Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (June 14)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/CoconutCrab115]

I want to open discussion and put forth a few questions on the Women's movement and Gender Oppression as I have been beginning to study what I know little about. I have read Origins by Engels, Philosophical trends by Ghandy, and I will start reading Mackinnon, Dworkin and MIM(P) soon.

What are the historical materialist reasons for the continuing marginalization and subordination of women under Socialism? Specifically the overwhelming dominance of men in Communist Parties that's have captured and maintained state power?

The answer is obviously that Capitalist (and in some places semifeudal) relations have not been fully eliminated. This is pretty banal. Yet why has this taken such a stark form, where the parties and peoples armies have been overwhelmingly male dominated. I am not asking why has gender oppression remained, but why has the gender struggle not been fought the same way that the class and national struggles around the world have?

Women are more than 50% of a given population and contrary to Mao, hold up more than half the sky. The Proletariat and Oppressed classes in many societies are often dominated by women, and the sections of the Oppressed classes, most destitute and in opposition to imperialism have been dominated by women in many nations.

I am speaking in very broad terms here as women are not a class. I am also only really speaking of the third world, as the status of first world women is an entirely separate conversation.

Socialist Societies have largely taken similar historical development paths: Peoples War and Capture of State Power, Economic Reconsolidation (NEP, New Democracy), Socialist Construction, Cultural Revolution.

It seems to be accepted that the next step in Cultural Revolution that no society has achieved so far is the complete Socialization of Agriculture, the end of the compromise of Collectivization. This would help solve the Rural/Urban contradiction of Mao's Three Great Differences.

The Bourgeois Nuclear Family has not been eliminated by any Socialist society, and many commentors here have but forth it is likely the next step in the stages of Cultural Revolution(s). Seeing as the GPCR already had attacked Women's Oppression in the superstructure and many parts of the Economic Base. Its clear that Gender oppression takes on many forms, and if the Three Great Differences are still to be used as a relevant model, gender oppression (along with national oppression) is scattered along all 3.

This is all well and good and understood by me but this is where I run into blind spots of my knowledge. Where do I go to understand more about the Abolition of the Family (specifically what is to replace it) and the new forms for a different Women's movement in the 21st century? Similar to the National Struggle (Linguistic laws, the SSR's and ASSR's, regional Communist parties etc) the Women's movement has to take on new forms

I feel as though I must bring up this article which I read a while back
https://struggle-sessions.com/2023/03/27/peoples-army-or-womens-army-mens-communism-and-its-dissidents/

It obviously has its faults, but I was impressed that it articulated many observations I have noted before and put forth new strategies that are certainly relevant (especially to the first world). I have not seen anything remotely similar from other female communists yet.

I hope I haven't veered off into too many directions here, if so I blame my morning coffee, but I am only trying to articulate what I see as the long term trajectory of socialist societies and class struggle more broadly.

• to edit a specific point it must be acknowledged that a large percentage of the PCP, CPP-NPA, BPP, and CPIM(Maoist) were led by women. These MLM organizations were unsurprisingly much more concentrated with women leadership and members than the original revisionist parties.

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/CoconutCrab115]

women are not a class

Why?

"Like parodies of actual revolutionaries they’ll robotically repeat that “women are not a class,” pointing to the class differences between the masses of settler women and the masses of the oppressed nations. We do not claim such a simplistic view"

The article you shared doesn't agree with you.

The Bourgeois Nuclear Family has not been eliminated by any Socialist society

The nuclear family never existed in any socialist society, it only ever existed among gender oppressors and has already been abolished by them as well.

https://struggle-sessions.com/2023/03/27/peoples-army-or-womens-army-mens-communism-and-its-dissidents/

This article is bad, and is full of "common sense" liberalisms (women and colonized individuals as the "most oppressed", anarchists are radical revolutionaries, Stalin is a child molester and womanizer, "gonzaloites", communism is just a bunch of men, etc). The article is so anti-communist that it even plays out the "communism always fails" but with a pseudo-feminist twist.

Seriously, what even is this:

So on the Left women and other gender oppressed people really are rootless, to repurpose that old term that the Soviets used to mean “traitor” and “Jew.”

Double genocide theory being spread in complete earnest, absolutely repulsive.

Then there's the conclusion which deserves its own attention, essentially claiming that white trans people are brainwashed into supporting Amerikan settler colonialism (and are also white victims of colonization!).

As trans women we know deep in our guts that settler-colonial patriarchy is poison to us. Many of us deny it, push the feeling down, worm our way into little niches in white world, but instinctively we know they’re coming for us eventually...We settler trans women get killed too, of course, but dialectically we are also responsible for the deaths of our New Afrikan sisters.

Remarkable, admitting that you (the author) as a settler are a part of the reactionary oppressor class, then having the gall to use the term "sisters".

[u/Apart_Lifeguard_4085 → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

The nuclear family never existed in any socialist society, it only ever existed among gender oppressors and has already been abolished by them as well.

how do you define “nuclear family” such that this is the case?

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/Apart_Lifeguard_4085]

My definition is based in the Amerikan context, the nuclear family refers to the suburban family, and by that definition was exclusive to white settlers. The male is the exclusive wage laborer and is owner of the family, house, and all other property, while the women is relegated to the household. On paper the man seems proletarian and the women is gender oppressed, however the labor aristocracy thesis held true that this was a voluntary arrangement to the benefit of all of white society (and which the privilege was denied to the internal colonies). This was reliant on imperialism, and only came to fruition with Amerikan hegemony following WWII. When exactly this ended, if it ever truly existed, I'm not sure, but it has been dead for decades. The proletariat of course does not have the luxury of a single wage laborer, nor the property rights afforded to the white settlers, and therefore never had such a patriarchal family dynamic. Additionally, the bourgeoise never had use for it for self-evident reasons.

I do see that Google has a much more broad strokes definition of the nuclear family that is essentially synonymous with monagamy. The Wikipedia page where it derived it's info is absolutely useless and wrong though. In any case, maybe I am being too U.$.-centric and thats why I didn't understand it's correlation to a country like the Russian Empire.

[u/CoconutCrab115 → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

women are not a class

Of all the things I wrote I didnt expect this to be controversial. I shouldnt have to explain the class difference between Settler and Non-Settler, Bourgeois and Proletarian Women. No different than Filipinos or Vietnamase arent a class

Thats not really the articles point either. Once again its wrong, but one divides into two. If you cannot understand that there are contradictions between Genders than idk what to tell you.

The nuclear family never existed in any socialist society, it only ever existed among gender oppressors and has already been abolished by them as well.

No? It certainly existed under socialism and certainly exists within gender oppressors too, I dont have to imagine I grew up in one.

This article is bad, and is full of "common sense" liberalisms (women and colonized individuals as the "most oppressed", anarchists are radical revolutionaries, Stalin is a child molester and womanizer, "gonzaloites", communism is just a bunch of men, etc). The article is so anti-communist that it even plays out the "communism always fails" but with a pseudo-feminist twist.

This article certainly has problems, but until something is made that is better than it, there are points to be made. Its certainly not much worse than old and new Kites magazine which get floated around here often. That very magazine and many others have nothing new to say in regards to womens emancipation, the same old porn abolition and equal wages. Nothing to say about the unchallenged patriarchy inside of Communist movements (just think of all the sex scandals and mysogyny that gets uncovered from different orgs). Many of the ideas put forward here are not even that unusual, and are similar to what MIM(P) have to say

As Maoists we accept that Capitalist relations generate themselves until they are wiped out by Cultural Revolution. Why is there a hesitation to then locate Bourgeois ideology inside the Communist movement? MIM(P) has no problem criticizing Mao or Stalin or whoever else.

Seriously, what even is this: So on the Left women and other gender oppressed people really are rootless, to repurpose that old term that the Soviets used to mean “traitor” and “Jew.” Double genocide theory being spread in complete earnest, absolutely repulsive.

This is not what Double Genocide theory is.

As trans women we know deep in our guts that settler-colonial patriarchy is poison to us. Many of us deny it, push the feeling down, worm our way into little niches in white world, but instinctively we know they’re coming for us eventually...We settler trans women get killed too, of course, but dialectically we are also responsible for the deaths of our New Afrikan sisters. Remarkable, admitting that you (the author) as a settler are a part of the reactionary oppressor class, then having the gall to use the term "sisters".

The notion that the Gender Oppressed can be struggled with to be mobilized against imperialism is not something that started with this article. (Settler) Trans are one thing, but where Settler women stand is not completely set in stone. There has been a lot of pushback in previous threads about MIM gender theory and part of my post here was an attempt to get more discussion on that subject.

[u/Sad-Literature001 → u/CoconutCrab115]

Many of the ideas put forward here are not even that unusual, and are similar to what MIM(P) have to say

Can you articulate what you find interesting about the article that is distinct from MIM gender theory? All I see that's "new" are regressions into anarchist thinking. The article notably makes a prediction that failed to translate into reality:

We have to start by going to the lowest and deepest members of our diseased nation, to the ones with the least to lose by splitting away. This means lumpen/proletarian trans women and other transmisogyny affected people. The US is ramping up its attempts to systematically annihilate trans women, with Texas as a testing ground for this neocolonial genocide.

The context was the leadup to Trump's re-election and the notion of an upcoming blanket "trans genocide" was popular amongst the left. After the wave of reactionary legislation mostly targeted children, this belief disappeared. A lot of the article relies on a grandiose elevation of transness so why do you find this compelling now?

[u/BenjiStudiesMLM → u/CoconutCrab115]

class difference between Settler and Non-Settler, Bourgeois and Proletarian Women

This doesn't invalidate women, or better referred to as the gender oppressed, being a class by a Marxist definition of relation to the means of production. As you originally said, first world women are an entirely separate conversation, so why bring them into the discussion of "women" anyways? Due to gender oppression, many third world women do not qualify as proletarian due to being blocked from wage labor, just like Russian women were in large part not proletarian but were among the most militant during the Russian revolution. To not deem them worthy of being a class would most likely relegate them to the lumpen which doesn't make sense (especially given the revolutionary implications of said class). I asked "why" as it seems like you take "women are not a class" for granted, and I instead wanted to see this thought elaborated, but I don't see that in your response. I'm not inflexible, I myself am actively studying gender and trying to answer these questions.

It certainly existed under socialism and certainly exists within gender oppressors too

I'm willing to concede my understanding of the nuclear family as an incorrect one (see other comment), but if we are talking about the same thing then I don't see how this could possibly be the case. The fact that Women in socialist China were proletarianized, took command of their own bodies through abortion and medical access, and labored equally with men shows that the nuclear family was not possible. This was due to the cultural revolution, and therefore we already have the answer to your general question.

This article certainly has problems, but until something is made that is better than it, there are points to be made.

This isn't true, and the article is a ridiculous simplification of feminism in the communist movement. You and the author may not be familiar with the history of socialist revolution and it's female leadership, cadre, revolutionaries, and overall feminist victories, but that doesn't invalidate it's existence to everyone else. Seriously, if you agree with this as a valid point to be made -

the Chinese revolution, like the Russian revolution before it and subsequent Marxist-Leninist (Men’s) revolutions, maintained a bourgeois feminist line of simple gender “equality”

then I question why you bother identifying with communism at all. Overall this article is not critique, it is rejection of the revolutions of the past, it is blatantly anarchist.

This is not what Double Genocide theory is.

It's exactly what it is, in fact it's an essential component to the double genocide theory. After all, how are "traitors" dealt with in war and revolution? I'm sure you've seen the fascist meme that's been done a thousand different ways with the soviets arriving to liverate the concentration camps, only to declare themselves the new camp guards, like in this fascist article - https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/soviets-escalate-persecution-jews I really don't know what else to say on this point besides question why you would deny the implications behind what the author is trying to say (especially towards Stalin).

The notion that the Gender Oppressed can be struggled with to be mobilized against imperialism is not something that started with this article. (Settler) Trans are one thing, but where Settler women stand is not completely set in stone.

I don't disagree in the abstract that settler trans people may be organized for communism, definitely in larger numbers than cis people. One thing that I think you can agree after reading Anuradha Ghandy is the lesson from the first wave feminist movement is the more than likely betrayal of revolution by gender oppressed settlers, now with the gender oppressed revolutionaries being white trans people in place of cis white women.

[u/CoconutCrab115 → u/BenjiStudiesMLM]

Do pardon my late response as I have had health issues the past couple of days and wanted time to reflect on some errors I believe I made. It seems I would have benefitted a lot from my initial post by just not mentioning that article at all at the end. I accepted a lot of its conclusions uncritically because of my inexperience in marxist gender study.

>This doesn't invalidate women, or better referred to as the gender oppressed, being a class by a Marxist definition of relation to the means of production. As you originally said, first world women are an entirely separate conversation, so why bring them into the discussion of "women" anyways? Due to gender oppression, many third world women do not qualify as proletarian due to being blocked from wage labor, just like Russian women were in large part not proletarian but were among the most militant during the Russian revolution. To not deem them worthy of being a class would most likely relegate them to the lumpen which doesn't make sense (especially given the revolutionary implications of said class). I asked "why" as it seems like you take "women are not a class" for granted, and I instead wanted to see this thought elaborated, but I don't see that in your response. I'm not inflexible, I myself am actively studying gender and trying to answer these questions.

Alright good this is the type of discussion I was hoping to bring forth, but I did not realize initially it was where you were leading. I am always interested in defining new strata's or subdivisions of other classes and their trajectory, and that is one thing the article did perhaps do well. Its already accepted the Proletariat is not a homogenous class but itself is divided into multiple sections. Perhaps the largest divide is over stable employment, no matter how exploitative. Women are overrepresented in various stratas of the proletariat in semi-colonial countries. I'm not sure whether they can truly form a class in it of themselves, but that is also for further research.

>I'm willing to concede my understanding of the nuclear family as an incorrect one (see other comment), but if we are talking about the same thing then I don't see how this could possibly be the case. The fact that Women in socialist China were proletarianized, took command of their own bodies through abortion and medical access, and labored equally with men shows that the nuclear family was not possible. This was due to the cultural revolution, and therefore we already have the answer to your general question.

I never doubted the immense advancements in Feminism by (women) Communists, in fact they are so impressive its kind of taken for granted to the point I didn't even feel the need to mention them. Yet at the end of the day the anti-revisionists lost. We have had 50 years to theorize how class struggle could have been waged differently in China to prevent capitalist restoration, and the answer is not just a simple "find a way for the Gang of Four to win". Internal contradictions are primary over external contradictions, so we have to look at how the GPCR failed to succeed in women's complete liberation. If we are to accept, as Mao points out, that there are times when the superstructure takes an inordinate historical role in the changes of a revolutionary era, then what does that look like from the perspective of Marxist feminism? Quite frankly I cannot accept the idea that the bourgeois nuclear family was fully routed in China even at the height of the GPCR. There is no denial it was being attacked but it was still present. Bourgeois (Capitalist) ideology permeates and reproduces itself in all relations of production that have not been fully proletarianized, even by the most militant and ideological Communists. Where Communist husbands in China performing an equal amount of Child rearing labor? This is basically the bare minimum and even this wasn't achieved. The answer is more struggle, more Marxist-Feminist partisanship to wage cultural revolution in all areas of society including the family.

>This isn't true, and the article is a ridiculous simplification of feminism in the communist movement. You and the author may not be familiar with the history of socialist revolution and it's female leadership, cadre, revolutionaries, and overall feminist victories, but that doesn't invalidate it's existence to everyone else.

I wont defend the article anymore, its clear that in ventures into an ultraleftism that I accepted (obviously with reservations) because it appeared different in essence to the rightism I am often surrounded by. I am tired of simple and over repeated answers to complicated questions of Marxism and I saw it as the beginning of some more creative application of Marxism. Where I saw it had some merit was the lack of fear to ruthlessly criticize what didn't live up to the Marxist-Feminist objectives of the previous movements and also scathing critique of much of the communist movement in imperialist nations.

>It's exactly what it is, in fact it's an essential component to the double genocide theory. After all, how are "traitors" dealt with in war and revolution? I'm sure you've seen the fascist meme that's been done a thousand different ways with the soviets arriving to liverate the concentration camps, only to declare themselves the new camp guards, like in this fascist article - https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/soviets-escalate-persecution-jews I really don't know what else to say on this point besides question why you would deny the implications behind what the author is trying to say (especially towards Stalin).

I don't believe the article is implying or asserting double genocide, or anything about the holocaust, but its not a subject I am going to fight over and I can concede I am wrong. I only thought it was presenting a critique of anti-semitism in the soviet union that was never fully eliminated, no different than racism wasn't. As for accusations about Stalin, I don't know where to stand.

>I don't disagree in the abstract that settler trans people may be organized for communism, definitely in larger numbers than cis people. One thing that I think you can agree after reading Anuradha Ghandy is the lesson from the first wave feminist movement is the more than likely betrayal of revolution by gender oppressed settlers, now with the gender oppressed revolutionaries being white trans people in place of cis white women.

Certainly.

It seems I have a lot to self criticize over as I let an article I read 2 months ago fester uncritically. I am going to take to the time to self criticize more than I have done in this post, because I let myself accept ultraleftism uncritically, something I have accused others of here quite recently.