the idea that transness is inherently bourgeois comes from a very simple assumption: an imaginary of the working class as not having desires, cultures, history, etc, only austere base needs, completely alien to any "bourgeois excesses"
despite the supposed third-worldist bent many of you claim to have, this exactly how social workers and managers have framed and attempted to reconstruct the working class, as docile, administerable subjects, and a crucial part of how the labour aristocracy was developed
this goes in tandem with the historically paternalist position in regards to sex workers, any political agency denied a priori, they can only exist as passive objects to be administered by the state until they are integrated into "proper" circuits of social reproduction
>an imaginary of the working class as not having desires, cultures, history, etc, only austere base needs, completely alien to any "bourgeois excesses"
Yeah, way too many anons here think like this.
>>2530158TLDR didnt read
Im having bread bloat, I ate too much bread and now I'm bloated
is that a serious opinion that people have
Petty bourgois babble defending anti-materialist nonsense
yes, barring the proletariat from participating in the realm of aesthetic is another facet of capitalist exploitation. the aesthetic and intellectual development of the proletariat must be supported. communism will only have truly won when we can produce superior mecha model kits to capitalist countries. china is on its path but can really only match the quality of the west and of japan, not surpass it.
>>2530253I mean China has definitely mastered and surpassed japan in terms of anime stuff to the same magnitude japan mastered and surpassed the west in terms of cartoons. Even 15 years olds on XiauHongShu are putting out full on paintings of their favorite gacha blorbos, with well documented rendering methods.
Giga TRVTH nuke
>>2530179Unfortunately yes. They existed in the USSR too, people arguing making "consumer goods" was bad because it would make the Soviet people soft and stop caring about revolution.
Instead of you know people growing so existentially bored with it all and so mesmerized by what Hollowood was pretending most American and other westerns were living like, they either dismantled the system or didn't give a fuck when it was.
>>2530247It's a knee jerk rejection to someone rejecting this pseudo-socialist gnostic/christian/religious spiel about how everything worldly is evil and only by renouncing our sinful worldly desires will be able to reach paradise. And if you disagree you're probably a heretic and ontologically evil.
>>2530177Based. Actually existing Prolecult.
>>2530247The categories of man and woman arise historically from the division of labor, reproduction, and private property. Not from self-identification. “Transgender identity,” as theorized today, is based on individual self-definition independent of one’s material, biological, or social role in production and reproduction. It reflects the alienated individualism of capitalist society, where social relations and needs are mediated through the market, and personal identity is treated as autonomous(existing independently) from class and labor. Marxism does not deny agency; it analyzes it scientifically, showing that true human emancipation requires the transformation of the social and economic conditions that constrain and define all aspects of life, including gender and labor.
>>2530423>individual self-definition independent of one’s material, biological, or social role in production and reproductionHow can it be independent, clearly it has to come from somewhere. If categories of men and woman have their own history, so must transgender category, and it is by definition going to be closely intertwined with them.
And the rest of your post is a meaningless drivel, speak concretely and to the point.
why do all trans people like anime?
>>2530158This and people who believe this about the proletariat reinforce the bourgeois notion that the working class are inherently simple minded and thus deserve their status of being exploited. Because if they were free they wouldn't know what to do with them because of their limited mental capacities.
>>2530445Because it feeds into their unrealistic expectations of gender expression
>>2530423True emancipation from what? history? the world? Biology? Social relations in their entirety? And why does this matter?
Social life even when relations are not mediated through commodity exchange, is rife with expectations, competing desires and misunderstandings.
I used to hold this view btw, that "true communism" is full ("true") emancipation from capital and divisions of labor. And this is what "really mattered". But even if this were true, focusing on this alone diminishes the "little emancipations" and "communism of everyday life" which are already lived and experienced.
Our own desires, including our Will (talking existentially here), also do not emerge in a vacuum. Even without social relations, they're also shaped and informed by genetics, biology, instinct, our interaction with the environment.
Whenever people start talking about "true emancipation", "real communism", revolution as eschaton, it comes across as a promise of existing outside of history, outside of the world. A transcendence over being itself.
But there can be no such thing even if "The Revolution" abolishes capital and commodity production in its entirety tomorrow. Because the structures, institutions, narratives, attitudes, and social relations - even modifications to our own biology and environment - that result from this would continue to determine our "being" going forward.
There's no such thing as "true" "full" "universal" emancipation as some here (on /leftypol/ and in the wider """left""") imagine it.
>the idea that transness is inherently bourgeois comes from a very simple assumption: an imaginary of the working class as not having desires, cultures, history, etc, only austere base needs, completely alien to any "bourgeois excesses"
Sure working people have desires but that doesn't erase the biological and historical reality of being a woman. You can desire to have "gender-affirming care", HRT, "women's clothing" but this doesn't change objective reality.
>despite the supposed third-worldist bent many of you claim to have, this exactly how social workers and managers have framed and attempted to reconstruct the working class, as docile, administerable subjects, and a crucial part of how the labour aristocracy was developed
"If you call transness bourgeois, you’re automatically reducing workers to docile objects."
Yeah I don't understand this jump in logic.
>>2530493Waow, alot of words to say nothing of value.
>>2530493How are those things not "objective reality? Like they are real, obejctively.
>>2530493Nobodies trying to "erase the biological and historical reality of being a woman"
>HRT, "women's clothing"Except you, appearently, lmao
>>2530500>>2530510No arguement?
>>2530506>How are those things not "objective reality? Like they are real, obejctively.Appearance vs essence
The objective reality is. Sex cannot change and gender disjointed from sex does not exist.
Transness and gender fluidity have existed in human cultures since ancient times. People who think this is some contemporary phenomenon are just clueless sheltered conservatives who know nothing about the world.
Human brains don't just alter their intrinsic hardcoded biological behavior inside the span of a few decades or centuries. Everything that humans do today involving gender or sexuality, they did all the same stuff 5000 years ago.
>>2530423>The categories of man and woman arise historically from the division of labor, reproduction, and private property.yeah good
>as theorized today,ok not gonna disagree
>material, […] or social role in production and reproductionyeah
>true human emancipation requires the transformation of the social and economic conditions that constrain and define all aspects of life, including genderyeah
>biological,no? wtf?
capitalism makes people have nuclear families instead of traditional extended ones. does loving your parents/children and not living with grandma make you bourgeois?
the only way it is through, not trying to hold on to an ideal past as is melts into the air
>>2530464>True emancipation from what? history? the world? Biology? Social relations in their entirety?yes.
>informed by genetics, biology,such as …the desire and "will" of your body to grow hair of a genetically encoded specific color?
>instinct,they do not exist in humans
>our interaction with the environment.agreed
>Because the structures, institutions, narratives, attitudes, and social relations - even modifications to our own biology and environment - that result from this would continue to determine our "being" going forward. ages of socioeconomic progress in relation to gender roles for nothing? sorry, that's quite reactionary i suspect
there's nothing about the superstructure/"structures, institutions, narratives, attitudes, and social relations" that can't be abolished and/or modified
Maybe it's time to adopt a more rationalist view about gender identity, and the human sense of self in general, the way that we've done with things like linguistics, understanding that it's not just a matter of outside influence and behavioral conditioning, but in fact a natural intrinsic formation in the brain that we don't really understand the mechanics of.
>>2530545The only way to do away with all of that is to stop existing entirely. This is "mythical", religious eschatological communism. It's no different from the promise of heaven or nirvana.
And no, I'm talking about hormones, tastes, basic drives, responses including things like hunger.. I dunno what leads you to believe humans do not have instinct. But what makes the human condition unique is that we have moral agency; we can subordinate 'bare life' or biological continuity to higher convictions and a Will to live authentically. And if left with no choice, pick cessation of existence over indignity. This is our "freedom" which ordinary animals do not have, and is both the product of biology but also our existence as social beings who recognize ourselves as living in a particular historical context. Some animals are capable of sociality, some have the capability for higher mathematical and spatial reasoning. But none have a "social history", an awareness of their own historicity, and the ability to ethically evaluate their commitment to either own authenticity, or their committing to a higher chosen ideal.
Any of the categories you mentioned can be altered and modified, but as
social beings, cannot be abolished. And as biological (or biosynthetic or - perhaps in the future - fully "synthetic") beings, cannot be abolished without ceasing to exist.
To live authentically requires brushing up against those forces (institutionalised or otherwise) which do not allow us to express this fully. It's what affirms our own commitment. This again is different from mere "animals" in that they simply abide by their instincts, accept them without evaluating them ethically, and do not subordinate them to anything else.
The animal mother has a drive perhaps to protect her offspring, but she might also kill them, eat them or abandon them depending on her instinctual drives. But she's not capable of experiencing a sense of 'ought' (social or otherwise) that take precedence over what she might otherwise feel.
I know one critique of this might be that it's "spooky" (ethics, ought, will, etc.). But I think this misunderstand how this is different from theism. Where you delegate moral authority (to 'god', nature, the people, etc) without accepting moral culpability. And the "irrationality" of having a Will at all.
A lot of people seem to think of human society as a giant machine where humans are all just cogs and springs each with its own purpose and function in the machine. Personally I don't understand how anyone could see the world that way and not want to kill themselves.
>>2530423>historically from the division of labor, reproduction, and private property. debunked nonsense, only true in extremely recent history, justified by those same now debunked assumptions.
Poop
>>2530158Damn, i didnt know you were a transwahman, ChampSoc.
>muh existentialism
>muh moral heroism despite the meaninglessness of le world
>muh sartre
>>2530608>I dunno what leads you to believe humans do not have instinct.the definition of instinct excludes the ability to resist and evaluate it, which you described nonhuman animals do not possess
drives/desires/fears are different from instincts, and so are reflexes (reflexes do exist in both human and nonhuman animals, but putting your hand away from a hot stove is quite different from whatever "maternal instinct" is)
>But she's not capable of experiencing a sense of 'ought' (social or otherwise) that take precedence over what she might otherwise feel.depending on the species. some nonhuman animal species are able to form complex social networks and ostracize those individuals that do not conform to the accepted behavior of the group
>Any of the categories you mentioned can be altered and modified, but as social beings, cannot be abolished.i'm not talking about the concepts of "institution/narrative/structure/attitude" themselves, the concepts themselves probably can't
just those manifestations of those social entities that, in their current form and state, are profoundly reactionary and obstructive
>>2530669Well then by that definition anything as big or bigger than a rat doesn't have instincts.
I think it's more reasonable to say instincts don't matter that much at scale.
>>2530669You're correct in your assessment that drives, fears and desires, are different from mere reflexes. Calling it "drives" is perhaps less confusing.
And yes, what you posted is an example of complex social networks, and there's also peer pressure even among animals.
But here's the hint; humans differ in that we can be "irrational". Our irrationality is not in accepting peer pressure, or doing whatever our base feelings compel us to at any one time; it's in the fact we can decide not to (for completely "made up" reasons). And thus also assume moral agency.
The pursuit of "communism" for instance, either as an immediately lived experience or a far of future historical eschaton is "irrational''. Because it drives us to self-destruction and conflict - when we pick the pursuit of it and living authentically over simply "going through the motions" and continued existence in the biological sense.
But where the existentialist and theist perspectives differ, is that the in the first, one accepts both moral authority and moral culpability. Whilst in the latter one externalizes moral authority, and therefore also denies moral culpability. Putting our irrational Will on the same level as (yes) instinct. And thus denying "choice" as such entirely.
And no I'm not referring to the concepts either. I am talking about specific instances. Socially "emergent" forms of power that inform our worldviews. Constrain us or compel us to act. This will continue as long as we remain social beings. Because its this interplay that defines us as social beings in the first place. Even if existing institutions, languages, customs, structures even gender are abolished, and others take their place.
Which ones at the moment are specifically reactionary or obstructive is a different discussion.
>>2530707>Whilst in the latter one externalizes moral authority, and therefore also denies moral culpability. Putting our irrational Will on the same level as (yes) instinct. And thus denying "choice" as such entirely.a sadge perspective to have
>Even if existing institutions, languages, customs, structures even gender are abolished, and others take their place.i agree. abolishing the existing ones is what i've been getting at, there's nothing wrong with creating new ones in their place if they are not obstructive or are an attempt to revive the now-obsolete
>idf u crit trans u r puritan
*Y A W N*
>>2530158>the idea that transness is inherently bourgeoisNo its just idpol. Take off that wig and dont show up looking like that in party meetings.
>>2530158Hey, you copied that post from communist trans twitter
Agent Kochinski thread
Anti consumerism is also just a way to discipline labor
>>2530727I think this is a false promise. Because new institutions and structures will continue to shape us as long as we remain
social beings.
I recommend checking out Foucault's writings on power, where he explains the issue in more detail. (I've been trying to find a good collection as a pdf, but libgen is a mess atm)
Unique IPs: 24