Feminism and Idpol

Only half of the board is like that tbh

Last night I was thinking what if you are born a woman but you sexually identify as a male to female transexual?

You can never be who you really are. That is really sad.

Majority of this board isn't anti-feminist, we just hate capitalist/neoliberal feminism and its counterpart in the modern American "Left". Equity between the genders has been a long standing goal for socialists and anyone who is for a communist world believes in it, we just don't need to take our eye off the ball. Women in several former Soviet countries said they enjoyed life more than they currently do

Watch this for more:
youtube.com/watch?v=oYFA2wCDw7A

Attached: identity politics.jpg (1280x720 537.96 KB, 153.93K)

Large numbers of women argued for "equity between the genders" while explicitly disavowing the feminist movement. The idea that feminism is anything other than a form of Not Socialism for the distaff is a convient falsehood maintained by cuntzis.

Fair enough, I guess I just meant there are still women who refer to themselves as feminists who agree more with this line

You won't get a coherent answer from Zig Forums. Anti-idpol here is really the residue of rightist prejudices towards tumblr-esque SJWs, nothing really substantial.

That said, what should be stated first and foremost is that the most prevailing form of feminism is liberal, and even the academic strains of socialist feminism tend to be infected with liberalism. Communism posits that liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, and that what is necessary therefore is the establishment and maintenance of the independence of the working class from the capitalist class, ideologically (through Marxism) and practically (through the workers' Party). But just as the proletariat is presupposed by capital (you cannot have employees without employers after all), so too does Communism presuppose liberal value. Through the rejection of the project of liberalism, by criticizing their capitalist foundation, we seek of the fulfillment of the promises of liberal values and Western Civilization typified through the phrases "All Men are Created Equal" and "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

For Marxism's relationship to Postmodernism. Just as Marxism believes itself as inheritors of Western Civilization and Modernity, we nonetheless stress a rejection of Modern life itself and a rejection of the West politically, but this rejection is itself based on the premises of the values of the West. Even in the Cold War, many Communists opposed to the West politically deeply admired it; the Vietnamese Decleration of Independence, for example, begins with quoting America's Deceleration. A fundamental problem with Postmodernity's critique of Modernity is its sympathy towards the Counter-Enlightenment. The Postmodern's opposition towards Modernity can easily be rendered reactionary, and we see this with the far-right's appropriation of PC identity politics.

Women's liberation is an essential part of the socialist program. The family, as an institution, is a fundamental edifice to the whole of social and economic life, and any attempt to overthrow all existing social conditions must address the family as an institution. But this rupture can only be realized through the class struggle. Capitalism is all-encompassing, it is a totalizing force that seeps throughout society, rendering all production
into commodity production. Therefore the struggle against capitalism, the struggle of the working class, becomes totalizing as well, becoming a universal struggle for the general emancipation of the whole of mankind. For such miscellenia issues such as sexism and racism, they cannot be understood by their own basis, separate from the political economy, but through the struggle for the working class, for if they aren't then they too become subordinated to capitalism (as in the case with PC "radicalism"). These struggles can only be realized through a universal struggle lead by the working class.

Attached: 592b46340d648131fd0efc96bd91ba848519278318e764e4347bed3095b7a608.jpg (680x747, 84.21K)

Like most of the people here I'm a white dude, so I only have something to gain from class politics, which is why I despise anti-racism and feminism. I also attack factions of the left that embrace intersectionality as 'divisive', while literally spreading the same anti-feminist and racist rhetoric of the hard right alienating women and people of colour from our cause. I care about nothing other than myself; in fact, the only reason I'm a socialist is because I'm envious of bourgeois wealth. If I got a fat pay check or two I'd probably go hard right.

Go to >>>Zig Forums retard

I'm with you on this. There is a lot of stuff that comes from people like J.K. Rowling and Hilary Clinton to take a couple of random examples, that I would describe as 'liberal feminist bullshit', but we definitely shouldn't be disparaging feminism in-itself. We shouldn't be discounting the very significant contribution made to leftist thought by socialist feminists and theorists like Simeon de Beauvoir, and we definitely shouldn't be spreading the anti-feminist rhetoric of the far right. It doesn't help our cause one iota. It simply turns women away from our cause, and it more generally confirms people's belief in the ideas of the right. We pretty much need to stop using the term 'identity politics', which was coined by the right to smear and discredit the LGBT and women's liberation movement. It's not a useful term since it groups so many disparate and conflicting ideas together. If you can dismiss white nationalism as 'identity politics', then you equate it with anti-racism, which it absolutely is not. White nationalism is bad not because it relates to white identity, but because it promotes hatred supremacy of one group over another. Class politics and anti-racism are good because they seek to destroy injustices and make the world more equitable. By grouping such politics together and demonising them, we are playing right into the hands of the right.

that post was not in the slightest bit substantive.

...

You are always who you really are.

But you are not necessarily who you want to be.

t. retard

They're grouped together because they are all politics centered around notions of a certain identity, by definition. It's anti-dialectical and anti-Marxist.

Anti-racism isn't the same as identity politics.

This phrasing also smells of radlib. The entirety of the post never touches material reality at any point.

Anti-racism is politics centred around notions of racial identity. By your own definition it's a form of identity politics. The point I was trying to make is that no political movement centred around identity is bad *because* it's centred around identity. "Identity politics" is just a derogatory term used to smear any such political movements.

actually its exactly the opposite, no one is who they really are

Any anti-racist or anti-sexist struggle must come from the position of class. The struggle for emancipation from racism is not a struggle between "whites" and non-"whites" because racism and nationalism are used as tools by the bourgeoisie to divide the international working class. Rather than viewing anti-racism as a racial struggle of oppressed races against the "privileged", we should instead build a "rainbow" coalition from all races in a combined struggle against capitalism.

The very notion of "white privilege" itself is a problem. Not to say that black people don't get it worse, but arguing for anti-racism through stressing "white privilege" means having white workers identify their interests with their bosses rather than their black brethren, which is exactly what the white supremacists want. Racism is perpetuated by capitalism, so any anti-racist movement would necessarily be anti-capitalist.

There is a difference between a class in itself and the class for itself. There is a difference between the class as it is, and the class organized politically for its own conscious interests. Arguing for the working class to identify with their own class is not the same as identity politics because the very notion of a class identity is based not on culture and mysticism (as is the case on racial and female/queer identity), but on hard economic interests. The very notion of identification as such is really just bourgeois "equality", where social divisions are supposed to dissipate in a common identification, no different than how bourgeois electoralism and the rule of law works.

It's not that racism is evil, but that it undermines workers' power. People ultimately act in their own self-interest and any politics has to be based on the economic situation. My problem is with identity politics in general, so it's the very category of "whiteness" that I'm suspicious of. The fundamental principle of Marxism is the self-determination of the working class separate from capital, and any attempt to undermine the independence of labor and subordinate their politics to the interests of the bourgeoisie is to be combated.

You won't get a coherent answer from Zig Forums for the same fucking reason you won't from Zig Forums you goddamn moron. The imageboard format gives way to incoherency, and most people who particpate in imageboard culture are fucking stupid. There is no line and there can't be, because then . And no, Zig Forums isn't filled with "closet fascists", and no I don't support identity politics.

Attached: workers power.jpg (327x437, 59.63K)

I'm and , and I don't really disagree with anything you just said. However, I think we should be careful not to sideline any positive action that can be done within capitalism to bring about better material circumstances of particular sections of the working class who experience doubly bad social and economic conditions due to their race or gender or religion or whatever. We also shouldn't expect that there would be such inequalities would vanish when capitalism dies.

I often encounter the opinion that sexism stems from capitalism and will not exist once it's overthrown, but misogyny and alterity has existed in capitalism and every pre-capitalist society. The division of labour brought about by the material circumstances of farming and hunting and so on have rendered men the agent which drives progress and invention, whereas the need for women to bear children have relegated her to a static circumstance of childcare and housework. That separation is intensified by the further division of labour brought about by industrial capitalism into the infinite disparate occupations which alienate workers from the object of their labours. But the material conditions which bring about women's oppression in capitalism still exist in any industrial society, even one where the means of production are socially controlled.

Workers need to identify with each other not on the basis of race, I agree, but equally they shouldn't dismiss the complaints of his black colleagues. They should fight together against capitalism and against racism - not put aside the question of racism until after the revolution and only focus on capitalism. They are undoubtedly linked of course, racism supports capitalism through 'divide and rule', but we cannot oppose any direct action taken in opposition to racism. We should organise with anti-racist groups against racism, and at our rallies speak about racism and capitalism and how they're intrinsically linked. We should also value the perspectives of those in our communities who are black, or muslim or jewish or trans or whatever, since we have something to learn from them. They have a different experience of the world to us because we are not those things, and sometimes we wouldn't even think about how society is stacked against them if we didn't listen to their perspective.

I really don't disagree with you very much, even if I have strained to discuss the points of contention between us. But what I really hate is the kind of crass and unnuanced critique of certain kinds of politics that so many people on what I guess I'd call the 'anti-idpol left' espouse, which literally cannot be distinguished from the anti-feminist right's screeching about 'feminists ruining muh vidya games' and 'black people just make bad choices', which you aren't guilty of, but many people here are.

I agree with you. My contention is how fundamental class is. Yes, while sexism (though not racism, modern racism is distinctly capitalist) originated from prior to capitalism, the struggle for women's liberation is an essential component for the emancipation of society from the fetters of capital. If the struggle for socialism to be successful, it must be a political struggle. While yes, primitive communities can and were patriarchal, the only way to succeed in fulfilling the abolition of capitalism is through abolishing the material basis of patriarchal relations - which is the family.

The problem is with revisionism, of not connecting the economic struggle to the political struggle, specifically for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. As Lenin said, the struggle of the working class necessarily becomes a struggle for political power, a struggle for the universal emancipation of all the oppressed. Therefore for there to be a proletarian class for itself and not simply in itself, it becomes necessary to bring to the forefront political demands, which includes anti-racism, etc. The assumption that anti-racism and the class struggle are somehow separate is the problem.

The very notion of "all politics being identity politics" comes from a sheer ignorance of the fact that society is divided into classes, and the emphasis on intersectionality means the denigration of class and the subordination of the workers' struggle to liberalism.The problem with "intersectionality" is the lack of a category of totality, no edifice to bring together the disparate "oppressions", just a stress that they "intersect". In fact, the very notion of intersectionality presupposes separation, and an emphasis on intersectionality, rather than a totalizing class-position to hold it all together, because the theory itself was based on a postmodern opposition to totality, it cannot bring them together and is even used as an argument against the primacy of class. There is no such thing as "the People" in itself. "The People" is divided into classes. "The People" as such, is constituted politically, through organs of democracy. But who's democratic political organs are they, bourgeois or proletarian? Without emphasizing the primacy of class, the leadership of the struggle for liberation become bourgeois.

The whole notion of identity politics is itself incredibly subjective, regarding collective struggle through a "personal is political" collection of personal experiences. Now the collection of experiences to construct a group identity is not in-itself wrong, it is the frame in which this collection occurs is important. What is necessary is an explicit class basis, because without that class basis, leadership is simply handed over to capital.

Yes it is, the differences don't magically disappear, you still need to work on them.

Source: USSR, SocYugoslavia, DDR. But of course you cannot do it with liberal bullshit. You need to have communal laundry facilities, public cafeterias, public workplace kindergartens, a fuckton of public housing etc. etc. etc.

Source: Engels, Bebel, Zetkin, Luxemburg, Tomšič

reminder

Attached: non-tumblr tier feminism.jpeg (1090x1389, 271.82K)

Attached: kurdish fighters feminism.webm (960x540, 7.21M)

women can be bourgeoisie scum too

just like how women can be comrades too

who cares

Attached: identity theatre.png (1080x1400, 1.97M)

I doubt if you got into any specifity with regards to actual proposals that poster would disagree with you; they just don't neccessarily consider the things that you mentioned as specifically feminist in seperation from socialist/communist

How do we stop feminism from lowering fertility rates, and causing christcucks and other religious fundamentalists to inherit the earth?

unz.com/jman/liberalism-hbd-population-and-solutions-for-the-future/
youtube.com/watch?v=ZjuBRaLYWnA
phys.org/news/2011-01-religiosity-gene-dominate-society.html
futurism.com/genetic-idiocracy-genes-associated-with-high-education-are-becoming-rarer/
unz.com/isteve/cochran-harpending-paper-on-amish/

Attached: wedonotbreed.jpg (1280x2096, 760.88K)

That is true. But they mention them as a tool towards more solidarity in the society, however women would gain more from this, as "unproductive labour" wouldn't be an individual problem of every family anymore.

I'm not sure I follow as to how women would gain more the examples that poster listed, could you explain what you mean in more detail for me please?

Very good posts

And that kurd woman is using the right wing's brainlet definition of radical feminism, complete with "being a moderate is better than being an extremist" ideology.

Attached: but-thats-wrong-you-pure-ideology-813958.png (500x546, 107.31K)

go back to Zig Forums misogynist

holy shit I love this comic, make more pls

...

capitalism: families do stuff for free, without anyone paying them (bringing up little future workers, feeding them, caring for them, caring for the elderly, preparing meals, building homes etc. etc.).

History has shown that the majority of this "unproductive" labor falls to women, who either a) are stay at home moms b) have a double burden.

By building a massive public system of public cafeterias, daycare centers for children and the elderly, public cleaning facilities and public houses liberate women and men, but women gain more from these things.

"Transformative politics, forme, stands in contrast tomerely reformative approaches (and the limited agency available within the framework of existing exploitative orders) that maintain the status quo. And for a truly revolutionary world and people with a different consciousness to emerge, it is of paramount importance that feminism also be ‘re-materialized’. What I mean by this is that critical analysis is not enough or sufficient in its own right. What is needed is demand for and the implementation of a new transformative social order. Or to quote Nancy Fraser (2009: 107), if feminism wants to be ‘a part of a broader emancipatory project’, then it must reach the unavoidable conclusion that its ‘struggles against gender injustices [are] necessarily linked to struggles against racism, imperialism, and class domination, all of which require [doing away with] the deep structures of capitalist society’."

youtu.be/rFBaXsojLoA

from 43:00

Oh ok you were talking about reproductive & domestic labour for some reason I didn't catch on immediately, thanks for the response though.

Replace the title with Bread and Roses Feminism and take out the bottom logo and it will be 10/10

cancer