>Marxism-Leninism teaches that the state is just a weapon with which one social class supresses other
>The state by itself is neither good neither bad, its value only depends on what social class wields it (if the state is ruled by a "good" (revolutionary) social class it is good, if it is ruled b a "bad" (reactionary) class it is bad)
>Using the good old logical induction, any social structure which had historically developed as a weapon of class warfare is also neither inherently good, neither inherently bad
>Modern (post 1960s) Marxism teaches that white supremacy/racism and patriarchy (which has sexism, misoginy, homophobia and transphobia as its [overlapping] sub-systems) are just weapons with which the ruling social class opresses the proletariat
>Therefore, it should be concluded that institutionlised racism, sexism, misoginy, homophobia, and transphobia are not inherently bad and can be used for the revolution
I think I may have invented an argument that glitches and crashes the minds of Marxists. Does anyone know where I can contact the CIA and request the reward for my discovery?
>>2482090you really haven't because
>the state by itself is neither good neither badis a moral judgement. your basing your argument on a moral observation. the ML position is that the state is a tool for the suppression of one class by the other. this is a description of a historical phenomen. it does not go to moral judgements.
try again
>>2482090Racism is just a cover for imperialism. Sexism is rooted in the bourgeois family which is rooted in the inheritance of private property and the pre-industrial nature of domestic labor.
So I think the main issue here is that racism and sexism aren't the same as the state.
>>2482097It is, it originates from the exploitation of the slave class by european colonists, who invented a system of race in order to justify this exploitation, nowadays it's a remnant of this, since the slave class doesn't correspond to it anymore, and it now serves the purpose of dividing the working class amonst each other
>>2482099Sexism predates the bourgeois family by thousands of years and date back to ancient mesopotamia, its birth and survival can be explained by the material conditions created as a result of physical biological differences between the two sexes, the reason why it has weakened in the West since the Industrial revolution is due to physical strenght being a much weaker factor in labor compared to previous agricultural labor, it also explains why, historically and currently, sexism is much more prevalent in the lower classes compared to the higher ones
>>2482125I would argue that, while racism does play a role, the exploitation of prisoners is a class issue, it's not really the bourgeois black or latino population that is getting arrested and put to force labor, but the working and lumpem classes, this is something they share in common with poor whites urbans working class, but even then the modern slave class in the West is mostly composed of heavily underpaid agricultural workers from Latin America in the US and from North Africa and eastern Europe in Europe, exploitations that aren't really justified by racism, but simply covered up and ignored by most people
>>2482128While there is some truth to this idea, working class women were often already working before the the advent of feminism in the late 19th century and the decline of sexism (the Nuclear family never represented what a working class family looked liked), however the jobs they could do were often specialised and they rarely worked with men, but they were very important in the textile industry for exemple (even before the industrial revolution for that matter) they were especially usefull due to having smaller hands, it was for the same reason children were used.
However with Automation and eventually deindustrialisation, women were able to do the same jobs as well as most men, meaning that sexism couldn't exacly stand well, if you look at countries where sexism is still very important, you see that it's either extremly poor countries or countries where the textile industry is very important like the Indian subcontinent
>>2482122Yes, sexism existed in feudal society and slave society. The slave family and the feudal family are not the same as the bourgeois family.
IMO it's largely a myth that the working class are more misogynist than the bourgeoisie. The working class aren't little angels of course but you most see abominations like the housewife in the petty-bourgeois small homeowners who live in the suburbs. A lot of sexism in America pretty much rises and falls with the massive rise and fall of the post-war labor aristocracy due to imperialist super-profits.
>>2482150They're both on a similar level nowadays, but historically, aristocratic women had a closer to position to their male counterparts then lower class women compared to their male counterparts, simply because biological realities mattered less in the aristocratic world compared to the lower classes where physical strenght was necessary, but if you look at the aristocracy today, you see that they still aren't that sexist in between themselves, women can easly be powerfull aristocrats.
>>2482158Epstein and sex tourism are often more of a class issue then a sexism one, those women are exploited because of their class
>>2482090>The state by itself is neither good neither bad, its value only depends on what social class wields it (if the state is ruled by a "good" (revolutionary) social class it is good, if it is ruled b a "bad" (reactionary) class it is bad)kautskyite nonsense
read state and revolution
>>2482150>abominations like the housewifeis that a woman whose labour is not being exploited by porky? noooooooo, we must stop this!!!111!!
also since when does this place give a shit about idpol?
>>2482198But it's not a misogyny issue, it's a class based issue, those kids were raped because they were working class kids who got exploited, you can make the argument that girls are raped more, sure, but it doesn't really disprove my point that those things don't happen to bourgeois women, who are less victim to sexism the working class women, this just shows that it's inherently a class issue, sexism in itself is an outgrowth of material conditions, such conditions are stronger among the working class where they have to use their physical labor, this is not the case for the bourgeoisie, hence, why amongst themselves, they are less sexist then the average of the population, sexism is an issue that affects most strongly working class women
>>2482090not to be harsh (i will give you the benefit of the doubt as there are many people who lack education) but literally none of this is true
<state is neither good or badin marxism, a proletarian state is 'good' (in the sense of being historically progressive), a bourgeois state is bad (in the sense of being historically regressive, or 'reactionary'). marxism is a modernist ideology which assumes a historical teleological progression from 'less' to 'more' advanced societies, to put it in simple terms.
to lump these two modes of social organization into the same 'state' category is misleading and incorrect, pure nonsense. 'fascism' and 'communism' are both modes of social organizing, that doesn't mean they are at all the same, or 'neither good nor bad'. at best, you can posit them as opposing parts of one 'dialectic', or dynamic of interaction of opposite forces.
<if the state is neither good nor bad, so are completely unrelated things like racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.there is absolutely no reason to correlate the concepts of 'state' which seemingly refers to any kind of large scale organization of a society, and specific tactics used by bourgeois governments to repress minorities. there is no way in which racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia can be used to build proletarian class consciousness, since these 'ideas' are simply bourgeois strategies of dividing the proletariat amongst themselves. a communist would not adopt these strategies, but would rather counter them to prevent divisions amongst the working class, while pointing out how bourgeois government truly creates these dynamics. to use a frame of thinking similar to your neutral 'state' category containing both fascism and communism, or capitalism and socialism, within itself, then 'racism' (that is, ideology that promotes race as a scientific rather than social category and advocates for a disparity of rights along the lines of these categories) and 'racial solidarity' (that is, solidarity between races on the basis of shared class, rather than race, interests) are the specific opposites contained within the broader 'race' dialectic.
>>2482561under communism there is no 'who' who would benefit from promoting sexism, as the 'representatives' are not a distinct separate class, but rather social servants who are subject to popular recall etc. the 'who' under capitalism are the capitalist oligarchs, if a communist revolution succeeds there will be no oligarchs. during a revolution, there may be a vanguard party, but if this is a genuine proletarian movement that is well equipped and educated for the task, this vanguard party will also see no benefit in dividing the working class, replacing class consciousness with vulgar bigotry. the goal of the communist revolutionary is to build class consciousness, not to erase it and replace it with bigotry. to try to entice the people by appealing to their basest bigotries and prejudices is pure tailism, the vanguard must advance the level of political awareness and class consciousness among the people, rather than conceding to reactionary lies.
Unique IPs: 22