself, but it wouldnt really be a feminist movement because its not about women as women
>>2467823>Proletarian nationalism is necessary in a world where nations do indeed existthis is fucking retarded. youre not a communist if you dont have the balls to critique the nationalism of the oppressed. your push for nationalism and a new state isnt liberation its just creating another bourgeois state. the same systems of exploitation will continue, and with it all the problems that plague the world. nationalism here only masks oppression as freedom
>>2467829>whining about the abolition of the family out of nowhere<sublation discourseevery fucking time
>>2467848>whining about the abolition of the family out of nowherei was stating a fact in regards to marx's theory
>sublationyes, "aufhebung". whats the issue..?
>>2467930Not just the men
But the women
And the children
>>2467994>can only refer to "oppression" in vague and abstract termsstupid post as usual
communism isnt an emergency kit you pull out whenever something le bad happens under capitalism. just because something is a social ill it doesnt mean that it is directly concerned with communism. communism is not a crusade for every social cause, it is the self interested movement of a single class for its own ends
>>2467848>your push for nationalism and a new state isnt liberation its just creating another bourgeois state.I'm pushing for what's possible under our current material conditions.
There's nothing wrong with speculating on what could be; utopianism is a fun mental exercise to do in your spare time. But if you actually want to achieve anything, you need to ask if what you hope to achieve is even possible in the current moment, if there actually is, realistically, a way to get from point A to point B.
I agree that existing socialist nations like China are not proletarian states, simply on the virtue that they're run by a separate class of professional politicians who are, catagorically, separate from the proletariat.* However, you can't achieve a classless, stateless society all at once. Even if you manage to get it going in one area, the outside world is going to be none too happy about it.
In the indefinite short term, what is possible, and what would also be the most open to transformation into the eventual transformation into a classless, stateless society is a state that is run directly by the proletarian: direct democracy, militias, etc. You can cut out the rulers, but rule must stick until it becomes possible for it to be unstuck.
*This comes with the disclaimer that they are obviously a significant improvement over nakedly capitalist states like the US, but that should be taken as a given.
>>2468005vague edgy nonsense.
do you mean to imply that women do not face 'real opression' or exploitation under capitalism, of a type that men are not subject to? if so you are a simple incel without world experience.
Communism is the real movement that changes the state of things, the ruthless criticism of all that exists. the present state of things and all that exists includes the empirically verifiable effects of patriarchical social organization, and you are a fucking moron to ignore that and even try to argue against it. look at any hospitalization rate of any country by gender, fuckhead.
>>2468170>edgy>edgy>edgy<for correctly pointing out the classist nature of communism as a practical movementOMG unironically kill yourself lmfao
>do you mean to imply that women do not face 'real opression' or exploitation under capitalism?????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
you are one illiterate fucking
retard holy shit. do you have autism?
The emancipation of women is the emancipation of mankind from the social conditions that define woman.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/This is exactly why I liked this text so much when I finally got around to reading it and why it's so unfortunate that so many people read it poorly and only see "antisemitism". Its critique of the state, politics, and applicability towards modern identity politics is invaluable.
>>2467809Maoists: Women hold up half the sky.
Women: Cool can we have half the government jobs.
Maoists: Haha no.
There were 7 women in the Soviet politiburo across its entire existence.
>>2468379simone de beauvoir in "the second sex" saw womanhood as a contingent particularity and wanted it to enter into universal masculinity - hence the radical lesbianism of second wave feminism. the idea was and still is, in many ways, that for a woman to be liberated, she must become a man. to me, this must be wrong since it entirely privileges masculine subjectivity when as psychoanalysis says, female hysteria is the voice of truth; of revealing contradiction.
further, i would reverse her famous maxim, in that the phallus is what is artificial, not castration. to "be a man" is to be inherently transsexual in some form, since no man is a "real man" despite his efforts, while every man is quickly called a woman for failing.
>>2467829>according to marx, women have already been "liberated" by capitalism's destruction of the familyCapitalism never finished destroying the family. It still exists. Marx had one. I have one nearly 2 centuries after he had one. Marx relied on a bunch of women, his wife, his daughters, possibly even a maid at one point, doing the domestic labor so he could give us his writings. I often rely on women in my family, though not in the same way, or to the same extent.
But in marriage, on the decline but still existing, we still see domestic violence asymmetrical wages, and more domestic household work being done by the women. Is it as bad as it used to be? Obviously not, but even at this late hour, it is remarkable how ahead of themselves people in the 19th century were getting. Their long term vision of what today would be like was profoundly optimistic. I see at this late hour profound reaction, and an attempt to re-establish not necessarily feudal, but patriarchal and familial relations, to an ideal form now lost. But reactionaries are succeeding in some regards, namely by attacking cis women's control over their reproduction, while simultaneously pitting straight women against gay women, family women against single women, cis women against trans women. Men are divided on the same basis.
>>2469281>Capitalism never finished destroying the family.yes it did. all individuals are now connected by the cash nexus rather than traditional bonds. the marriage ceremony has reversed its patriarchal form and content. women are no longer sold or put up to any formal expectation. the gay marriage farce demonstrates the death of this institution best.
>Marx relied on a bunch of women, his wife, his daughters, possibly even a maid at one point, doing the domestic labor so he could give us his writingsso what?
>But in marriage, on the decline but still existingthe patriarchal form of marriage no longer exists in the west
>domestic violencealmost equal between the genders
>asymmetrical wageswe were talking about the family
>more domestic household work being done by the womenso what? are women not allowed to clean and cook?
>>2469290>yes it did. all individuals are now connected by the cash nexus rather than traditional bonds. Those "traditional" bonds were also relations of production:
> women are no longer soldAs evidenced by this statement. One second you say "cash nexus rather than traditional bonds." The next minute you say "no longer sold." But we see that women are indeed still sold and trafficked all the time, both inside and outside marriage.
>the patriarchal form of marriage no longer exists in the westIt no longer exists in
as patriarchal a form as it previously did. You think in terms of on/off switch. Like one day the patriarchy was just turned off. In reality historical processes are more gradual and ongoing than that. Just like race based chattel slavery was "abolished" in one sense and yet persisted through the prison loophole and racist policing/sentencing in another sense… but I digress. Just because The West isn't like Saudi Arabia doesn't mean there isn't still patriarchy. Even within the ruling class, the bourgeois dictatorship, we see that bourgeois women are less represented in positions of power than bourgeois men, and in working class life we see working class women paid less for the same work than working class men.
>almost equal between the gendersDo you have a source for this claim?
>we were talking about the familyWe are talking about several things.
>so what? are women not allowed to clean and cook?Not what I said. That's clearly a bad faith question possibly asked in frustration. I am talking about the share of unpaid labor between domestic partners. Women usually do more of that. Whether it's cooking, cleaning, changing diapers, etc. I didn't say they're "not allowed" I suggested that the unequal distribution of this between domestic partners is a lingering form of patriarchy. No it's not the same thing as literal female enslavement or Chinese foot binding or whatever less subtle forms of patriarchy have been abolished already.
>women are no longer sold or put up to any formal expectation. Except bearing children (now not merely for the family, but also for the GDP growth), breastfeeding, changing diapers, bathing and clothing children, teaching them to read and write… even in the privatization of this process we beyond the confines of the family, we see the majority of caregivers whether in day cares or nursing homes are… still women! Just like the majority of soldiers, officers, clergy, and political leaders are … still men! Even in the allegedly enlightened west.
>>2469298prostitution is still only a commercial form today (in the west), not a patriarchal form of ownership. in the iliad, achilles proclaims that he will take the wives of his enemies and force them to work on his land (the same notion hesiod provides by stating the need of a woman slave. this is noted to be a separate relation from the wife, which aristotle in oeconomicus (4 centuries later) conflates with the wife. to appease achilles, agamemnon also offers concubines to achilles to serve him outside of his wife. the patriarchal form then is about having women as direct property (such as a father selling his daughter to her husband, or selling a son to a wife). this is not the case today.
>Just because The West isn't like Saudi Arabia doesn't mean there isn't still patriarchy.you are misunderstanding patriarchy as a civil attitude rather than form of political power. patriarchy isnt when there are more male CEOs than women - unless you want to be a feminist revisionist and claim that all politics is just patriarchy, and therefore substitute the class war for a sex war - which is mainstream ideology.
>Do you have a source for this claim?https://mankind.org.uk/statistics/statistics-on-male-victims-of-domestic-abuse/>One in five men (21.7%) said they have been a victim of domestic abuse in their lifetime (5.1 million). They consist of 41% of all victims. (ONS) (2023/24)here's one statistic.
>I am talking about the share of unpaid labor between domestic partners.today, its a womans choice to stay at home or not. a lot of women prefer housewivery, and not just because theyre brainwashed.
>Except bearing children (now not merely for the family, but also for the GDP growth), breastfeeding, changing diapers, bathing and clothing children, teaching them to read and write…and men never clothe or wash their children? you are hyperbolic.
>even in the privatization of this process we beyond the confines of the family, we see the majority of caregivers whether in day cares or nursing homes are… still women! thats their choice.
Unique IPs: 37