#Marxist dialectic | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lesser-vissir · 1 year

Text

So I read that lame genderkoolaid post and a few by other prominent transunity bloggers, specifically in regards to their ideas regarding the existence of misandry and the framework they've developed in order to describe transphobia. The system, which I don't believe they've actually coined despite loving to make new words, which I will call multisexism.

Multisexism is the idea that sexism is a multivector space containing several "sexisms". There are three main sexism I've seen them identify (misogyny, misandry, and misandrogyny [nbphobia {also Miss Androgyny is a killer drag name}]). Some other sexisms I've seen them identify are a sexism against multigender people and a sexism against intersex people. Since this framework is built around identifying sexisms I would posit there is room for them to add a few more. A possible add would be a modified misandrogyny that specifically targets xenogenders.

From this multisexism space, transunionists argue that transphobia (and gender based oppression as a whole) is a cross product of multiple sexisms, usually a unique cross product for every given person based on how much that person **personally** identifies with experiencing a certain type of sexism.

In this line, transmisogyny and transmisandry become catchall terms for the sexism cross-products experienced by people that identify as transfem or transmasc. This an important distinction since they do not view each person as experiencing the same cross product. Thus transmisogyny and transmisandry are not concrete terms describing a system of oppression but a vague term referring to the many ways a individual people experience bigotry.

I believe this is the core reason behind why they get into so many fights with so-called serano-esque transfeminists.

Multisexism is a very obviously flawed framework of oppression for the simple reason that it is unable to identify benefactors of their various sexisms. Some of them are lifted wholesale from existing oppression frameworks (misogyny, exorsexism) and as a result some of the ways they talk about oppression have made their way into their critiques as well. One good example of this is the term patriarchy. Despite multisexism not being able to identify an oppressor class, they still call the general concept of sex based oppression "patriarchy" even though they make absurd claims like "men suffer under the patriarchy". I wouldn't be surprised if they soon remove patriarchy from their vocabulary and swap it for something else.

Traditional oppression frameworks posit that oppression exists because the oppressor class benefits from the subjugation of the oppressed class. Since multisexism lacks an oppressor class we can conclude that they believe sexism exists because different sexes exist. This explains why they create a sexism for every perceived "sex": male, female, sexless, multisex, intersex. A list which maps roughly with western gender theory, but with intersex thrown in.

One the bigger reasons I said multisexism as ideology is flawed is because it does not present an endgame. Since there is no oppressor class to dismantle, no patriarchy to fight save the specter of bigotry, there is no way given within the framework of multisexism to **end** sexism.

On a similar note, it does not offer an explanation for why sex exists. Since there is no oppressor sex, transunionists are unable to say why the boundaries of the sexes were constructed. Even if they say or believe sex does not exist they only do so because the feminist theory they used as a partial basis says so as well. In this regard, transunity is bioessentialist in that is believes sex is real and inherent, except that they add new sexisms whenever they feel the need to classify a new one.

Why exactly do tranunionists believe they need to have this framework then? Transmisandry is not a new concept, I can find posts from at least as early 2013 making the same points about its existence and complaining that transfems talking about transmisogyny and how AFAB trans people perpetuate it in trans spaces.

Taking them as face value for their own claims on why multisexism must exist, it is because they needed a framework within which it is possible to account for how cis people view trans people as their AGAB.

"ive seen trans men (often those who harass other transmascs in the name of "transfem allyship") insist that trans men cant be subject to misogyny because we're men and to say otherwise is misgendering. and like im sorry but we cannot do meaningful anti-transphobic activism if we are shaping our view of transphobia on "never ever ever implying that anyone sees trans people as anything but the gender they say they are & that that might shape the kind of transphobia they face" like thats just. not realistic." - genderkoolaid

I actually agree with this sentiment (genderkoolaid's asides, well, aside), and I believe most other transfeminists also do. I believe that AGAB is important when discussing transphobia and acknowledging that is not misgendering. In seems odder to me that genderkoolaid would agree with this sentiment since it is the basis of the terms TME/TMA, a framework ey and other transunionists despise.

Assuming this was the only reason to create the multisexism framework, it would be quite easy to dismiss it. Taking a materialist feminist approach and treating sex based oppression as a dialectic is far more capable of handling AGAB's effects on transphobia without having to say things like "trans men experience misogyny because they are seen as women."

This is because a dialectic view of sex based oppression allows us to talk about men and women as classes because there is an understanding that they do not exist except in opposition to each other. Thus saying things like "women's clothing doesn't have pockets" does not misgender AFAB enbies who may also wear clothing without pockets instead of the ludicrous statement "AFAB clothing doesn't have pockets." (Real example btw)

This also allows us to explain oppression through the interaction of the classes of men and women. Misogyny is the way through which men (as a class) are privileged over women (as a class). Exorsexism is the way through which people who do not neatly fit into these constructed classes are forcibly pushed into them. Transphobia is the way in which dissonance between a person and their class is punished.

In one paragraph a dialectic analysis of sex based oppression does more to explain why its various forms exist then multisexism and the transunionists ever will. [As an aside, any toxic masculinity or other supposed harms men face from patriarchy according to MRAs is really just transphobia or, as we shall see, transmisogyny.]

Something ironic is that sexist men have an inherent understanding of this. I once saw an instagram reel wherein the joke "There's 76 genders? Wooohoooo, that means there's now 75 genders men are better than!" was made, showing a better understanding of the dynamics of misogyny (and transmisogyny for that matter) than I've ever seen from a transunionist even if the person in question though the framework was a good one.

We can also use this dialectic framework to analyze and justify why transmisogyny is a separate oppressive axis with distinct benefactor classes.

When we look at the transphobia nonbinary people and transmascs face, largely it is a matter of forcing the individual into one of the two classes: Men™ and Women™. This can be seen from the way TERFs will attempt to make transmascs detransition.

Another insight we can make is about the treatment of AFAB enbies vs AMAB enbies. Since Women™ are an oppressed class, the barrier to entry, so to speak, is lower. This can be seen from the way that Women™ are largely allowed under patriarchy to do things that Men™ do (even if they are seen as inherently inferior) but that Men™ are disbarred from doing things that Women™ do, to the point where if enough Men™ do it, it becomes a Male Thing ie. programming. Of course, that isn't to say that there aren't some misogynists who still thing women shouldn't wear pants, they are not a majority opinion. In fact, most feminist gains have been in expanding Woman™ roles rather than in deconstructing the class dynamic altogether. Something that can only be done by transfeminism since only it focuses on destroying both classes.

Bit of a detour, but the point I was making wrt AFAB enbies was that for a lot of people, it is easier to stomach a Woman™ that is gender non-conforming (in the right ways) than a Man™ who is gender non-conforming (in any way). The generalized form of this is that Women™ are allowed to participate in roles that are for Men™, but neither Men™ nor Women™ are allowed to reject the roles they are given. This can be applied to several other aspects such as why a lesbian rejecting attraction to men is seen as a more offensive statement than saying they are attracted to women. [Hint: its because attraction to women is a thing Men™ do so Women™ are allowed to do it more often they than they are allowed to deny their own role as a Woman™, which is to be attracted to men]

There's much more to be said on the topic, especially wrt how transmascs are treated as Women™ until they pass and can be treated as Men™, which honestly describes a good 90% of so called transmisandry. But! I want to talk about transmisogyny.

Julia Serano posited that there is in fact a third class in sex based oppression, that of the Transvestite™. One of the biggest indicators that this class exists is that trans women are considered neither Men™ nor Women™ once they have transitioned, or even once they have articulated that they are women. This is something that other trans people do not experience. Examples for which can be seen in the oft-debated femboy, and the treatment of AFAB trans people.

Another big indicator can be found in some of the posts by transunionists arguing that transmisogyny can be experiences by anyone. Why is it there there are dozens of posts about non-trans women getting mistaken for trans women and facing violence, but none about non-trans men getting mistaken for trans men and facing violence? It is a strong argument for the existence of the Transvestite™ class.

Serano, has said for more than I could fit here so I will leave it at that and refer you to literally any literature on transfeminism.

Anyways, I think that is more than enough to prove that a dialectical feminism is far more useful for analysis than multisexism. Why then, do transunionists use it? Because it removes accountability for men.

If there is no benefactor class, then there is no real reason to analyze of deconstruct behaviors that benefit them. Thus the only reason transunity exists as an ideology is to disenfranchise trans women. There is no other way to explain their ideological foundations.

#transmisogyny #super long post #@marxists please dont grill me on getting dialectic wrong 😭😭😭#I'm trying my best here #I was just super mad at transunionists and wanted to write out my thoughts

169 notes · View notes

athousandgateaux · 8 months

Text

It is reactive forces that express themselves in opposition, the will to nothingness that expresses itself in the labour of the negative. The dialectic is the natural ideology of ressentiment and bad conscience. It is thought in the perspective of nihilism and from the standpoint of reactive forces. It is a fundamentally Christian way of thinking, from one end to the other; powerless to create new ways of thinking and feeling. The death of God is a grand, noisy, dialectical event; but an event which happens in the din of reactive forces and the fumes of nihilism.

--Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy, pg. 159

#deleuze #nietzsche #nihilism #dialectics #ressentiment #bad conscience #reaction #reactive #reactionary #christianity #why all marxists are reactionary #socialism as the secular form of christianity

62 notes · View notes

bfpnola · 9 months

Text

introductory excerpts on intercommunalism:

Introduction

Intercommunalism is an ideology which was adopted by the Oakland chapter of the Black Panther Party after its turn away from revolutionary nationalism in 1970. According to Huey P. Newton the development of intercommunalism was necessary "because nations have been transformed into communities of the world."[1] Intercommunalists believe that most forms of nationalism are obsolescent, because international corporations and technologically advanced imperialist states have reduced most nations down to a series of discrete communities which exist to supply an imperial center, a situation called reactionary intercommunalism. They also believe this situation can be transformed into revolutionary intercommunalism and eventually communism if communities are able to link "liberated zones" together into a united front against imperialism.[2] Intercommunalism is a lesser-known aspect of the Panthers' legacy as much of its development occurred at the height of the party's suppression and reorientation towards survival programs.[3][4][5]

Reactionary Intercommunalism

Newton believed that imperialism had developed into a stage of reactionary intercommunalism. Reactionary intercommunalism is typified by the development of a tiny community of elites with a monopoly on technology and state power within a single hegemonic empire (currently the United States).[15][5]

This 'ruling circle' is different from the Bourgeoisie, which the Panthers treated as a much broader phenomenon. Newton said that "[t]here are very few controllers even in the white middle class. They can barely keep their heads above water, they are paying all the bills, living hand-to-mouth, and they have the extra expense of refusing to live like Black people." The Black bourgeoisie in particular is a "fantasy bourgeoisie" which could be rallied to a revolutionary cause through sufficient education.[12]

The ruling circle's monopoly on technology and education is important to maintaining reactionary intercommunalism, as it prevents the rest of the world's communities from fulfilling their material needs independently of the center, leaving them dependent on the Empire for advancement.[15] The ruling circle uses 'peaceful co-optation' more often than military invasion to reinforce its aims.[5]

Reactionary intercommunalism allows for no independent national sovereignty, as the dominance of the global hegemon means that all nations bend to the 'weight' of its interests.[4] Instead nations have been reduced down to constituent communities, or "a small unit with a comprehensive collection of institutions that exist to serve a small group of people." Each of these communities "want to determine their own destinies," but can only do so by joining into a revolutionary bloc. All of the communities have no superstructure apart from global capitalism, and while they have different economic conditions they are all 'under siege' by the same forces.[15][4][5][10][9]

Newton believed that if allowed to continue, reactionary intercommunalism would bring more and more of the world's population into the lumpenproletariat, including white workers. However he did not think that this would end racism, in fact he thought white workers would increasingly blame their exploitation on minorities, especially the increasingly proletarianised third world.[5]

Revolutionary Intercommunalism

Intercommunalists believe that Revolutionary Intercommunalism will come about when communities are able to break the technological monopoly of the center. Through technology, communities would be able to solve material contradictions and "develop a culture which is essentially human." Even though the Panthers disavowed the nation-state as a viable form of revolutionary political struggle, they continued to support state socialist countries such as China, North Vietnam and North Korea against American Imperialism. Indeed, they were considered the vanguard of revolutionary intercommunalism through liberating territories and establishing provisional governments ahead of the global turn towards revolutionary intercommunalism.[16] However such states could still be co-opted into reactionary intercommunalism through the introduction of western markets.[5]

While the party no longer believed in Black nationalism, they continued to believe that Black Americans would play a special role within the struggle for revolutionary intercommunalism. Due to the Atlantic slave trade, Newton believed that Black Americans were the "first real internationalists" due to their mixed cultural origin and wide dispersal among a range of communities. Since he believed Black Americans constituted a significant force for revolution within the United States, and the destruction of the United States seemed to be a prerequisite for world revolution, the Panthers continued to view Black Americans as "the vanguard of the world revolution."[17]

Criticism

Intercommunalism was strongly opposed by some Black Panthers, especially those invested in the Party's strategy of forming internationalist alliances with foreign states. Cleaver denounced the Oakland chapter as the 'right wing' of the party for their rejection of guerrilla warfare. Assata Shakur was also critical of the theory's rejection of nationalism, saying that "The problem [with intercommunalism] was that someone had forgotten to tell these oppressed communities they were no longer nations." Others, like Mumia Abu-Jamal thought that intercommunalism was a terrible rhetorical strategy, as few understood the theory and many disliked Newton's public speaking. The differences over intercommunalism were also exacerbated by FBI wire-tapping and fake letters sent between the Oakland and Algiers sections of the party.[9]

#intercommunalism #communalism #black panther party #theory #marxist #leftist #dialectical materialism #black power #history #bipoc #united states #wikipedia

32 notes · View notes

redsolon · 4 months

Text

Ultra-left dogmatism and right-wing revisionism create and reinforce each other. Commandism and tailism create and reinforce each other. Centralist cults and ultra-democracies create and reinforce each other. To advance the struggle you must advance these contradictions, not just pick your favorite error.

#socialism #communism #Marxism #Marxist theory #democratic centralism #communist party #dialectical materialism #opportunism #dogmatism #revisionism #Marxism-Leninism #Maoism #Trotskyism #Left-Communism #commandism #tailism

14 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 1 year

Text

DELANDAPOSTING TIME

youtube

#if u dont watch these yr ideologically insignificant #idk how else can i convince marxists to watch this #...#these r the most dialectical videos on earth #hows that #if u have other convincing ways to convince ppl to watch these videos SOUND OFF IN THE COMMENTS #(but srsly if u have any formal experience w math or physics watch the first vid at least)#(i guarantee u will find a new way of framing things that r 'obvious' to u)#wait hold on this was never sposed to outpace the following post posted at the same time........ feeling some of u didnt watch the videos

59 notes · View notes

damnesdelamer · 1 year

Note

i read somewhere that marxism has limitations because its a science, so what are some of these limitations?

I honestly am not sure what this might mean. Certainly Marxism is known as the immortal science. I think this is nigh unilaterally held as a conceit.

Generally, the (misguided) arguments of detractors rely on the absurd notion that Marxism, communism, socialism, only function in theory, that they supposedly lack empirical precedents or pragmatic applications. This is of course false, as communism was one of the dominant political and economic systems at work throughout the Twentieth Century, when it already had antecedents in the likes of e.g. the Paris Commune, and indeed many Marxist infrastructures remain extant and prosperous today (see Cuba's recent leaps in LGBT+ legislation and China's effective covid policy). And socialism with Chinese characteristics definitely emphasises the scientific basis of Marxism far more than just the utopian, though this obviously goes all the way back to Marx & Engels themselves.

As Mao noted to the inaugural meeting of the Natural Science Research Society of the Border Region:

Natural science is one of man's weapons in his fight for freedom. For the purpose of attaining freedom in society, man must use social science to understand and change society and carry out social revolution.

This can be seen as expanding and modulating on Engels’ observation:

politics is the science of production, and foretells the complete absorption of politics by economics. [...] To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.

And this is not even addressing e.g. chapters 7 and 16 of Capital (Vol.1), which discuss the material reality of labour and how all production is derived from natural laws.

What I'm curious about is what the alternative would be to science? What branch of theory or epistemology is unencumbered by limits? Surely not the humanities? But social sciences themselves are conventionally considered humanities anyway. Indeed, Marx was primarily an economist (along with Bukharin, Luxemburg, Harvey, etc.), and for that matter was also a noted poet (along with Mao, Neruda, Senghor, etc.), so it's not as if Marxist principles are limited to hard science. We could also consider the likes of Oscar Wilde, Bertolt Brecht, Frida Kahlo on one hand, and Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, J.D. Bernal on the other; the spectrum of Marxist visionaries unsurprisingly spans an array of disciplines.

But generally I encounter a greater, not a lesser, demand for empirical scientific basis to political principles, often disproportionately levied against the left by fash liberals and ‘centrists’ who are either ignorant or in denial about the practical reality of Marxist advances throughout modern history.

All this puts me in mind of Fred Hampton:

We’re not metaphysicians, we’re not idealists, we’re dialectical materialists. And we deal with what reality is, whether we like it or not.

And it is true that this is where Marxism shines brightest. In the face of oppressive capitalist modes of production, whether we’re talking about covid, LGBT rights, mass transport infrastructure, practical concerns of labour, mental health, or climate change, it is Marxist principles of self-determination, emancipation, and solidarity, whether utopian or scientific, which pierce the darkness of our present predicament as a beacon to guide us toward the dawn, that we might see the sun shine evermore.

#Marxism #Karl Marx #Marxist #Marx #Friedrich Engels #Engels #Mao #Mao Zedong #Fred Hampton #dialectical materialism #ask #original

54 notes · View notes

linkedinsanity · 1 year

Text

yes, and in today’s capitalist hellscape respect and mental peace can come from getting paid enough money. also like some people will never have the luxury of working of job that provides them these things

#linkedinsanity #leftist #marxism leninism #socialism #communism #dialectical materialism #marxist leninist #right wing bullshit #leftist memes #anti capitalism #anti capitalist

44 notes · View notes

khizuo · 3 months

Text

i feel like i can't yet claim the label marxist bc i haven't read enough theory... but how do i indicate to ppl that i generally agree with decolonial marxism lol

#'aspiring marxist' feels kind of weird but maybe it's the best option?#basically i agree w/ dialectical materialism and critically support aes and stuff #my text

3 notes · View notes

slopmaster9000 · 11 months

Note

girlie i kinda miss when u used to ramble abt marxism... loved waking up and reading ur opinion on trotsky like it was the morning paper. glad ur happy posting now though it convinced me to pick up house of leaves and it should be arriving next week 💕

i just haven't read any theory lately i kinda fell off.. ill pick it back up eventually but i have a lot of other books i wanna work through

#still a marxist of course ‼️ dialectics and whatnot i just apply it in a more personal way nowadays

7 notes · View notes

silverity · 10 months

Note

Why do you call yourself a "marxist feminist?" your analysis is closer to mainstream reactionary narratives and radical feminism in general - why the obfuscation and lies?

i became a communist, specifically a marxist leninist, at about 15. i educated myself on Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Che Guevara, Kwame Nkrumah, Thomas Sankara, Kim Il Sung — id say most of the fundamentals necessary to developing a communist understanding.

from my own Black upbringing i already knew Malcolm X, but i read further about the civil rights movement's Black leaders and revolutionaries, such as the Black Panther Party, Black Liberation Army, Fred Hampton, Huey P Newton, Kwame Ture, George Jackson. read Black scholars like James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, bell hooks, Du Bois, Fanon. also read Parenti, Said and Freire. i made sure as a Black woman to learn from Black women and marxist women, so i both read about and read the works of Rosa Luxemburg, Claudia Jones, Assata Shakur, Kathleen Cleaver, Nawal El Saadawi and Angela Davis.

so i was a marxist leninist in marxist circles for a very long time, and for all that time i was very pro-trans. now, there's been a rising tide of misogyny in the mainstream for the last couple of years, and i noticed men of all races in marxist circles were either failing to address it or addressed it only with reactionary, backwards analyses. many started voicing outright misogyny themselves under the guise of criticizing "bourgeois white women". it seemed they'd only read the works of marxist men and hadn't paid any attention to the women as i had. even other marxist leninist women, though their analysis was solid, were not focusing on women's issues directly. there's this tendency among marxists to treat feminism as some inborn component of marxism though they're not doing any direct study nor work on it at all. they think a class revolution will resolve everything when that's not entirely true. we will have to restructure society around gender/sex, race and many other inequalities, not just class.

so i turned to feminism. i went back to the aforementioned marxist women, who cover topics such as anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, prison abolition, Black nationalism and so on, but for the first time focused exclusively on the situation of women. this time i read marxist women for their marxist feminism, incorporating also Evelyn Reed, Silvia Federici, Ellen Willis, Clara Zetkin, Sharon Smith. as you may have noticed from the name, marxist feminism is sourced from feminism (yes, radical feminism) as much as it is marxism. many of these marxist feminist women drew from radical feminist women, both to further their own marxfem theory as well as to contrast it.

& i wanted to read what they were referencing for myself, so i began to read radfem works for the first time. i was surprised that what marxists had always dismissed as "white bourgeois feminism" was actually incredibly intersectional and insightful. and that even the white radical feminist authors were accounting for race and class, with many directly interrogating marxist theory and building upon Engels' analysis in Origin of the Family. i now firmly believe that to wholly understand the oppression of women you must understand our position under the intersection of both capitalism and patriarchy.

so!!!! i arrived at marxist feminism but with heavy influences of radical feminism. i would say my politics are a combination of the two (which some would call socialist feminism) but i prefer to keep the marxfem label owing to my marxist leninist origins (socialist is too broad a term), and also because my approach is still generally that of a more marxist leninist structural analysis, first and foremost. where marxist feminism provides a materialist, anti-capitalist analysis of the exploitation of women, radical feminism scrutinises the interpersonal relations between the sexes under patriarchy and its gender hierarchy. radical feminism also covers a lot more ground pertaining to women: women's history, feminist anthropology, women in media, science, psychology & so on. im particularly interested in radfem deconstructions of Judeo-Christian theology as of late.

thus it was with this new radical feminist understanding of women's oppression, and the analysis of other radfems of the trans rights movement, that i realised The Terfs Were Right All Along: gender identity ideology is regression masquerading as progression and will never liberate women from our degraded position so long as the female body continues to be exploited and abused. our oppression under both capitalism and patriarchy is the oppression, exploitation, and regulation of our female biology. after all, it's only women who are able to produce workers for the capitalists and the state, and children for the men and the society. this is the origin of women's oppression that began thousands of years ago. the oppression of women today is the systemic exploitation of the human female.

i went back and recalibrated my marxism as well and in doing so realised dialectical materialism doesn't lend itself to gender identity theory whatsoever (something a lot of other marxists have realised too). a liberation movement has to address the situation of women, it has to address our material reality. it cannot work off of idealism. i find mao really great on dialectical materialism, so let's look at his writings. according to Mao, "Idealism considers spirit (consciousness, concepts, the subject) as the source of all that exists on earth, and matter (nature and society, the object) as secondary and subordinate" whereas "Materialism recognizes the independent existence of matter as detached from spirit and considers spirit as secondary and subordinate.... [Idealists] cannot point out the materialist truth according to which consciousness is limited by matter, but believe that only consciousness is active, whereas matter is only an inert composite entity."

marxism is alternately termed "scientific socialism" for a reason. we are not idealists like the utopian socialists. we do not deal in idealism, we analyse reality through the scientific method of historical materialism. as Mao writes "Materialist dialectics is the only scientific epistemology, and it is also the only scientific logic. Materialist dialectics studies the origin and development of our knowledge of the outside world. It studies the transition from not knowing to knowing and from incomplete knowledge to more complete knowledge; it studies how the laws of the development of nature and society are daily reflected more profoundly and more extensively in the mind of humanity."

to "[belong] to the materialist camp" in Mao's words, we must "[recognize] the independent existence of the material world, separate from human consciousness — the fact that it existed before the appearance of humanity, and continues to exist since the appearance of humanity, independently and outside of human consciousness. To recognize this point is a fundamental premise of all scientific research.... what we call consciousness is nothing else but a form of the movement of matter, a particular characteristic of the material brain of humanity; it is that particular characteristic of the material brain which causes the material processes outside consciousness to be reflected in consciousness."

in essence, the internal is a product of the external. not the reverse. this does not support the supremacy of "gender identity" over sex, nor does it support the extreme position assumed by some in the trans movement, of the subjectivity or non-existence of sex altogether. we have to transform society in order to transform ourselves, which in this context would mean the abolition of gender throughout the whole of society— not the promotion of individualist self-identification with ascientific microlabels. gender identities do not liberate anyone from the confines of gender—they further lock you in, making you an ardent defender of the tool of your own repression. evidently, supporting gender identity ideology would not only be the betrayal of the proletarian woman and the fight for her liberation, and the liberation of everyone repressed by this system, it would be the betrayal and the distortion of marxism itself. a vulgar materialism.

if you want a more thorough breakdown of my ascent to terfdom or anything more about marxism leninism that'll probably have to be another post. let me know! i'll leave you with this from Mao on dialectical materialism: "The world is nothing else but the material world in a process of unlimited development.... If the proletariat and all revolutionaries take up this consistently scientific arm, they will then be able to understand this world, and transform the world."

#you didn't ask for my life story but i gave it to you anyway #marxist feminism #dialectical materialism #radblr #mao #radical feminism #marxism #marxfem #terfblr #marxism leninism #original posts #edited

13 notes · View notes