/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1777509
>>1777537
hurr durr

communism is when (lifestyle choice)

>>1777537

Like 70% of burgers are overweight or obese. 52% of Europeans are overweight or obese.

Can we make it not too obvious that we're labor aristocracy?

>>1777544
Mexico has a higher obesity rate than the US but you wouldn't accuse them of being labor aristocrats

>>1777082
Source?

>>1777540
Ok fat glowie

>>1777433
>By treating them as equals etc. Hearing them out as equals etc, the same aplies to all other possible groups too, gays, whites, blacks etc.
Imagine putting women (most people) in the same category as minority groups. Sorry but as a gay, women's issues are much more foundational to liberating the workers of the world.

That said, feminism (including marxist feminism) is overwhelmingly unserious from a theoretical perspective and filtering all discussions of women's issues through a fundamentally liberal, bourgeois, western, white, chauvinist framework is a disservice to women. If you actually care about gender equality/abolition or whatever take on it, you should hold the theoretical contributions to at least some standards. Theory flourishes in disagreement and criticism. Simply accepting a half-baked analysis because you don't want to be mean or mansplaining is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

>>1777821
funtastic
/thread

>marxists have a close alliance with feminists
>hey btw we should exploit conventional female sexuality for self-promotion
nice shitpost

>>1777418
>The left
Not a group, you idiot.

Relevant

>>1778414

Are you suggesting we all learn PUA and instead of sleeping with them, turning women into Marxists?

>>1778456
I see an anime character, it would not have lived in the Soviet Union or the current Russian Federation or other former Soviet Republics.

>>1777081
>If it's okay with the mods, can we maintain an exception for Marxist feminists to the general anti-idpol line?
No ewww sage sage get it off me ick
>Based on the genestealer thread, I think what we really need are a lot more Marxist women
Literally just identity politics, to artificially divide everything into "more fair" parts because someone isn't "represented" and therefore that "hurts" their fee fees. The world needs authentic marxists and theorists in general, if any one of them were a woman it wouldn't make any difference. So why do you care about how retarded demographic are represented?

>>1777081
That’s unfortunate

inb4 thread turns to absolute shit

>>1785698
Already did.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-6/mswv6_01.htm

I’m just a fucking post-Maoist, okay?

>>1785698
it was shit since the op

>>1777433
How have we been unable to show that we have women’s best interests in mind? How do we show that in socialism, the triple shift will be abolished?

>>1791877
How are we not treating women as equals?

>>1791877
communism is about workers, not about one specific gender/sex

>>1777081
>>1791877
Communists don't go around trying to sell their beliefs as some kind of product. 'Optics' is something suited to bourgeois politicians, not communists. You don't sell communism to an audience that will buy into it on the market. How many more times must this be said?

>>1791879
Women are half the working class, retard.

>>1791883
Women can also be petit bourgeois or bourgeois, so don't call yourself a communist if you push for interclassist reforms. :D

>>1791883
so anything that helps the working class also helps women, your points is?

>>1777081
>That is to say, while we can't literally fuck for revolution, we can have women in good physical shape and with nice makeup help promote Marxism and other left-wing ideologies.


Was this last sentence really necessary?

Especially "and with nice makeup"?

Come on man.

>>1777081
>>1791892
AHAHAHAH HOLY SHIT

>>1791892

What I'm saying is that we should get e-girls to shill for Marxism and raise class consciousness.

>>1791937
leftoid

>>1791937
Way to select for the weakest and least reliable people to recruit to communism, lmao.
Firstoids will literally do anything other than organize the most marginalized sectors of the proletariat in their country. Try to honeydick Nazis to come over to leftism with lots of muscly man propaganda, propose recruiting simps with leftist e-girls, anything but go down to the tomato farm or meatpacking plant and tell Jose about Marxism because brown people are scary.

>>1791892
>Was this last sentence really necessary?
To be completely fair to him picrels makeup is always immaculate.

>>1791950

Socialism succeeds because we develop people and extend their capabilities. For a lot of folks, simping is just a phase, and a pretty face with too much makeup is just a way to get them in the door.

As far as your idpol-smelling BS goes, it's not an either-or. We have MAGA communists working on the traditional Trump base, and we have more traditional socialists working on disenfranchised immigrants.

But the MAGA base is more useful, because for Jose, porky can just pull out the racism card, as he has already.

Solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the world is extremely important, but the white, male, worker simply has more revolutionary potential, in the same way the petit bourgeois has always had more revolutionary potential (has more power than the average proletarian, busy being squeezed into proletarian status by the haute bourgeoisie).

>>1791958
lmfao

>>1791954
Still, thats unnecessary.

>>1791937
This is why your political movements are stagnating.

"We need hotties to get more members."

Yall deserve to be a laughingstock if not nobodies.

At the end of the day, postboomer politics is just a pathetic parody of the flower power movement.

No sex, all synthetic drugs, and watered down indie rock

>>1791950
Postboomers cannot even into politics.
This is why boomers are still running things even though theyre all senile and crippled.
The best postboomers only can do occasional riots.

>>1791975

Except that imperialist forces are using the exact same tactics to influence, recruit, and indoctrinate.

If we have the ability, we should just clone every single one of their tactics that is not anti-Marxist, and through sheer numbers we'll be better and more effective at it than they are.

>>1791984
>imperialist forces
why do you fags call the bourgeois anything except the bourgeois

>>1791984
Mybe if yall stop treating generational cohorts like racial castes and stop whining about lack of romance/sex, stop obsessing over kiddie emtertainment, maybe youd make progress.

>>1791990
Because theyre struggling with "adulting"

>>1791993

I was thinking about the US mil literally using e-girls for psyops, but hey, if you mean the entire capitalist edifice, I'm fine with that.

Need more Red e-girls getting simped on by capitalists.

>>1777082
>"Orthodox" Marxism has always had a highly contentious relationship with feminism and women's issues. […] in the Eastern Bloc countries, for instance.
The eastern block was not Orthodox Marxism. It was Marxisn-Leninism, which evolved from Leninism, which itself did a clear break with the orthodox marxists.

Hasn't any of you read Kollontai ?

>>1791971
Yes but idk what to tell you anon you're on an anonymous imageboard ran in part by incel misogo types.

Feminism and socialism go hand in hand. Our enemies know this, do you? Patriarchy and capitalism are interconnected and reinforce each other in important ways.

>>1796744
Capitalism is sure reinforced my lower life expectancy and mental health.

Feminism is a bourgeois movement, that is why Kollontai and other Marxist "feminists" refused to call themselves that. Feminism believes in patriarchy while Marxism knows capitalism is the core of society. In fact what feminists call "patriarchy" are inseperable parts capitalist society. Even thinking that "patriarchy and capitalism go hand in hand" is just another way to somehow look at "patriarchy" without capitalism or capitalism without "patriarchy". This is kind of like saying that a Covid-infection and coughing "go hand in hand". Obviously that is the case but the actual underlying problem is the infection, and the solution is to cure the infection. Meanwhile the feminists see "the cough" as the problem, as if it had an existence on its own, which is merely "entangled" with the infection.

Another thing to consider, is that in the theory of "patriarchy", the male is seen as the oppressor. In this way feminism not only sees the wrong reason for the female-specific forms of oppression, but also serves to divide the working class. In this, it actually furthers bourgeois interests. In reality only man and woman together can free themselves of capitalist oppression, which then leads to the emancipation of women as part of emancipation of every human being.

Marxism-Leninism and communism are the way forward for women, not feminism.

>>1797945
>Feminism believes in patriarchy while Marxism knows capitalism is the core of society.
Marx "believed in patriarchy" he just understood it as a particular social system and not a general term for sexism. According to Marx, capitalism was the historical movement that overcomes patriarchal rule in a final sense, so to be a Marxist and take patriarchy in concrete terms is to consider the struggle against patriarchy a principally bourgeois struggle in the last analysis. That doesn't mean, however, that the triuimph over the remnants of the patriarchy is necessarily completed within capitalism before a transition to socialism begins, but it does certainly relegate it to a secondary consideration both for its dependence on the material base and for most of the struggle (probably) already being completed.

Additionally, even self-identified Marxist feminists tend to agree that women's "liberation" under capitalism is somewhat of a double-edged sword. Principally of course, the great majority of women are working class and face the associated oppression thereof. Secondarily, many of the effects of women's entrance into the common labor force (proletarianization per se) has had various negative consequences. These include but are not limited to: a swelling of the labor force (lowering worker bargaining power), new responsibilities as expenses as employees, and a freeing from attachment to a husband to a new attachment to one or (often) more employers who are in a position to take advantage socially and sexually. None of this is patriarchy so much as it is a new, capitalism-based form of oppression that is only partially different in character from what their male peers experience. Therefore, the resolution to these issues is the overthrow of capitalism, and with men and women positioned much more as peers than at most other points in (recorded) history, the prospect of cross-gender solidarity is far greater than it ever has been.

That said, there is no excuse for socialism to backslide one millimeter on the matter of overcoming sexism, and indeed it must be the task of socialism to overcome new or sublated forms of discrimination which took shape under capitalism.