Post

In the communist movement historically, the default position on the so-called “Women Question” has been a male chauvinist one. Great strides were certainly made in past socialist projects toward ameliorating the conditions of women and empowering them to some extent politically. Nevertheless, women’s liberation has fairly consistently been considered a “secondary” struggle within the communist movement and communists have generally stopped short of interrogating the very division of people into men and women in the first place. That is, the most radical demand has often been “equality between men and women”, with the tacit assumption being of course that these “eternal” categories of “man” and “woman”—categories emerging from an oppressive relationship—will continue to exist.

Both of these errors are very much still present in today’s communist movement. The reason we say they are symptomatic of male chauvinism is because typical feminist discourse among communists does not get to the root of patriarchy, it distracts from the extent to which the very position of “man” is predicated on the oppression and exploitation of women, and it obscures the fact that the very division of people into gender categories is rooted in an economic relationship that must be abolished. Thus, in failing to address the root of the problem, today’s communist movement gives space for the domination of women by men to continue to exist, both in their organizations and in their vision of a future society.

Post

Of course, it is true that patriarchy cannot be reduced to only a division of labor. Patriarchy manifests in a plethora of ways which have been investigated by generations of feminists. However, the gender division existing in the economic base of society is what continually produces and reproduces patriarchy. Without realizing this we cannot explain why patriarchy persists in our present world, taking new forms, but showing no signs of being eroded. Subsequently, we cannot come to grips with how patriarchy can be defeated. Additionally, without a Marxist theory of gender, we cannot explain the division of people into “men” and “women” in the first place. It is wrong and backward to conceive of these categories as representing some essential characteristics of people. Rather, in the final instance, “man” and “woman” represent differing positions in a social hierarchy.

What we must understand is that women’s liberation is not merely a “secondary” struggle but is inexorably intertwined with the struggle for communism. Not only is gender oppression impossible to eliminate within the context of capitalism, but communism is impossible without the abolition of the productive relations which give rise to the division between men and women. In other words, since “man” and “woman” are categories stemming from an oppressive relationship, and men benefit from this division, then communists must seek the abolition of gender itself, i.e. in the last instance, the productive relations giving rise to patriarchy, if they genuinely want a society without oppression. We must not shy away from this.

Post

The majority of the women of the world have nothing to lose but their chains – the chains of capital and the chains of patriarchy. Whilst petty bourgeois feminism struggles for the accomodation of women in the capitalist-imperialist system, proletarian feminism struggles for the end of the system and the establishment of a classless society.

Under capitalism-imperialism, women form the majority of part-time workers, the majority of single parents, and the majority of workers earning minimum wage. In imperialist wars of aggression, they are 80% of refugees and displaced people, and 80% of the victims of hand-held weapons. Women make up 83% of domestic workers, facing deplorable working conditions. Even in our daily lives, women have to endure physical as well as psychological violence. These are problems inherent in the capitalist system, and the struggle for women’s liberation is inseparable from the struggle against capitalism.

Proletarian feminism is the understanding that without the support, participation, and leadership of women, the success of communist revolution against capitalism is impossible. Only by fusing the struggle of the proletariat with the struggle of women and other oppressed groups can imperialism be defeated and the struggle for communism carried forward.

Post

coolfuneral:

nice-frog:

IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES IT GOES
image

BURGERKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING

I CLOSE MY EYES AND SEIZE IT
I CLENCH MY TEETH AND EAT IT
I SWALLOW MEAT, IT’S MURDER
I ATE THE FUCKING BURGER

Post
do you see any significant differences between marxist feminism and proletarian feminism?

proletarianfeminism:

Hello,

We would recommend examining Anuradha Ghandy’s critique of what is often considered Marxist or socialist feminism. She writes that:

"The theoretical writings have been predominantly in Europe and the US and they are focused on the situation in advanced capitalist society. All their analysis is related to capitalism in their countries. Even their understanding of Marxism is limited to the study of dialectics of a capitalist economy.

There is a tendency to universalize the experience and structure of advanced capitalist countries to the whole world. For example in South Asia and China which have had a long feudal period we see that women’s oppression in that period was much more severe. The Maoist perspective on the women’s question in India also identifies patriarchy as an institution that has been the cause of women’s oppression throughout class society. But it does not identify it as a separate system with its own laws of motion. The understanding is that patriarchy takes different content and forms in different societies depending on their level of development and the specific history and condition of that particular society; that it has been and is being used by the ruling classes to serve their interests. Hence there is no separate enemy for patriarchy.

The same ruling classes, whether imperialists, capitalists, feudals and the State they control, are the enemies of women because they uphold and perpetuate the patriarchal family, gender discrimination and the patriarchal ideology within that society. They get the support of ordinary men undoubtedly who imbibe the patriarchal ideas, which are the ideas of the ruling classes and oppress women. But the position of ordinary men and those of the ruling classes cannot be compared. Socialist feminists by emphasizing reproduction are underplaying the importance of the role of women in social production. The crucial question is that without women having control over the means of production and over the means of producing necessities and wealth how can the subordination of women ever be ended? This is not only an economic question, but also a question of power, a political question.

Though this can be considered in the context of the gender based division of labour in practice their emphasis is on relations within the heterosexual family and on ideology of patriarchy. On the other hand the Marxist perspective stresses women’s role in social production and her withdrawal from playing a significant role in social production has been the basis for her subordination in class society. So we are concerned with how the division of labour, relations to the means of production and labour itself in a particular society is organized to understand how the ruling classes exploited women and forced their subordination. Patriarchal norms and rules helped to intensify the exploitation of women and reduce the value of their labour.”

(Read More)

Proletarian feminism focuses our theory and practice on the women who “have nothing to lose but their chains”, which are for the most part Third World women and women of oppressed nations. We do not seek to dismiss or ignore the theoretical work offered by Euro-American Marxist feminists, but (as with all Euro-American Marxists) their work often fall shorts of developing a serious revolutionary, anti-imperialist politics.

Sincerely,

Proletarian Feminism

Post
dinocology:

astrodidact:

Teenager from India invents device that can convert breath to speech
A high school student from India has invented a device that can convert a person’s breath into speech, to give millions of people around the world suffering from speech impediment a ‘voice’ for the first time.
Sixteen-year-old Arsh Shah Dilbagi has developed a new technology called ‘TALK’, which is a cheap and portable device to help people who are physically incapable of speaking express themselves. Right now, 1.4 percent of the world’s population has very limited or no speech, due to conditions such as Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), locked-in syndrome (LIS), Encephalopathy (SEM), Parkinson’s disease, and paralysis.
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20141509-26176.html

His name is Arsh Shah Dilbagi and he’s 16 years old. Gettin tired of sensationalized “mystery baby from a country where people are brown does a science thing!” articles. Use peoples names, don’t act so surprised when people of color are geniuses.

dinocology:

astrodidact:

Teenager from India invents device that can convert breath to speech

A high school student from India has invented a device that can convert a person’s breath into speech, to give millions of people around the world suffering from speech impediment a ‘voice’ for the first time.

Sixteen-year-old Arsh Shah Dilbagi has developed a new technology called ‘TALK’, which is a cheap and portable device to help people who are physically incapable of speaking express themselves. Right now, 1.4 percent of the world’s population has very limited or no speech, due to conditions such as Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), locked-in syndrome (LIS), Encephalopathy (SEM), Parkinson’s disease, and paralysis.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20141509-26176.html

His name is Arsh Shah Dilbagi and he’s 16 years old. Gettin tired of sensationalized “mystery baby from a country where people are brown does a science thing!” articles. Use peoples names, don’t act so surprised when people of color are geniuses.

Post
If you define liberation as being able to do the things your oppressors do without barriers, you are seeking power, not freedom.
Post

what is this post trying to say other than “i literally cant tell the difference between anti-colonialist liberation and a country seceding from the union that enforced that colonial oppression”

Post
she keep me worm
Post

“[…] the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels. Such is the basic mechanism of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and of the essentials of transition from capitalism to communism.”

Lenin continues:

“It is Trotsky who is in ‘ideological confusion’, because in this key question of the trade unions’ role, from the standpoint of transition from capitalism to communism, he has lost sight of the fact that we have here a complex arrangement of cogwheels which cannot be a simple one; for the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation. It cannot work without a number of “transmission belts” running from the vanguard to the mass of the advanced class, and from the latter to the mass of the working people.”

Lenin, “The Trade Unions and Trotsky’s Mistakes” (via statecapitalist)
Post

tripleacontent:

Location of places hit in Gaza. Where are people supposed to go?

Post
Post

our last prime minister once literally said “everything that isn’t said by me is wrong”

Post
hey everyone

taggedrne:

im going to be taking a 15 minute hiatus from tumblr to take a shower. i have a queue set up so don’t worry. please don’t try to miss me too much!!!

Post
Did Notch do something?
Anonymous

sell minecraft to microsoft for like $2 billion iirc
a really bad idea