China’s gonna be a phenomenal world leader.
I mean it’s a better plan than invading the country, killing a million people and putting a bunch of pedophiles in charge, that’s for certain.
Are you sure? Just because it didnt work the last 20 times doesnt mean we couldnt try again to see if it works
Saw a video of a drunk dude fight a bee hive and then the aftermath and I was like “wow imperialism bees edition!”
99% of
gamblersimperialists quit right before they win big.
This is essentially true even if they didn’t explicitly spell out political struggle that women would have to engage in. Actually existing feudalism hasn’t existed anywhere for decades. All that shit about Afghani tribes living in a premodern society is just racism. Afghanistan, like most of the world, has a capitalist economy even if you want to nitpick that the superstructure still has feudal remnants. I mean, the UK still has feudal remnants in its superstructure through their inbred German royals, but no one calls the UK some quaint society that hasn’t fully embraced modernity.
And in a capitalist economy, it shouldn’t be controversial to say that the prerequisite for workers obtaining political power is for them to join the formal economy, where they can then withhold their labor as workers through worker strikes. Stuff like elevating the lumpenproletariat as the key revolutionary subject makes more sense if we’re talking about internal colonies/fourth world where the internally colonized are forcefully denied employment within the formal economy or a (neo)colonial situation where most workers of the formal economy are clerical workers working with the (neo)colonial government in sucking the country dry, but this obviously isn’t the case for Afghanistan. Worker strikes imply workers who are part of the formal economy. It’s one more tool Afghani women can use to fight for women’s rights and dismantle the patriarchy. I’m not sure what’s wrong with this or how this is “un-Marxist.”
no one calls the UK some quaint society that hasn’t fully embraced modernity.
Marxist-Leninists performing bourgeois revolutions better than any bourgeois party ever could
Correction: Marxist Leninists performing the only revolutions better than anyone else could
It’s true. They just love all of the revolutions so much
fascist ones too?
are you one of those absurd idiots who thinks ‘statists’ are fascists or something?
What has your ideology done that can even be a fraction of the lives improved just under Lenin.
The USSR’s foreign policy in the post-Stalin period was one of supporting national liberation movements, especially in relation to the decolonial movements. This process often took on the form of forcing through bourgeois revolutions to proletarianize the peasantry and end feudal relations, thus moving the world closer to the global communism button. We can talk about the outcomes of this all day but it seems like settled fact that the developmentalist approach to nation building as best exemplified in Dengist China (and also this post) is a process of bourgeois-ification of the means of production. It’s been a long standing point of contention in communist theory whether it’s possible to skip developmental stages and - hypothetically - go from feudal relations directly to socialist ones, but historically MLs have sided on the answer that you must complete the loop and go through a bourgeois period before socialism can be achieved. Whether you think this is good or not is for you to hold in your heart but let’s be honest about theoretical traditions
I misjudged you!
But saying we do this because we love bourgeoisie revolutions is completely absurd. We don’t like the capitalists being there, as it is a constant threat. It is a necessity though to begin development in economic areas that capitalists bring. The foreign capital brought into china since the deng era has been incredible, and the Communist party has allocated its distribution to greatly build up all areas of China’s economy. It will be far easier to do planned economy if you already have every type of industry (hard, light, etc) instead of developing it like the Soviets.
The modern PRC is a product of the times, China had to compromise with international capital due to the rise of Neoliberalism and the downfall of the Soviet bloc. China would probably be still on the planned economic model if the Soviets had stuck to Gosplan and not had the Sino-Soviet split. But China needed economic partners and allies in order to match, and eventually surpass, the pace of the imperialist capitalist growth. China has taken the correct path though, and kept in charge the Communist Party, and kept the capitalists in check. A country that serves capital wouldn’t so flippantly shoot billionaires for stepping out of line, as an example. China has outlined, and has diligently followed, its transition to a true socialist state. As well as a planned economy.
So what does your original complaint truly mean? The capitalist counter-revolution in China is being very well suppressed by the Communist Party, and the quality of life improvement is enshrined as the foremost goal of the State (one they have kept to very well). Marxists Leninists never loved capitalists, but have been the most effective in surpassing them, while making sure to maintain socialist dominance.
when youre turnt up on dialectical materialism
When you hit 200 hours in Victoria 3.
Materialism - the game mechanics of human society
I don’t consider it a coincidence in the slightest that women’s liberation kicked into high gear with women’s employment and education opportunities. Anything else strikes me as cart before the horse.
Education, social/economic independence, and industrial labor demands definitely produced the conditions for a feminist movement.
But mass media, mass surveillance, and the industrialization of policing also inhibited and restrained women’s movements.
So…
Turn 👏 feudal serf👏 women 👏 into 👏 sweatshop 👏 workers
Yes, that’s what China did. They also used media control to blanket the nation in antisexist messages from the moment the PRC was established, but chattel marriage customs only really began to break down in areas where factory work was available - the wage work allowed women to be financially independent from their clans for the first time. Even establishing dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean immediate freedom from the harsh contradictions of being a developing country.
I get the point. Now, all my aprons come from Pakistan, how are women’s rights doing there? Or India? Or Bangladesh?
“Better than before women were employed in factories”, OK fine. But this comment should be indistinguishable from r/neoliberal if that place weren’t nazis in denial
But think of the productive forces
Its good to be sceptical, but just because one person tells a lie, doesn’t make that statement universally a lie.
Nazi neolibs are not speaking in good faith.
India’s doing fine thankyouverymuch
It’s under the BJP so obviously not lmao
Women rights are still better in India compared to Pakistan or Bangladesh. Pretty much due to the country aligning with Socialist principles post independence.
Pretty much due to the country aligning with Socialist principles post independence.
Which the BJP have been working to erode in a race backwards to beat out Bangladesh and Pakistan as the most reactionary country on the subcontinent.
Yes but India is still better than Pakistan at least. It’s more akin to the Russian decline regarding social issues post Soviet collapse.
Women rights are still better in India compared to Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Heavily dependent on class, region, and ethnicity. Brahman women are better off. Muslim untouchables are still fucked.
It’s far more about Indian culture than laws. The laws drafted by Ambedkar were very Socialist in nature and guaranteed equality to all. Indian culture is very backwards and the BJP has taken the country back several decades since 2014 when it comes to social issues.
That can be said for any ruling party anywhere
Idk the CPC ruling China has made China the best its ever been
India still has trouble updating basic infrastructure because the BJP spends so much time complaining about pakistan and funneling cash to elites
But china’s a one party system, i dont see how its tbe same case?
One party systems are not the same all across the board lol, if thats what you mean. What do you mean by this?
What lack of material analysis does to a- wait what
I much prefer the western strategy where we bomb the shit out of them until they realize how superior our western valuestm are.
Women’s computer camp in the wealthiest corner of the capital.
Western armed warlords across the rural bulk of the nation.
Wagging my finger at the Taliban for hating women because my warlords are losing.
For a sec I thought you were just talking about the US with the first two lines lol.
MY favorite western strategy to instill Western Values™ is to intentionally seek out the most right-wing weirdos in the country, go out of our way to convince them that women’s rights is a Communist plot to lead them to Satan, and supply them with stinger missiles
“howdy, what’s going on in this thread?”Idk if Bangladeshi women are very liberated. (obviously better than Afghanistan but still)
there still needs to be a transition from capitalism.
This is indistinguishable from an IMF policy document, or a tweet from some of the 🌐 nerds, yikes
women were involved in the industrial workforce in the west from the beginning, and three waves of feminism were still needed - the work not even over after that. So I don’t really know if i agree with this take.
Did a single women’s liberatory movement succeed before development of the industrial capacity and the incentive capital provides to the national bourgeoisie to see things change?
We must prioritise the prerequisites. Certain material conditions are a necessity to meet before those movements can see success.
EDIT: The phrasing is a bit racist in this part of the manifesto but still relevant:
The rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.
even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.
counterpoint: its not racist if you call the imperialist nations the barbaric ones
I think this is a legitimate take - industrial capitalism emerged in England for a reason (well several but all barbaric)
I am basically the Karl Marx of 2024
I’m not arguing against what the poster in the image is suggesting doing, I just think they’re too hopeful. I’m making the point that the process they describe will not in and of itself result in “women’s liberation” in Afghanistan.
Did a single women’s liberatory movement succeed before development of the industrial capacity and the incentive capital provides to the national bourgeoisie to see things change?
I finished Graeber’s “History of Everything” not too long ago, and want to say this gets touched on, and the answer is ‘yes.’
That said, I gave my copy to my dad and would need to go page through it to cite that, so I very well may be wrong. Plus, it would have been centuries ago anyways, so not sure it’s really relevant to your initial question.
That said, I gave my copy to my dad and would need to go page through it to cite that, so I very well may be wrong. Plus, it would have been centuries ago anyways, so not sure it’s really relevant to your initial question.
I’d be quite interested in what existing power these women had in order to force whatever concessions they achieved. I am betting on it being a quite different scenario, but relying on certain conditions that these women today do not have.
I’m convinced that a major aspect of the property relationship under capital here is that it almost entirely traps women with no means of helping themselves. Getting them more means will drastically alter their ability to pursue their own movements.
Second this. The situation of Women in the 19th century is very deeply tied to the whole “global European empire of terror” and doesn’t necessarily reflect conditions in other cultures at other times.
There seems to be a lot of active socialists in my part of the country and historic support for women’s and queer rights, I wonder if it has to do with knowledge of indigenous cultures from my region? Several tribes active here had a matriarchal governance structure, they would have rotating councils of women meet to discuss issues and distribution of resources in what could be described as a socialist system. Nearly all political knowledge in the west is rooted in white imperialist ideologies, my heart aches thinking where we could be today if egalitarian or socialist tribes were allowed to flourish.
That feels like saying “yeah, but unions existed in 1920, so I don’t think I agree that unions were able to win any labor rights.” The poster is proposing a process that will initiate gains in womens rights that can’t be as easily reversed as gains from an external military imposition, not automatic guarantee of immediate equality.
unions are involved with actively fighting for workers’ rights so I don’t really think that’s a fair comparison. A more apt comparison would be saying a labor shortage will result in increased workers’ rights. The labor shortage in and of itself is not what will give the workers permanent gains, but it puts the workers and unions on the footing necessary to force those concessions from the capitalists.
Similar here, the process the poster is describing will only result in more women in the workforce, but not in and of itself result in “women’s liberation” in Afghanistan - that involves a political struggle.
The point of women joining the workforce is so they can then withhold their labor. This is what I understood to be the point of the Chinese comments. Just because they didn’t explicitly spell it out doesn’t mean that’s not what they had in mind. But the basic message is correct. Women have to be part of the workforce in order to even have political leverage.
Actually no, China needs to wage holy war on the Taliban and force them all the adopt the version of Islam that Hui people have. Then they’ll have female imams and from there powerful female imams will lead the revolutionary vanguard for women’s rights.
This is just right communist economistic claptrap.
…yes and no. On one hand, China could do more – they could aid local communists, or at least local groups who are trying to improve women’s rights specifically. On the other hand, much of the last century is riddled with examples of when even the good kind of more direct intervention backfires, especially in the context of an enemy in the U.S. who will seek to use anything and everything against China.
Take the “China should do more” idea to the extreme: China invades and installs a communist government. We should all see a million reasons why that would turn out badly.
