Feminism and the transcendence of capitalism

[Taupe Beats]

2 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

As for your last paragraph, I would agree with the Rosa Luxemburg quote in my OP that such bourgeois exploitators aren't relevant to feminism and are in fact nothing more than appropriators of its revolutionary potential, and reactionaries.  Are you saying they still have valid feminism even if they are CEOs because of intersectionality?

I'm saying that feminism is far too broad of a subject and movement to equate to something as broad as capitalism. At least not without a lot of acknowledgement of the schisms therein. Without acknowledging those schisms, it (potentially inadvertently, potentially not) allows for many categorical dismissals of feminism that aren't justified. In fact, those dismissals are a major systemic function of misogyny and always has been.

[splbt]

feminism isn't cool anymore dude get with the program

[zlemflolia]

8 minutes ago, Taupe Beats said:

I'm saying that feminism is far too broad of a subject and movement to equate to something as broad as capitalism. At least not without a lot of acknowledgement of the schisms therein. Without acknowledging those schisms, it (potentially inadvertently, potentially not) allows for many categorical dismissals of feminism that aren't justified. In fact, those dismissals are a major systemic function of misogyny and always has been.

I see okay.  Could it not be said that the reactionary nature of bourgeois feminism is counter-productive to the feminism of the masses, since class interests affect the material well-being of women more than anything else?

[Taupe Beats]

28 minutes ago, Zeffolia said:

I see okay.  Could it not be said that the reactionary nature of bourgeois feminism is counter-productive to the feminism of the masses, since class interests affect the material well-being of women more than anything else?

I would focus on the inclusion of the term "bourgeois feminism" in your post, specifically the feminism part. I think it could be removed entirely and and just focus on either "bourgeois", or more directly, "class structure" and then take out the "feminism of the masses" part entirely and I'd agree with the sentiment.

I don't know if there's such a thing as "feminism of the masses", without grouping several people of the same economic class who nonetheless have various other crucial differences which must be recognized. That's my point about intersectionality, and conversely, how these various groups differ and how those differences deserve to be recognized.

I would recommend looking at the differences between "2nd" and "3rd" wave feminism. I think that gets closer to what you're trying to formulate in your original post. And even then, I'd argue that both have merits that don't allow for a full dismissal of either philosophy.

[auxien]

4 hours ago, MIXL2 said:

 

Zeffolia 2013:

Quote

So because some beta faggot shares my views on men's rights I'm the same as him? Give me a break and quit with the personal attacks. You really don't help your case

Zeffolia 2020: 

10 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

The exploitation of women's labor is one of many clear proofs that capitalism is broken and must be transcended.

Zeffolia 2027:

Quote

pee pee poo poo

 

 

just wanted to make sure this carries over to page 2

[cwmbrancity]

for goth?

[prdctvsm]

capitalism is a patriarchal construct.

[manmower]

Zeffolia 2027: https://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2019/11/06/my-mistakes-and-failures/

[Freak of the week]

posting in zeffolia thread

[ignatius]

On 3/19/2020 at 12:21 PM, prdctvsm said:

capitalism is a patriarchal construct.

good book on that kind of thing that i really found interesting. like a secret history really. war on women, witch hunts, move to capitalism etc. fascinating really. 

https://www.amazon.com/Caliban-Witch-Women-Primitive-Accumulation/dp/1570270597

[Candiru]

Ancient Mesopotamia had it all figured out, IMO. Everything that came after is bourgeois, Bolshevik, post modern neomarxism with a cherry on top. Nuke Antarctica. 
 

- Abraham Lincoln

[chim]

20 hours ago, Zeffolia said:

Everything can be subsumed by capital.

[2] https://libcom.org/files/Capitalist Realism_ Is There No Alternat - Mark Fisher.pdf

I didn't read the full thing but there's a lot of dumb assumptions here of pop culture and the loss of respect for learning in schools. There are more nefarious things at play than fast food culture conditioning. The bit where he becomes an expert on Kurt Cobain and why he killed himself is especially stupid. As is typical of seasoned teachers he's incapable of nuanced thought. 

Gender equality and other civil rights issues are controlled opposition at best and all of these groups will probably reach their golden chains as it becomes profitable to do so, before capitalism eventually eats itself. Capitalism being our best option is not its own accomplishment but the failure of reality to accomodate our humanitarian ideals. Every utopian alternative necessitates a disregard of basic human behavior and some enormous feat of generational reprogramming, if at all possible. There are way more pressing issues at hand that are hard enough, and the "mitigation of excesses" the author describes is the only thing we'll see in our lifetime. 

[Dragon]

tl;dr people on the internet don't have the vocabulary to discuss feminism

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, Dragon said:

tl;dr people on the internet don't have the vocabulary to discuss feminism

elaborate?

[chim]

 

2 hours ago, Dragon said:

tl;dr people on the internet don't have the vocabulary to discuss feminism

The discourse is so infected not a lot of people can navigate it. Equality is a worthy cause in terms of autonomy and all that. It's every argument after that that gets difficult. A lot of women feminists I interact with are from a secure upper middle class background, strongly leftist and seem to believe all men enjoy the same privileges. 

We have our ugly history to deal with but I don't believe in polarizing the issue from a gender perspective, people are bad at working together full stop. 

[brian trageskin]

in short

[dingformung]

There are things in the world. Many, many things

[Candiru]

16 minutes ago, chim said:

 

The discourse is so infected not a lot of people can navigate it. Equality is a worthy cause in terms of autonomy and all that. It's every argument after that that gets difficult. A lot of women feminists I interact with are from a secure upper middle class background, strongly leftist and seem to believe all men enjoy the same privileges. 

We have our ugly history to deal with but I don't believe in polarizing the issue from a gender perspective, people are bad at working together full stop. 

Nailed it. Intersectionality and being “woke” has become an ersatz religion that has gotten people to believe all kinds of weird, misguided things. They’ve gone right back to being bigots and are incapable of realizing it. 

[Braintree]

"Hey, so what topic do average people hate talking about more than capitalism?"

"Feminism."

Later that day:

[chenGOD]

To keep the Covid-19 thread from not wandering too far off - topic.

"Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily." 

That is Marx defining private property (i.e. if bourgeois property (the means of production) is destroying that property, it is destroying private property, because the means of production is defined by property relations). Personal property is the hard-won, self-acquired property (like cars and flat-screen TVs), that is moveable. This is well defined in law.

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

To keep the Covid-19 thread from not wandering too far off - topic.

"Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily." 

That is Marx defining private property (i.e. if bourgeois property (the means of production) is destroying that property, it is destroying private property, because the means of production is defined by property relations). Personal property is the hard-won, self-acquired property (like cars and flat-screen TVs), that is moveable. This is well defined in law.

Marx's distinction between personal and private property is rooted entirely in the relations of production.  If it's the means of production, it's private property.  If it's not the means of production, but rather a petty commodity, it's personal property.  Homes are not used to generate wealth through labor.  If it's a large home full of instruments of production and located on farm land whose ownership is associated with ownership of the home, that's the means of production and it's private property.  If it's a small home full of your books and maybe some kitchen instruments, it's personal property.  That same house though which constitutes personal property would be private property if it were owned by a landlord and rented out, or if it became an essential shelter in the laboring on a particular nearby resource, giving that individual a monopoly on labor.  His distinction is not as trivial as the civil law definition of being "movable".

[chenGOD]

Home businesses aren’t a thing? Your own example cites a private farm. 
Marx’s writing might not be as specific (his intent is open to interpretation), but as you say, this is the system in which we live. Personal property has meaning and private property has meaning. So you need to be precise in your wording. 

[goDel]

All this smells like a virtual solution to a virtual problem. The real problem isn't defined properly and instead someone with a magic wand and a tinfoil cap defines the problem with a magical solution. Sorry, i find this all rather hard to stomach. 

For the sake of the argument, assume that I've got no clue whatsoever. And I won't be able to understand, as I've been entirely indoctrinated by the simulacra of this capitalist society. Clearly. O, and it's worse; I still think I'm right anyways!

;D

[zlemflolia]

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

Home businesses aren’t a thing? Your own example cites a private farm. 
Marx’s writing might not be as specific (his intent is open to interpretation), but as you say, this is the system in which we live. Personal property has meaning and private property has meaning. So you need to be precise in your wording. 

In the information age, informational/computational labor can be performed anywhere, and thus ownership of a computer on which labor can be performed is not ownership of the means of production, because it is not "the" means of production in a way a monopolizable factory factory is, it is merely "a" means of production.  Thus it is still personal property unless a material condition appears where computers are scarce and those who own them try to extract rent from those who use them, or to appropriate the surplus value of their labor.  I don't think anything I've said has been imprecise, you could point out what you're talking about if you disagree

 

[chenGOD]

Wait, a personal computer isn’t a moveable device? Personal property. 
Let’s use the example of a jewelry designer working out of their home. They may or may not attempt to source their jewels ethically. But gems from Myanmar are ridiculously cheap. So If the jeweller does purchase gems from one of the many conflict spots, their use of private property definitely exploits others’ labour. Yet they are artisanal and peasants (in analogy to people of the day in Marx’s societal norms). 
How would you propose dealing with their property?

You are imprecise because you are using personal and private interchangeably.