Feminism and the transcendence of capitalism

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1912/05/12.htm

  Quote

Economically and socially, the women of the exploiting classes are not an independent segment of the population.. Their only social function is to be tools of the natural propagation of the ruling classes.

By contrast, the women of the proletariat are economically independent. They are productive for society like the men. By this I do not mean their bringing up children or their housework which helps men support their families on scanty wages. This kind of work is not productive in the sense of the present capitalist economy no matter how enormous an achievement the sacrifices and energy spent, the thousand little efforts add up to. This is but the private affair of the worker, his happiness and blessing, and for this reason nonexistent for our present society. As long as capitalism and the wage system rule, only that kind of work is considered productive which produces surplus value, which creates capitalist profit. From this point of view, the music-hall dancer whose legs sweep profit into her employer’s pocket is a productive worker, whereas all the toil of the proletarian women and mothers in the four walls of their homes is considered unproductive. This sounds brutal and insane, but corresponds exactly to the brutality and insanity of our present capitalist economy. And seeing this brutal reality clearly and sharply is the proletarian woman’s first task.

Expand  

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

Not only are forms of labor which don't produce surplus value from which capitalists can extract profits not valued by the cultural value systems generated by the cultural hegemony of the ruling class of a capitalist society, but, in modern capitalist societies, economic growth is entirely dependent upon that form of labor (reproduction) being performed as much as on any other forms of labor, or rather, more specifically, the requirement of exponential population growth to provide gains in real estate and commodity demand and labor pool supply, indicating a severe contradiction within not only the modern instantiation of global capitalism, but the ethical substance of the internal structure of capitalism itself.  And this does not even begin to capture the relevance of the forms of domestic labor disproportionately performed by women.

It is clear that in order for liberation of humanity, liberation of women must come first or simultaneously.  It should also be clear based on Rosa's brief statements that the liberation of women in particular suffers from the same class antagonisms as the liberation of laborers in general.  Not only must women contend with the general class antagonism placed upon them by the ruling class, but with the social confusion and hegemonic potential generated by the spectacle of the bourgeois appropriation of feminism by bourgeois women and with the support of bourgeois men - i.e. the liberal desire to place women into positions of exploitative power such as CEOs and the military - despite the ethical requirement for the eliminations of such social positions entirely.

If anything then capitalism has proven to be extremely flexible. It can exist under democracies and under totalitarian dictatorships, and within regulated or unregulated markets. It is able to utilise patriarchy and I'm sure it will find a way to coexist with gender equality, once it's fully achieved.

...

  On 3/19/2020 at 9:27 AM, darreichungsform said:

If anything then capitalism has proven to be extremely flexible. It can exist under democracies and under totalitarian dictatorships, and within regulated or unregulated markets. It is able to utilise patriarchy and I'm sure it will find a way to coexist with gender equality, once it's fully achieved. Feminism I guess is more than just gender equality so I'm not sure if a feministic model of a society can ever really exist under capitalism but maybe for deeper reasons than just capitalism. But I don't know much about feminism.

Everything can be subsumed by capital.  Revolutionary movements by Che Guevara t-shirts.  Anti-capitalism by movies like Office Space.  Social interconnection based transcendence of previous dominant paradigms of communication by Facebook.  LGBTQIA+ parades by JP Morgan [1]

Mark Fisher talks about this in his essential book "Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?" [2] but I can't find where in order to quote it.  

The reason is because capital is a simulacra of reality, a quite literal digital representation of reality which can be manipulated by the capitalist to obtain more capital.  A model for the territory which we choose, collectively, through ignorance or what ever, to follow, which results in the de-realization of material reality and the upholding of the class dichotomy, with a thin layer in between for the media and the cultural aspects of consumerism.  

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

[1]

Feminism

The drug of a nation

Breeding ignorance

And feeding radiation

can i be an incel if i have man boobs? i made a conscious choice to have man boobs.

ferminisn

  On 3/19/2020 at 7:53 AM, Zeffolia said:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1912/05/12.htm

 

 

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

Not only are forms of labor which don't produce surplus value from which capitalists can extract profits not valued by the cultural value systems generated by the cultural hegemony of the ruling class of a capitalist society, but, in modern capitalist societies, economic growth is entirely dependent upon that form of labor (reproduction) being performed as much as on any other forms of labor, or rather, more specifically, the requirement of exponential population growth to provide gains in real estate and commodity demand and labor pool supply, indicating a severe contradiction within not only the modern instantiation of global capitalism, but the ethical substance of the internal structure of capitalism itself.  And this does not even begin to capture the relevance of the forms of domestic labor disproportionately performed by women.

It is clear that in order for liberation of humanity, liberation of women must come first or simultaneously.  It should also be clear based on Rosa's brief statements that the liberation of women in particular suffers from the same class antagonisms as the liberation of laborers in general.  Not only must women contend with the general class antagonism placed upon them by the ruling class, but with the social confusion and hegemonic potential generated by the spectacle of the bourgeois appropriation of feminism by bourgeois women and with the support of bourgeois men - i.e. the liberal desire to place women into positions of exploitative power such as CEOs and the military - despite the ethical requirement for the eliminations of such social positions entirely.

Expand  

damn this reads like sarcasm but i am afraid you mean it lol

  On 3/19/2020 at 10:14 AM, Dragon said:

can i be an incel if i have man boobs? i made a conscious choice to have man boobs.

I suspect there's at least a modicum of correlation between being an incel and having man boobs.

Not vice versa:

One method of opinion management in neoliberal democracies is the creation of false identities as a means to disguise economic dividing lines and obscure class-consciousness. These false identities are then used by elites to manipulate the public. Racism and gender discrimination are just the two most popular examples of many. I'm tellin' ya

  On 3/19/2020 at 12:55 PM, darreichungsform said:

One method of opinion management in neoliberal democracies is the creation of false identities as a mean to disguise economic dividing lines and obscure class-consciousness. These false identities are then used by elites to manipulate the public. Racism and gender discrimination are just the two most popular examples of many. I'm tellin' ya

Shhh ... you’re disturbing The Dumb

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: 

  On 3/19/2020 at 7:53 AM, 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

zeff 20150 

All women want the same thing: To transcend capitalism and chill. 

  On 3/19/2020 at 2:31 PM, MIXL2 said:

Zeffolia 2013:

Zeffolia 2020: 

Zeffolia 2027:

 

That's a damn good development if you ask me

  On 3/19/2020 at 2:31 PM, MIXL2 said:

Zeffolia 2013:

Zeffolia 2020: 

Zeffolia 2027:

 

wtf happened here

on topic

  On 3/19/2020 at 3:06 PM, thumbass said:

wtf happened here

  On 3/19/2020 at 3:06 PM, thumbass said:

wtf happened here

Cool thread for an idm forum

The notion of Occupy Wall Street being this ideal means of modern protest/uprising/revolution/transcendence of anything will always be absurd to me. It was like the wealthy fake-woke youth version of a Mormon Mission. The participants were far from an adequate representation of this country in any conceivable way and that was the seed of their (justified) failure.

Also the comparison used here between Occupy Wall Street and JP Morgan having a pride parade float is incredibly off-base. Hilarious to me as well as I marched with my dad's company on behalf of lgbtq+ rights in the early 90's at our local pride parade (Eugene, Oregon was a progressive town in that sense).

To the spirit of the OP, I'd note that intersectionality would be a good consideration to your viewpoints. There are plenty of women who identify as feminist who are exploiting the capitalist structure worldwide. Most of them (not all) happen to be white. It's a major fly in the ointment which your proclamations would absolve many perpetrators.

  On 3/19/2020 at 5:12 PM, Taupe Beats said:

The notion of Occupy Wall Street being this ideal means of modern protest/uprising/revolution/transcendence of anything will always be absurd to me. It was like the wealthy fake-woke youth version of a Mormon Mission. The participants were far from an adequate representation of this country in any conceivable way and that was the seed of their (justified) failure.

Also the comparison used here between Occupy Wall Street and JP Morgan having a pride parade float is incredibly off-base. Hilarious to me as well as I marched with my dad's company on behalf of lgbtq+ rights in the early 90's at our local pride parade (Eugene, Oregon was a progressive town in that sense).

To the spirit of the OP, I'd note that intersectionality would be a good consideration to your viewpoints. There are plenty of women who identify as feminist who are exploiting the capitalist structure worldwide. Most of them (not all) happen to be white. It's a major fly in the ointment which your proclamations would absolve many perpetrators.

Expand  

I know, I posted that pic merely because it's the one I had which contained bourgeois appropriation of revolutionary social movements (LGBTQIA+ in this case).  The Occupy Wall Street part on top isn't really related/relevant.

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?