Blursty

Who is ML?

you are again bringing up morality when i am talking about class issue.

This isn't going to work. I am the one here who's introduced class into this moralistic discussion. Me.

you seem to be fixated on this idea that men are ontologically evil.

Which, again, has been my point in this entire thread. It's all there for anyone to see. Changing your tune now and trying to swap places with me isn't going to work. Otherwise you're just agreeing with me while trying to appear not to.

again, nobody said that

Do I have to tap the link again? "I don’t and can’t blame feminists who are more confrontational. I know what their feeling and I get it. [The onus is on men to start listening...](I don’t and can’t blame feminists who are more confrontational. I know what their feeling and I get it. The onus is on men to start listening)"

yes!

Yes, you agree with my correction of your take. Good.

do you really think that only in the US men are a privileged class? because it doesnt seem that you even think that to start with

No, I just assumed, completely without evidence that you were American based on the western centered worldview that there is only one society, and men are privileged within it.

i do not deny that! but class is not absolute, it is an aggregate concept. some proletarians being more privileged than some bourgeois

Great. The important distinction where this analogy breaks down is that peoples' relations to the means of production can be changed easily. And this is something we aim to achieve. Whereas men can't ever stop being men.

I don't believe you. You know exactly what their relevance is.

Yes I believe Gloria Steinem referenced Marx extensively.

As did Lenin.

"I have been told that at the evenings arranged for reading and discussion with working women, sex and marriage problems come first. They are said to be the main objects of interest in your political instruction and educational work. I could not believe my ears when I heard that. The first state of proletarian dictatorship is battling with the counter-revolutionaries of the whole world. The situation In Germany itself calls for the greatest unity of all proletarian revolutionary forces, so that they can repel the counter-revolution which is pushing on. But active Communist women are busy discussing sex problems and the forms of marriage ‘past, present and future’. They consider it their most important task to enlighten working women on these questions. It is said that a pamphlet on the sex question written by a Communist authoress from Vienna enjoys the greatest popularity. What rot that booklet is! The workers read what is right in it long ago in Bebel. Only not in the tedious, cut-and-dried form found in the pamphlet but in the form of gripping agitation that strikes out at bourgeois society. The mention of Freud’s hypotheses is designed to give the pamphlet a scientific veneer, but it is so much bungling by an amateur. Freud’s theory has now become a fad. I mistrust sex theories expounded in articles, treatises, pamphlets, etc. in short, the theories dealt with in that specific literature which sprouts so luxuriantly on the dung heap of bourgeois society. I mistrust those who are always absorbed in the sex problems, the way an Indian saint is absorbed In the contemplation of his navel."

James Connolly sums up this sex obsessed website really well.

“I have long been of opinion that the Socialist movement elsewhere was to a great extent hampered by the presence in its ranks of faddists and cranks, who were in the movement, not for the cause of Socialism, but because they thought they saw in it a means of ventilating their theories on such questions as sex, religion, vaccination, vegetarianism, etc., and I believed that such ideas had or ought to have no place in our programme or in our party.”

Faddists and cranks indeed.

No one here is arguing that gender is the primary contradiction.

Agreed, that would have been something at least. Instead we have "Men bad".

No one here is saying that we shouldn’t address capitalism.

Nor that we should. We should just address men and get them to "listen", then everything will be okay.

patriarchy existed way before the system of capitalism. Abolition of the latter does not automatically abolish the former.

As communists, we strive to abolish Class Society, of which Capitalism is only the latest manifestation.

And also, do you disagree than men have a privileged position in society? Just so we get our basics covered.

Which society? I assume this is more western chauvinistic American defaultism again? We're talking about the entire global gender here. Do you deny that some women have a more privileged position than some men? Or are we only dealing with this absolute. In which case, no is the obvious answer.

ignoring the unique systemic issues faced by roughly half of the population is going to make organizing and agitating very difficult.

Directly blaming even, not just ignoring. This is gender reductionism.

Systemic misogyny, transphobia, racism, settler-colonial relations, etc. need to be dealt with as part of the revolution, and before seizing state power, recognizing these issues and providing solutions (for both the present and future) is essential for building support among these populations.

Agreed. That system being capitalism, not the resultant social constructs of it. Trying to push the gender rope and ignoring the root causes is doomed to failure, alientation and wasted effort.

I can't believe I was sucked into this but there's some humdingers in this thread. It's impossible for men to be hated because they are men just because and Men aren’t subjected to abuse, exclusion, violence, etc. on a social or institutional level by any serious percentage just for the ‘crime’ of being men expressly because being a man isn’t a crime. are particularly jaw dropping western chauvinist observations.

I never said that at all and have consistently been pointing at the upper classes schools and domination as the thing that keeps producing these outcomes for both men and women,

Everyone can scroll up and see that this is not the case.

The only real way to beat this cycle and resolve the violence being taught and perpetuated is to break the wheel, not keep it spinning by positioning one gender over another.

You say that, but then here we are. In a discussion dominated by people spinning class society as one gender over another, ignoring class, even directly replacing the common Marxist usage of the term with gender. And I'm the only one arguing at this gender reductionism. Even though out of the blue you claim to be doing the same. At least I've been able to drag it out of some here. When challenged, everyone all of a sudden rediscovers theory.

Interesting. I've been accused of class reductionism for a much smaller common factor. If that's what I'm doing, then I can't imagine what you're doing here. An entire gender is a class now. I'd love to hear your argument. Is this your own concoction or is there any academic serious work arguing this?

Thank you. Glad we agree. Maybe you can help me elsewhere in the thread now?

Its not ‘I was just joking’ its ‘this is whats being done to me and im flipping the table over’, you really think I want to kill every single landlord personally or do away with the system of landlordism?

I wouldn't have a major issue with that in the right context, minus the personal killing all landlords part. It would be a tremendous task.

and yes thats quite literally what materialism is, are you lost?

That is not what materialism is. I think what you're probably trying to say is that the material conditions explains behaviour. My point is that it doesn't absolve. Yet you were using it to grand absolution to all women, but not men. It's hard to know what you were trying to say beyond tetchy sniping though.

One instance is a court case, when it repeats again and again its systematic.

Okay? Also unclear.

The states ideological apparatus produces these outcomes, you think misogyny and ID politics just appeared out of the natural spirit of the working class, or was it taught to them?

Thank you for restating my point. I seem to have breathed some ML thinking into the thread finally. Please carry on with this in mind.

Attempting to put words in my moth and refusing to engage isn't a substitute for discussion.

All men do not oppress all women. This is as reductive and facile, not to mention bigoted and anti-Marxist. Many men actively work against gender inequality and advocate for women's rights. many men seek to overthrow the class societies that cause oppression of various groups, just as many women support the status quo.