Lykourgos posted:

e

Oh okay. Sorry i guess? I was born with the umbilical cord around my neck and my 'likely to live' number was a 2 (higher is better) when I was born and it easily could have gone the other way.

Edited by blinkandwheeze (Dec. 5, 2013 03:29:54)

roseweird posted:

.custom203705{}NoFreeWill posted:actually our identity kicks ass and owns the world by opressing everyone and we should be proud of being wasps that sting and bite.

oh to have a friend like you

i'm the good kind of masculinist whatever that is, but i'm also the bad kind.

roseweird posted:

neither, so far as i can tell, is modern socialism just now...?

well like if you are identifying "modern socialism" as exclusively that of the western left then yes, i broadly agree with you, first worldist socialism is largely beholden to petty bourgeois and labour aristocrat class interests. this is not to say that valuable work isn't being done in terms of organisation and investigation by first world socialist groupings but there are very few groups that could be identified as revolutionary and proletarian in character. but if you are extending your idea of modern socialism beyond that you are clearly mistaken, why would we not identify groups actively agitating for revolutionary change, such as the communist party of india (maoist), communist party of nepal - maoist or the communist party of the philippines as the forefront representatives of modern socialism?

i should make it clear that i am not saying at all that feminism is a uniquely petty bourgeois phenomenon, whatever "impossibly high standard" i am holding feminism to is just as applicable to any theoretical or cultural tradition in existence. theoretical or cultural products emerge from a society of class antagonisms and necessarily possess class character. i think the ncp (oc) delineated class distinctions clearly enough:

There are three fundamental tendencies in feminism today: bourgeois feminism, petty-bourgeois feminism, and proletarian feminism. Bourgeois feminism, while supportive of a few women’s gains, upholds the current world imperialist system. Petty-bourgeois feminism criticizes aspects of the capitalist system but is not capable of proposing systemic solutions to overthrow it. Proletarian feminism uses historical materialism to analyze patriarchy systemically in the context of capitalism and national oppression. It demands the overthrow of capitalism, the struggle for socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the communist transformation of society as a whole as necessary conditions for the complete emancipation of women.

i agree that there is no use in the pointless identifications of "bad feminism" or "good feminism", and even if i did, as a man i know that feminism is not my tradition and i would not have the authority to make those distinctions. the distinction being made here are not value judgements. as is being discussed in another thread, the distinctions of class character are not a question of identity. it is not inconceivable that a petty bourgeois thinker could put forward an argument or agitate along political lines that are proletarian in character. something that seems to not be coming across from what i am saying, and i dont blame you for not getting this as the term carries a weight to it even if i dont intend to express those connotations is that i am not using "petty bourgeois" in a demeaning or derogatory way. being petty bourgeois in character does not invalidate in any way the value of a theory, and even if the term conjures images of reactionary class enemies, the marxist tradition is pretty clear in identifying the petty bourgeoisie as a potentially progressive and revolutionary force. it's just a pretty ridiculous argument that mainstream, institutionalized academic feminist theory is not beholden to the mitigating factors that come with the institutionalization of any other tradition in bourgeois society. prevailing academic institutions, as instruments of bourgeois class society, are necessarily going to marginalize revolutionary, proletarian perspectives

again, this is not disregarding the value or usefulness of mainstream feminist theoretical traditions at all. i think it is completely necessary to, for example, pay attention to the work of dworkin & mackinnon and i think any analysis of the relationship between women and society is incomplete without following their efforts in some way. identifying dworkin's feminism as petty bourgeois does nothing to mitigate that. i am not under any illusions that (particularly western) forms of marxism are not severely male chauvinistic and will use accusations of petty bourgeois class character to demean and dismiss the ideas and contributions of women but i think this is clearly not what advocates of proletarian feminism are doing

i think your posing of feminism and socialism as these two distinct traditions that allow the subjugation of each other gets really muddy. i am not advocating anything outside of the feminist intellectual tradition, i am advocating the work of thinkers who have a long and detailed history as participants within feminism, you might not be particularly well read in marxist feminism but obviously you are aware that socialist feminism is not in any way a novelty. i am not arguing for the subjugation or marginalization of feminism to socialism anymore than you are when you say that "feminists should also be socialists". but if you accept the idea that the abolition of the capitalist mode of production is necessary for the abolition of the patriarchy, of the exploitation and subjugation of women, then i think it clearly follows that feminism that does not advocate concretely for this abolition and the institution of the dictatorship of the proletariat is going to have an insufficiency, no matter how valuable or necessary they may be. proletarian feminism is feminist, from within feminism, from and in the interests of women, that advocates for this revolutionary social change, and by critically addressing this insufficiency i think it is necessary for the abolition of the patriarchy as social institution

i mean just to clarify this even more, what i am saying is that, again, if you agree that the abolition of capitalism is necessary for the abolition of the patriarchy, and as feminism is clearly necessary for the abolition of the patriarchy, then proletarian feminism, feminism that concretely advocates and agitates for the abolition of the capitalist mode of production is going to be necessary to lead the abolition of the patriarchy and end the subjugation of women. this does not mitigate the value of feminism as a tradition or subjugate it to socialism as a distinct tradition but i think does mean it is important to identify these distinctions and advocate for specifically proletarian perspectives and i do not understand why this would be an impossibly high standard in any way & i do not understand why you equate this with a broad critique of feminism

i think its a very spurious claim that feminism is largely concerned with specifically biological considerations as opposed to social ones, even if an analysis of sex and biology is the necessary underpinning of feminist concepts the majority of feminist scholarship regards the relationship of these lived institutions within social contexts. in any case, these lived institutions may preexist capitalism but they do not exist independently of capital, women's bodies do not exist independently of the social field they are integrated in, a social field defined as much stratifications of class antagonism as it is by gendered, patriarchal relations. i dont really know where you are going with that b.c isnt it clear that the basis of the radical feminism that you are sympathetic to is that these living institutions cannot be understood as independent from the social fields they exist in, even if you might emphasize the importance of the considerations of biology more than this tradition might?

roseweird posted:

surely you must recognize that much of socialism has been just as deeply alienating to women as capital. mary daly recognizes the capitalists and communists alike as women's enemies—is it because she is just petty-bourgeois? or is it because socialists regularly attempt to subjugate women to male agendas?

what does this mean tho. do you mean socialism, as a social movement, has alienated women to a degree comparable to capitalism as a mode of production (something that would requiring comparing two categorically different models of alienation) or compared to the bourgeoisie, to the reactionaries, as a social force? or to some vague immaterial logic of capital? or are you comparing actually existing socialism, the institution of socialism as a mode of production, to actually existing capitalism?

it's true that socialists regularly attempt to subjugate women to male agendas, its obvious that there is nothing about being a socialist that can categorically cure a man of subjugating and exploiting women. but you yourself think feminists should be socialists, even if we were to assume that socialist men have historically been as much of an enemy to women as capitalist men this would have no bearing on the necessity of socialism for women's liberation if you understood that the abolition of capitalism was necessary for this liberation

i am sympathetic to the criticism of broad swathes of the marxist tradition as being male chauvinist and white suprematist. but there is only so much that criticism can apply to when faced with the often immense mobilization of women as militants and leaders in the history of socialist organizing, are the maoists of india guilty of alienating the women who constitute 60% of their ranks of active militants? but i mean like, you should have a look at something like that women's liberation in china pdf i posted before you compare the history of existing socialism as on equal footing regarding the treatment of women as the social order that has institutionalized and codified their rape and servitude

Edited by blinkandwheeze (Dec. 5, 2013 00:44:22)

roseweird posted:

what if i don't

you mentioned that you agree with my previous post in principle and believe feminists should be socialists so i was working from the assumption that you do, which i thought was a pretty safe one to make but i am sorry if i have misinterpreted you. of course you are free to disagree with this idea but where i would contest that is, you know, an entirely different argument that would involve me very crudely summarizing the very involved lineages of marxist feminism... i know just referring you to other literature is lazy on my part but its not like i am anywhere as eloquent or knowledgeable as the people i have recommended to you. much love :]