#brocialists

[homoqueerjewhobbit]

Oh, really, Marx predicted everything? You sure about that? Did he predict the series finale of Lost??? Check mate, bro.

[ryukisgod]

If your a lazy communist, I could see how one could come to the conclusion that feminism is bourgeois; and therefore antithetical to communism.

When the most famous “feminists” are celebrities like Beyoncé -who uses sweatshop labour to make her millions- the lazy communist might say feminism is frivolous and harmful to workers. And it’s true that capitalists use GirlBoss as a marketing strategy, because all movements are co-opted by advertisers eg Pepsi solves police brutality:

If everyone can see that ad for what is is, they should use that critical thinking and direct it towards “empowering” advertiserments aimed at women.

Communists will quote academics when explaining communism. But lazy communists will just believe (gullibilly) that feminism is what advertising agencies say it is, instead of doing the same work reading feminist philosophers.

[radfemblack]

I hate white Leftist men. #Brocialist #Brocialism #Undersectional #Brocialists #Manarchist #Manarchism . #feminist #feminism #radfem #terf #swerf #libfem #radfemmemes #gendercritical #gendercriticalmemes #gendercriticalfeminism #radfem2019 #radicalfeminism #radicalfeminist #blackfeminist #blackfeminism #secondwave #secondwavefeminism #secondwavefeminist #womanist #womanism # https://www.instagram.com/p/B0nFAyrhM0G/?igshid=1g9xdi7fah51a

[ourexes]

like, look, dear brocialist, i get you don’t understand what neo-liberal means, and you don’t care ‘cause it’s such a great insult, but if you can’t wholeheartedly agree that it is better than anything with the word fascist attached to it, i hope you’re the first to lose the right to spew nonsense on the internet 

[casanova-lives]

A General Response to Marxist Class Reductionists

You’re a communist, so I take it you’re a fan of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Here is what Engels had to say about oppression.

Engels in a letter to J. Bloch:

“According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.”

And now Lenin, in “Soviet Power and the Status of Women”:

“Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there is an oppressor class… while there are the well fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters. The abolition of every possiblity of oppression and exploitation - that is our slogan!”

There are is no shortage of literature on this topic from all tendencies of Marxism as well as anarchism. Read “Settlers,” by J. Sakai.

[sick-sad-world-revolution-now]

Bonjour, I myself am an anarchist. I adore Reclus and Bookchin’s arguements for ecological socialism and Springer’s call for direct action through intentislly living an anarchist life by establishing community in your local area and sharing your resources, like I’m sure you’d agree.

However, anarchy demands equality for all - those in the margins, those who have been oppressed continuously. And I feel that to ignore the oppression of our trans comrades is wrong, parochial and wholly neo-liberalist to place the oppression of ourselves, cis women, at the zenith of gender oppression. As female anarchists, we should strive to empathise with trans community through our shared oppression. Then strive to build relationships with men, who are also victims of the patriarchy. Only through community, love and kindness can anarchism be fostered.

As Reclus, we must become beautiful ourselves - in every aspect of our lives: morally, politically and ecologically - radical feminism is not beautiful, it is ugly and full of hate. Hate is understandable, but fostering that hate for your comrades has no place in moving forward.

You have a view that doesn’t take in account the reality of our current societies, which is that patriarchy exists. The way you speak about radical feminism tells me everything I need to know about your lack of knowledge in this regard. It is “ugly and full of hate” you say, what are you ? A child who doesn’t dare to actually speak with radical feminists and know the ideas we fight for ? You are too much dependant on and influenced by brocialists, or in a more general aspect left-wing men.

What is sexism ? It is the oppression that women face at the hands of men. It’s important to be clear about what we are talking about : men aren’t poor victims of patriarchy, they created it, uphold it (with the help of the women complicit in their own dehumanisation thanks to the gendered socialisation we all go through) and yes can be collateral victims as well but that’s their fault, not ours. Sexism is an oppression we face based on our sex, since apparently people cannot read and think it’s related on gender (stereotyped and socially constructed roles) we also call sexism “sex based oppression”.

What does it mean ? It means that trans men experience it and trans “women” don’t. Women are in no way obligated to see males (no matter if they identify as men or not) as our sisters as they simply aren’t. Our experiences are different and this is not to say that theirs cannot be marked by a certain oppression but it’s just not the same. Trans identified males are part of the class that oppresses us and they keep showing it everyday with their oh so obvious male entitlement and aggressiveness toward women they deem too witchy/terfy. They can meet up and have a movement of their own, they do it already and feminism must be separated from that.

Feminism is trans men inclusive based on our shared biology and oppression, not including trans identified males in a movement about us is not hate, not “ugly” and perfectly reasonable. In fact we don’t give a shit if males and their female enablers think it’s unreasonable for feminists to not be “inclusive enough”, we never asked for permission. Radical feminism is a left-wing anti capitalist movement and it’s a “detail” you all seem to disregard or not even know since gender activists are so uninformed about it. Anarchism doesn’t work without women, feminist actions and feminist ideas, we won’t bend the knee to accommodate the feelings of males, including a growing numbers of them who identify as women or non-binary but cannot for the life of them wash their asses or the dishes, talk decently to women, not sexually harass them or not take every opportunity to rob us from our freedom of expression. I hope this clear things out.

[a-rogue-tiddy-bot]

Hasan Piker sucks.

[risingphoenix87]

Anyone who claims to be a leftist yet labels people "wokescolds" is just a wannabe who likes the idea of M4A and legal weed.

But I don't know if y'all are ready for that conversation. That's fine, but my blog isn't for you, then.