>Socialist feminists reject radical feminism’s main claim that patriarchy is the only or primary source of oppression of women.
Rather, socialist feminists assert that women are unable to be free due to their financial dependence on males in society. Women are subjects to the male rulers in capitalism due to an uneven balance in wealth. They see economic dependence as the driving force of women’s subjugation to men.
>Socialist feminism draws upon many concepts found in Marxism; such as a historical materialist point of view, which means that they relate their ideas to the material and historical conditions of people’s lives. Socialist feminists thus consider how the sexism and gendered division of labor of each historical era is determined by the economic system of the time. Those conditions are largely expressed through capitalist and patriarchal relations. Socialist feminists, thus reject the Marxist notion that class and class struggle are the only defining aspects of history and economic development. Marx asserted that when class oppression was overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well. According to socialist feminists, this view of gender oppression as a sub-class of class oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists has gone towards specifying how gender and class work together to create distinct forms of oppression and privilege for women and men of each class. For example, they observe that women’s class status is generally derivative of her husband’s class or occupational status,.e.g., a secretary that marries her boss assumes his class status.
I'm personally interested in the idea that sexist and racial oppression can manifest itself in other forms not related too production, the view that sexist and racist discrimination is can form within the superstructure itself that is mentioned here.
I assume this is born from Gramsci and other marxist thinkers that focused on how Superstructure functions and reproduces itself?
This is absurd armchair speculation designed by an educated but not particularly intelligent or talented individual.
>>732588
Just like most feminism and socialism
I guess the antithesis failed to adquately overcome the thesis
>>732581
All feminism is garbage, especially even worse more leftist garbage.
There is no morality and no reason to even attempt to seek equality. Feminists should be put to death.
>>732769
>there is no morality
>*makes a moral judgement*
>>732805
What moral judgement was that?
>>732815
wow anon ur not very smart
>>732817
No, I'm arguing that saying "feminists should be put to death" wasn't a moral judgement but I simply advocated it because it would be in he ultimate interests of western civilization
the first line was just fluff meant to grab the reader's attention
>>732823
>it would be in he ultimate interests of western civilization
sounds an awful lot like a moral judgement anon
>>732834
No, it's an objectively provable point that can be arrived at through discourse.
>>732853
but what's the objective reason that the interests of western civilisation should be realised?
>>732856
Because I am a member of western civilization or insert group here. By putting forward the interests of my own group I am putting forward my own interest.
Chemicals in my brain make me me feel better when I fuck a woman, eat food , kill an enemy, or gain/spend money. What better way to ensure those chemicals keep coming than to ensure personal prosperity via advocation of force and the destruction/enslavement of all other out groups
>>732581
women want to be entertained, by as many able men as possible, and their demand of free contraceptives and free abortions proves this.
>>732863
then why are your interests objective? isn't it a moral judgement that you should get those chemicals?
>>732805
>We need to kill people in our best interest
You an obtuse retard
>>732879
how is it not a moral judgement that your best interests should be realised?
![kollontai[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MelPCuu.jpg "kollontai[1].jpg")
>If in certain circumstances the short-term tasks of women of all classes coincide, the final aims of the two camps, which in the long term determine the direction of the movement and the tactics to be used, differ sharply. While for the feminists the achievement of equal rights with men in the framework of the contemporary capitalist world represents a sufficiently concrete end in itself, equal rights at the present time are, for the proletarian women, only a means of advancing the struggle against the economic slavery of the working class. The feminists see men as the main enemy, for men have unjustly seized all rights and privileges for themselves, leaving women only chains and duties. For them a victory is won when a prerogative previously enjoyed exclusively by the male sex is conceded to the “fair sex”. Proletarian women have a different attitude. They do not see men as the enemy and the oppressor; on the contrary, they think of men as their comrades, who share with them the drudgery of the daily round and fight with them for a better future. The woman and her male comrade are enslaved by the same social conditions; the same hated chains of capitalism oppress their will and deprive them of the joys and charms of life. It is true that several specific aspects of the contemporary system lie with double weight upon women, as it is also true that the conditions of hired labour sometimes turn working women into competitors and rivals to men. But in these unfavourable situations, the working class knows who is guilty.
>>732888
But you can comprehend that there are things that aren't in your interests, right?
>>732879
>What I currently think is in my best interest will of course be in my best interest in the future!
>>732892
How are those things not in my best interest when they are biologically proven to be what my brain and yours is wired to do.
Here are the facts
There are limited resources, but an infinite number of other people who want to have more. In conjunction with this is that in each person's mind exists capability to exercise violence and war that has been developed into atomic weapons and unspeakable monstrosities.
Conflict, death, violence, rape, murder, crime and disease are unavoidable. I simply advocate we take a realist viewpoint and create a system that is not utopian in that it thinks that these things can ever be eradicated. Humans for thousands of years just took what they wanted, and killed who stood in their way. Why can't we do that now?
>>732907
because that's not the way things worked in the real world, yes humans have fought each other in the past but the main reason we got so far is because of our mutual aid
also don't appeal to nature that's not a proper argument
>>732907
>biologically proven to be what my brain and yours is wired to do
Different brains are wired differently, you're approaching it from the sociopath perspective, someone else might be a retard savant. There is no objective state that the human brain is 'wired for' one of the main human features is extreme neuroplasticity (on average).
>>732916
I didn't appeal to nature, I explained the purpose and design of our brains. But even if I stepped back, I would say that death is the worst possible outcome for me as a living being. Advancing the cause of my own group or civilization ensures I stay further away from death. For man is subject to the same law which governs all living things and this law dictates that every living thing maintains its existence exclusively by depriving other living things of theirs.
>>732932
how were trains and railways built? why do we have agriculture and industry?
>>732932
>and this law dictates that every living thing maintains its existence exclusively by depriving other living things of theirs.
Fuck no.
>>732947
how does a large army exist if there's a war of all against all going on?
>>732947
>lay down and ignore how the world really is
But that's *not* how the world really is, you double-nigger. Resources acquisition is quite literally NOT a zero-sum game.
>>732949
Because in response to chaos and violence humans banded together in groups. They evolved from tribes, to city states, to kingdoms to republics, to empires to tribes again, then to kingdoms to nation states to etc
These groups create monopolies of violence in their controlled geographical areas and using this power they mobilize the resources they physically control to embark on war with other groups.
>>732957
exactly, mutual aid, people helping each other for the benefit of all
Gynocide is the only solution to female issues.
>>732960
For the benefit of those in their group. The only reason groups have gotten larger is because resource acquisition and materials production has become further and further more productive, refined and optimized.
A man in china doesn't work for the people in America. He works for China.
When technological capability increases efficiency in resource and materials you see "industrial revolutions". When war or collapse damages this, you see regression, which happens a lot. Probably happening in the west very soon.
>>732955
Power is a zero sum game.
>>732965
>A man in china doesn't work for the people in America. He works for China.
why?
>>732932
Fuck off marxist.
>>732967
Because that is his group
If you want to understand why person A can't work for group B, I'd recommend you read Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington. He is slightly off, but presents an interesting and immaculate theory.
>>732970
I'm not a marxist, and if you think I'm a political leftist you're a moron. You're probably some libertardian chump.
>>732975
I'm a reactionary. You are literally parroting historical materialism and zero sum economic relations which is quintessential marxist dogma, dumb cunt.
>>732973
but what constitutes a group though? where do you draw a line?
>>732981
That's because alt right reactionaries are morons who while are right about ethnicity are wrong about practically everything else. They spend their time jacking off to Evola's nonsense as well as nonsensical notions about what monarchy was or is.
Historical Materialism is semi correct, and it wasn't actually created by Marx, I was also making inroads with great man theory and other concepts.
Zero Sum economic relations between countries, not between classes. Don't you realize i was implying that the economy is simply a mechanism for the state to maintain it's own security and power. Does that sound like Marxism to you?
>>732986
Clash of Civilizations is
>>732993
>country A has abundance of X but shortage of Y
>country B has abundance of Y but shortage of X
>the two countries trade Y for X and both benefit
Where's the zero sum in here?
>>732993
>Evola
Please fuck off. Evola is Nietzschean dogshit and his reaction ends with appropriating some reactionary buzzwords and trying to distill them into abstract utilitarian concepts.
>>733012
So what happens when there isn't enough X or Y for country C?
Or what happens when Country A annexes or invades Country H?
Humanity will always tend to violence, rather than cooperative behavior between groups. All of our resources and wealth are finite. Even brainpower and capable individuals are finite.
>>733028
Prisoner's dilemma applies pretty well in here, hence why Europeans aren't waging war against each other anymore.
>Huntington
Way is this the guy who considers New Guinea to be western?
>>733032
Huntington created a great framework, but anyone can nitpick details. Europeans aren't waging war because we're gradually moving towards a civilization scale of group.
However I'd argue the biggest factor in the current pacification of Europe is simply that Liberal Capitalist Democracy won the war of ideologies against Fascism and Communism. Europe was forced to watch out for other threats, however as liberal democracy dies because it's inept delusions created inefficient and bad policies. Like the mass immigration.
The leaders of NA and Europe choose to blind themselves with the knife of delusion. Delusion that stems from their political ideology, which shows clearly the importance of intellectual integrity which is the crucible of the ideas I'm talking about.
>>733046
>calling national socialism "fascism"
Yeah you're a marxist.
>>733056
Using a well regarded catchall term is somehow meaningful evidence that I believe in the moronic philosophy of Karl Marx?
I'm aware of the difference, but you're arguing semantics.
And technically it wouldnt' be national socialism, it would be the "third position" which is a category that includes both.
>>733063
Literally the most people who call it fascism are marxists, since they argue it wasn't true socialism as to them Marxian socialism is the only valid definition. This is also the reason why in eastern Europe they tend to call nazis "fascists", thanks to decades of commie brainwashing.
>b-but semantics
Semantics are everything.
>>733094
I said Fascism because Fascism is more inclusive
Most people regard National Socialism as a form of fascism. The term fascism also includes the pre Mussolini fascist schools of thought, as well as the national syndicalists, Romania iron guard, Hungarian arrow cross, British Fascists and brazilian integralists.
>>733056
>>733094
>>733100
>national syndicalists
No. Syndicalism predates it.
>Iron guard
Yes.
>Arrow cross
No. National socialism.
>>733102
>wikipedia
You sure showed us anon.
>>733112
no u
>>733112
that wasn't me
>>733102
>Fransciso Franco
holy shit, are they for realz
looks like our national version is less biased
so honestly guys, in an actual communist state women were oppressed like everyone else beyond some initial fanfare were they not
i approve of feminism
they want to be a bunch of sluts getting gangbanged openly in the streets, what's not to love about it?
but feminism is bourgeois, they increase the tax base, amount of workers, and margin on account of the wage suppression. It has no place in socialism except for accelerationism of capitalism
>>732963
good thing feminism is self sterilizing via birth control/abortion, anti-natalist and family propaganda
Socialist feminism is literally cancer-tier.
Women are not a socio-economic class, any more than a fucking monkey is.
Women; the only supposedly 'oppressed' group in history to be more protected than their so-called 'oppressors'.
The idea that women are or ever have been oppressed is nonsense.
>>732588
>>732769
>>732963
>>734320
>>734347
>>735058
>Stop disagreeing with my radical political philosophy and criticizing my radical social agenda
>>735058
>you disagree with feminism?
>you must be a nazi!
Godwin's Law at it's finest.
>>733763
This is the problem with "Sexism will just end with classism" it never did and discrimination seems to stem from more than class, while Sexism did come about due to a relation with the means of production (the advent of the hoe about 8000 years ago) suddenly because a class revolution happens, doesn't stop people holding prejudices and views against women.
If a Socialist society is male dominated still, female voices will simply just be drowned out, what stops people from continuing holding views like "Women should still be doing only female work like secretaries"? What stops "Rape/Sexual/domestic assault isn't a big as a deal and think about the poor boys with the futures ahead of them"? Nothing, these things would still exist because simply public/worker ownership of the means of production does nothing to really interact with this. One of the biggest mistakes of Socialists is too focus too much on base and discard superstructure.
People should read Gramsci
>>734320
>Women are not a socio-economic class
Women have a different relation too the means of production than men.
Women are subjugated with gender attitudes.
The idea that Sexism will end with Worker control of the means of production is absurd and 100% ahistorical.
>>735165
>Thinking that anything replied to in the previous post is political philosophy
I am actually legitimately curious. Was your high school in a trailer, or did you just sit in a dry spot on the bayou?
>>735212
But women are sellouts, they are classism manifest, what is hypergamy "marrying up. They are traitorous and represent their own benefit from the bourgeoisie and all espousal of values is mere lip service.
