White Feminism vs Feminism explained:

[Dr_Liszt]

WITH PIZZA

[Derived Absurdity]

Why does she hate cheese pizzas?

[Dr_Liszt]

Sometimes I don't consider cheese pizza's issues real feminism, even though I do think it's important to discuss them, sometimes I want to say "Come on, get on with the real fight wouldya?"

But is hard for me to think of it as serious. Which is why the first time I stumbled on Jezebel, I was like "ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmereggrwdhgh." closed the window and never looked back.

[Derived Absurdity]

Yeah... I sort of agree. I'm not sure how to say it as a dude, but I don't really like liberal feminism. It's very trivializing. There was one really good thread I read somewhere awhile ago which described the paradox between academic Marxist feminism, which is generally accessible only to privileged rich folks and yet focuses exclusively on the poor and working class, and mainstream liberal Internet Jezebel-type feminism, which is accessible to the poor and yet generally only talks about privileged middle-class problems. I mean, all the major feminist websites I've seen generally talk about celebrities and fashion and other bourgeois stuff like that. I could only ever find serious structural analyses of female oppression through academic feminist works. So it's hard to find good feminist stuff.

And often the language and analyses of liberal feminism has been co-opted for purposes of fortifying oppression and exploitation by the ruling class. It seems that liberal feminism is usually understood today as the rights of wealthy white women to share in the spoils of corporate capitalism and imperial exploitation, if you hear people like Hillary Clinton and other high-profile self-described feminists speak it. Not really what I want. Marxist and radical feminism is really the only kind of feminism I find much value in.

Not that liberal feminism doesn't have valuable things to say, but often socialist/radical feminists have said it first, and better.

[Dr_Liszt]

On the facebook page I troll, I read in a book somewhere that the idea of collective oppression took flight with Marxism. And it kind of makes sense why racism and sexism's problems not only get rejected for challenging the system but why they want to spin them as individual racism and sexism, in a way to try to deviate from the real issue or adapt it without actually thinking of targeting the real problems.

I follow marxism so of course, I do think that feminism shouldn't be about having an equal opportunity to become a CEO or a corrupt politician, but about no one having the power of oppress others.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

On the facebook page I troll, I read in a book somewhere that the idea of collective oppression took flight with Marxism. And it kind of makes sense why racism and sexism's problems not only get rejected for challenging the system but why they want to spin them as individual racism and sexism, in a way to try to deviate from the real issue or adapt it without actually thinking of targeting the real problems.

I follow marxism so of course, I do think that feminism shouldn't be about having an equal opportunity to become a CEO or a corrupt politician, but about no one having the power of oppress others.

So in other words, you're pretty much screwed.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yes. And so are you because.... You'll never be a CEO.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Yes. And so are you because.... You'll never be a CEO.

The point is, how does one get the power to ensure no one has the power? I have no issue with the ideal that no one have power to oppress others. My issue is, what's the solution to make it happen and how is such power going to be prevented in the future?

[Gendo]

Patriarchy is a myth because I'm a man and I've never been a CEO.

[Dr_Liszt]

Yes. And so are you because.... You'll never be a CEO.

The point is, how does one get the power to ensure no one has the power? I have no issue with the ideal that no one have power to oppress others. My issue is, what's the solution to make it happen and how is such power going to be prevented in the future?

Social democracy's solution: Tax the shit out of them, strengthen unions, raise minimum wage and strengthen social programs so even though you are being oppressed, at least you are comfortably oppressed .
Marxism's solution: socialize private property, eliminate currency, eliminate capitalism and eliminate the state.

[Dr_Liszt]

Anyway, those are the viewpoints which serve only as reference to understand oppression. It will be very hard to achieve in life as it is, at least in our lifetimes.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

"Marxism's solution: socialize private property, eliminate currency, eliminate capitalism and eliminate the state."

But how do those prevent oppression as opposed to simply switching the oppressed?

[Dr_Liszt]

When private property gets socialized there's no concentration of power and there's no need to use force to enforce it.

Like for example in Mad Max, Inmortan Joe had water privatized, he had the monopoly of it, therefore he had full disposition to do whatever he wanted with it. So he creates an army to enforce it, a government, a privileged class, etc. etc. etc. At the end, no one had absolute control of the water, everyone owned it, therefore there's no need to use force anymore or to establish a hierarchy, etc, etc, etc, everyone becomes equal.

It has been proven to be a viable system, but the thirst for power has always found a way to destroy it. So there's no real guarantee it would work in the long term. We will never know.

[Monk]

Sometimes I don't consider cheese pizza's issues real feminism, even though I do think it's important to discuss them, sometimes I want to say "Come on, get on with the real fight wouldya?"

But is hard for me to think of it as serious. Which is why the first time I stumbled on Jezebel, I was like "ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmereggrwdhgh." closed the window and never looked back.

This article seems timely:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9298035/app ... oto-edited

[Dr_Liszt]

Sometimes I don't consider cheese pizza's issues real feminism, even though I do think it's important to discuss them, sometimes I want to say "Come on, get on with the real fight wouldya?"

But is hard for me to think of it as serious. Which is why the first time I stumbled on Jezebel, I was like "ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmereggrwdhgh." closed the window and never looked back.

This article seems timely:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9298035/app ... oto-edited

Men are creepy creatures.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

When private property gets socialized there's no concentration of power and there's no need to use force to enforce it.

Like for example in Mad Max, Inmortan Joe had water privatized, he had the monopoly of it, therefore he had full disposition to do whatever he wanted with it. So he creates an army to enforce it, a government, a privileged class, etc. etc. etc. At the end, no one had absolute control of the water, everyone owned it, therefore there's no need to use force anymore or to establish a hierarchy, etc, etc, etc, everyone becomes equal.

It has been proven to be a viable system, but the thirst for power has always found a way to destroy it. So there's no real guarantee it would work in the long term. We will never know.

What Immortan Joe did was more the result of what happens when there is no central enforcement or regulatory oversight than something that happens as a result of regulation or capitalization.

The problem with these utopian ideas is that this is not how mankind works - its not in our nature to be egalitarian or fair .. everyone does not become equal because everyone is not equal.

Some people are better at getting resources than others .. some people are more charismatic or powerful or popular or whatever than others - without an actual vehicle for ensuring certain rights of access - what you get is a more Darwinian survival of the fittest mad maxian model of society where power creeps in by virtue of natural advantage and consolidates over time.

What you need for a society to behave is a balance between capitalism and socialism .. not one or t'other .. when you say "It has been proven to be a viable system" .. what are you referencing

[Derived Absurdity]

Communism has been the primary organizing principle of humanity for tens of thousands of years. Possibly hundreds of thousands of years. The market is, relatively speaking, a historical aberration. Capitalism itself has only existed for a few hundred years or so.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Communism has been the primary organizing principle of humanity for tens of thousands of years. Possibly hundreds of thousands of years. The market is, relatively speaking, a historical aberration. Capitalism itself has only existed for a few hundred years or so.

To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, oppression finds a way.

[thesalmonofdoubt]

Communism has been the primary organizing principle of humanity for tens of thousands of years. Possibly hundreds of thousands of years. The market is, relatively speaking, a historical aberration. Capitalism itself has only existed for a few hundred years or so.

I'm not addressing life at a tribal scale given there is no way to apply this to a modern context. And even then, I'd argue that things were not equitable, there were tribal wars here between different groups of Aborigines over more desirable tracts of land or resources and so tribes organised around protecting what they were currently taking advantage of, everything just happened at a smaller scale than what you would see when contrasting this against a society that contains millions of people.

Civilization is a relatively modern historical aberration, living in enormous communities is a modern aberration..

The point here was to address this statement "when private property gets socialised there is no concentration of power and there is no need to use force to enforce it" .. which is a fantasy in any modern societies context. If property is socialised then this requires a centralised regulatory body to ensure that this is run effectively - which creates a far more concentrated centralised source of power that is far more ripe for abuse.

[Dr_Liszt]

No. At the contrary. It is capitalism that needs a central regulatory system, from the state to a central bank to a global bank. Private property depends on a state to be enforced.

And yes, everyone is equal and being cooperative is in our nature just as much as selfishness.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

No. At the contrary. It is capitalism that needs a central regulatory system, from the state to a central bank to a global bank. Private property depends on a state to be enforced.

And yes, everyone is equal and being cooperative is in our nature just as much as selfishness.

So how do we enforce our cooperative nature without establishing rules and some governing body to ensure cooperation?

[Dr_Liszt]

You establish rules through direct democracy, delegates, syndicalists and cooperatives, it's set up in small communes.

It's basically what we would have if no one would have thought it was a good idea to have a "king".

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

You establish rules through direct democracy, delegates, syndicalists and cooperatives, it's set up in small communes.

It's basically what we would have if no one would have thought it was a good idea to have a "king".

Setting rules is easy. Who do you suppose will enforce them? Majority vote still threatens to oppress the minority. How will they be protected?

[Dr_Liszt]

You are still thinking as if there is still a centralized power. The system is non-hierarchical. If people want a minority group to do a work they don't want, they will establish a hierarchy, but in this system they won't be able to do because said minority will be the direct owners of the work they produce. Minorities will be able to set up their own cooperatives and cooperate within them. etc.

Remember it is the state that provides and protects privileges and communism is state-less.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

You are still thinking as if there is still a centralized power. The system is non-hierarchical. If people want a minority group to do a work they don't want, they will establish a hierarchy, but in this system they won't be able to do because said minority will be the direct owners of the work they produce. Minorities will be able to set up their own cooperatives and cooperate within them. etc.

Remember it is the state that provides and protects privileges and communism is state-less.

How is there going to be any sort if enforcement of this without some sort if centralised power? Cooperation is all well and good, but without any sort of leadership I see these small groups falling either because they grew too big, at least one leader emerges in order to ensure cooperation and thereby centralizing power, or simply ignoring the rules for want of more.

Heck, how do you have direct democracy without at least some person actively leading and organizing the votes?

[Blade Azaezel]

You will always need someone in charge. Or at least, you will always need someone willing to do all the shit work whilst other people don't bother doing anything. This is a fact that can be seen in kids from the age of about 5, when the teacher gets you to work in groups

[Anakin McFly]

This article seems timely:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9298035/app ... oto-edited

...wtf. I'm one of those people who occasionally does consider the stuff on Jezebel to be serious, but this is really stretching it. Although I'm unfamiliar with the cultural practice of strangers telling women to smile, so maybe they did have that in mind, in which case it would be more creepy. But I've helped people photoshop their photos before, including to make them smile, and that was what first came to mind when I saw that; not the patriarchy forcing women to smile as a form of control and objectification.

[Dr_Liszt]

You will always need someone in charge. Or at least, you will always need someone willing to do all the shit work whilst other people don't bother doing anything. This is a fact that can be seen in kids from the age of about 5, when the teacher gets you to work in groups

Yes, people will work. But it won't be a job. This system (capitalism) relies on oppression precisely because you need people to do slave work, if you had a system were people had to do their share, cleaning toilets every once in a while won't be an issue. And even if it became a regular thing, you won't be doing it to make other people rich, in this case ceo's that actually don't do anything. You'd become a direct owner of your own production. The undesirable jobs become undesirable because you have to do it every day for 8 hours or more a day, if you don't do it, you don't get paid and you starve. Besides it has been proven that people with less work hours tend to be more efficient. Which is why Sweden, again a country that is quite leftist (even if it's imperialist and a hypocrite) is going to start implementing 6 hour work hours. If it hasn't already.

And in case people didn't know, or say that the economy doesn't work without central government or taxation. Rojava is going through a libertarian socialist revolution since 2013. That makes it the most marxist region in the world right now and the media for obvious reason has kept it quiet. I really don't know much about it except most people are seeing it as a social experiment while is still surviving imperialism.

This article seems timely:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9298035/app ... oto-edited

...wtf. I'm one of those people who occasionally does consider the stuff on Jezebel to be serious, but this is really stretching it. Although I'm unfamiliar with the cultural practice of strangers telling women to smile, so maybe they did have that in mind, in which case it would be more creepy. But I've helped people photoshop their photos before, including to make them smile, and that was what first came to mind when I saw that; not the patriarchy forcing women to smile as a form of control and objectification.

It's very bourgeois as DA says. But some the articles I've seen linked are good, but still, feels very westernized. So no.

[CashRules]

Marxism is the South Park of philosophy:

Step 1: Eliminate private property
Step 2: ?
Step 3: NO OPPRESSION!

[Dr_Liszt]

Step two is the socialization through cooperatives, syndicalism and elimination of currency.

And step 3, at least in Catalonia did show that class inequality stopped and from what I'm reading about Rojava is that it is quite feminist, remember we are talking about a muslim region surrounded by extremists everywhere. I still haven't read about it through though, but Catalonia showed that they had problems with syndicalism as in they didn't know how to give more merit to hard workers. And Rojava has the ISIS problem, the U.S problem and the Turkey problem.

In case you didn't know, private property started to take place after governments' existence, where they decided by law who had private property rights and who didn't. So humanity did well before they existed and there are several cases of worker owned companies and even communal property rights that have been run successfully. So is not like it has never been put in practice, it has and it has been destroyed by exterior factors rather than internal ones. Remember our problem is power, oppression stops when we have shared power or no power over someone else at all.

[CashRules]

Yeah, I prefer to deal with reality where any sort of rules require someone in power to enforce those rules. I also prefer not to look at ancient nomads and bronze age goat herders as some type of ideal to aspire toward. In the reality I prefer over wishful fantasy there is not a single case of a successful Marxist society. The history shows that Marxism invariably declines into even more oppressive authoritarianism than that which it is supposed to combat.

In case you didn't know, private property started to take place after governments' existence, where they decided by law who had private property rights and who didn't. So humanity did well

That second sentence doesn't even follow from the prior one even if we overlook the simplistic view of that first sentence. It's also an apples to oranges comparison to look back into the past and try to equate monarchist governments and mercantilist economic policies with capitalism. Mercantilism and capitalism are no more the same thing than are capitalism and socialism. Capitalism was developed to be the answer to the unfairness of mercantilism. I could also do without the comically inappropriate condescension of that first phrase. Anyway, just to reiterate, you don't show that socialism/Marxism is preferable or superior to capitalism by pointing out the faults of mercantilism. A Scotsman named Smith already pointed out the problems with mercantilism in 1776 which is the reason why we have, in theory, capitalism. Of course, it's also a mistake to consider the corporate-capitalism* of the modern world to be anything more than the bastard offspring of the capitalism which Adam Smith popularized. The so-called 'capitalism' of today is far more Ayn Rand than Adam Smith so you're really not arguing against capitalism at all.

*Not corporatism, which has its own definition and can exist either in cooperation with or in opposition to other economic models.

[phe_de]

In the reality I prefer over wishful fantasy there is not a single case of a successful Marxist society. The history shows that Marxism invariably declines into even more oppressive authoritarianism than that which it is supposed to combat.

^ This.

And the reason, in my opinion, is: Marxism is not compatible with the personality of most humans. Marxists believe that their society could work if only people were wired in a certain way (the "Proletarian" comes to mind).
By the way, that's the problem with all dogmatic economic models, including libertarianism. They believe that people should conform to their ideas, not vice-versa. Libertarians believe that humans are ultimately members of the species "Homo Oeconomicus"; but that is not the case.

This is why pure Marxism and pure Libertarianism won't help achieve a society where everybody is happy: People are different.
This is why we have democracies, and this is why our political and economical systems are compromises. The degree of compromise is determined by the results of votes and elections.

EDIT: thesalmonofdoubt said it better than me.

This is becoming off-topic, but to be honest, I didn't like the video in the OP very much. The pizza metaphor wasn't helpful in my opinion.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

Yeah, a better analogy would have been plain burgers, cheese burgers, and burgers with other toppings with confiments.

[Derived Absurdity]

I like this thread. It's filling so many squares in my "Capitalist Response Bingo Card". "Marxism = totalitarianism!" "But human nature!" "But what we have today is corporate capitalism, not true capitalism!" (That's probably my favorite one.)

Now I'm waiting for someone to say Marxism killed one hundred million people or that Marxism and fascism are the same thing.

[CashRules]

I was wondering how long it would take to get a response from some whiny and undeservedly arrogant little prick who spends way too much time enjoying the smell of his own farts. Hi DA.

[Derived Absurdity]

Is it even possible for you to to not be an asshole? Ever?

[CashRules]

Yeah, your posts aren't those of an asshole and whiny little bitch - NOT AT ALL. Is it possible for you to actually respond to what's been said rather than just relying on stock replies that imply some vague disagreement but carry no substance? Don't worry, I'm sure someday and somewhere you will be taken seriously by someone with an actual formal education beyond high school and not just people like yourself who mistake reading with understanding. Okay, probably not, but never let go of your dreams!

[Derived Absurdity]

... So I guess the answer would be no, then.

[CashRules]

Looks that way. Don't worry junior, one day the other one will drop. The irony of you accusing me of being an asshole after that post of yours: damn man, don't lay it on so thick.

[Dr_Liszt]

The history shows that Marxism invariably declines into even more oppressive authoritarianism than that which it is supposed to combat.

If you are talking about Russia and the cold war, they didn't implement socialism but instead ran things from the central government after it seized private property rights. And it wasn't worse than what capitalism offers, it was about the same. We experienced famines, repression, church burnings, books destruction and complete wipe out of villages, among other things, just as much as they did. It was exactly the same thing.

And the second paragraph, I didn't mean to sound condescending, so sorry. I did mean it to be funny, because at that time human rights were shit, so it was funny to me to be talking about a functional society when pretty much peasants were like dogs. Anyway, the problem is that just like you are saying that our capitalism is not the same Adam Smith's capitalism while saying Marxists societies were, when history showed us that the Marxist countries were not following Marxist ideals of socialism and communism. So I can come and say the same thing to you, you are criticizing bastardize versions of socialism that Marx popularized. Not sure if I'm making myself understandable.

So what I meant to say, is that society has been functional without legalized versions of private property before and many communist ideals in working industries and cooperatives have been successful. And you don't have to go to tribal prehistoric times to see it. As I said, the most communist place to have ever existed in the world was Catalonia. It wasn't tribal nor oppressive. Most recently Rojava is fighting a libertarian revolution at the moment, and according to people that have visited them is functioning with equality and have been successful into pushing ISIS and jihadist back.

Black lives matter movements also want to push community representation and community policing over the police, which again, is based on the ideal of community cooperation over paying some random stranger to do shit for you.

Oh shit, a fight going on! Don't ruin my threads people!!!

[CashRules]

I'll just address Catalonia for now. Pointing out the positives of Catalonia and ignoring the negatives is kind of like the old saying "Say what you will about Mussolini but at least he made the trains run on time." You've pointed out the positives so I'll just mention a few negatives:

1) In 2014 the region showed a net loss of companies relocating from one region of Spain to the other with 987 companies leaving Catalonia for other autonomous regions of Spain, mainly Madrid, and only 602 companies relocating to Catalonia from other regions. That's a high percentage by any rational standards.

2) While Catalonia has the highest total GDP of any region of Spain this is almost entirely due to its high population. The per capita GDP is among the lowest in the country.

3) Not a single credit rating agency considers investing in Catalonia to be a good idea. It's credit rating is the lowest or tied for the lowest regardless of which credit agency is used.

4) The highest debt in all of Spain. This one autonomous region alone accounts for nearly 40% of the debt of all 17 of Spain's autonomous regions.

5) Home buying - second to Madrid as the most expensive region in Spain for buying a new home.

These negatives are in part balanced by the positives by they in no way qualify anyone to say Catalonia is free from oppression. Economic instability means someone is likely being oppressed.

In any event, it's really a stretch to use Catalonia as an example of a successful Marxist region. In some aspects it's more 'capitalist' than even the U.S. This includes privatized banking and the second largest stock market in the country (only the Madrid stock market is larger). Neither of these is a negative, in my opinion anyway, but they disprove the belief that Catalonia is Marxist in any real sense.

Finally, since my main objection to any of this was the idea that elimination of private property eliminates oppression, I fail to see how Catalonia is even relevant to the discussion.

[Dr_Liszt]

I meant revolutionary Catalonia which did eliminate private property until it was defeated by the Nationalist party. Around 1930's. I have no idea how is it doing right now, except it's Spain and Spain is shit.

I'm sure problems rose within the system but I haven't read through it yet. Mostly because since it was very short-lived so it's not like we will ever know it's long term effects, it only serves as a way to show people that it could be run and it's the closest thing Marxism has ever had.

[CashRules]

I meant revolutionary Catalonia which did eliminate private property until it was defeated by the Nationalist party. Around 1930's. I have no idea how is it doing right now, except it's Spain and Spain is shit.

I'm sure problems rose within the system but I haven't read through it yet. Mostly because since it was very short-lived so it's not like we will ever know it's long term effects, it only serves as a way to show people that it could be run and it's the closest thing Marxism has ever had.

So your example is a system that didn't even exist long enough to be more than an inconsequential blip in the annals of history? Seriously? I'm not sure what can even be said about a claim that something that lasted for such a short period of time is proof that its economic system is successful and viable. No doubt it was superior to Franco's regime but you could put a crippled goose in charge of a country and be more successful than Franco.

[Dr_Liszt]

It just serves as evidence that all the horrible things that supposedly happens when you remove state control and capitalist control, didn't happen. That people don't work unless they have a monetary incentive or personal gain was false there, that you needed the creation of a central government to regulate was false there, and equality did rose.

Rojava also is experiencing an equality rarely found anywhere else in the world. So it just challenges the idea that "capitalism is the best system" "people need incentives because they are selfish". Although I really think Rojava will get exterminated eventually, there's a reason why it's not on the news but people accounts who have been there, really see atheists, muslims, christians, men and women fighting and living side by side. So that's something.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

It just serves as evidence that all the horrible things that supposedly happens when you remove state control and capitalist control, didn't happen. That people don't work unless they have a monetary incentive or personal gain was false there, that you needed the creation of a central government to regulate was false there, and equality did rose.

Rojava also is experiencing an equality rarely found anywhere else in the world. So it just challenges the idea that "capitalism is the best system" "people need incentives because they are selfish". Although I really think Rojava will get exterminated eventually, there's a reason why it's not on the news but people accounts who have been there, really see atheists, muslims, christians, men and women fighting and living side by side. So that's something.

The issue is not about people needing to be incentivized by money. It's about the individual. If you don't have contingincies to deal with the individual that doesn't give a damn, or wants more than everyone else (and believe me both will come about), that's it for your commune. And the only way to have enforcement is to have some form of centralization. No matter what, power is going to have a degree of centralization.