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.
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.
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 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.
Yeah, I’m thinking of societies that became matriarchal through some means long long before any sort of European-centric (probably not the right way to but it, but my words are failing me here, apologies) resemblance to economic systems came about. I’m thinking of areas like Mexico, Central America, and South America maybe about 1500 years ago.
Anyways, it’s a really good book, and I’d absolutely recommend it! It’s just…a LOT. Hard to really remember specific things from it off the top of my head, especially when I’m sleep deprived, but it is well cited if you download an ebook version.
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.
The development of capitalism coincided with a massive decrease in status of women in the west, and as pointed out waves if feminism have been required to recover that status and then some. The original take is economistic claptrap, we aren’t victims of material circumstance we are agents shaped by it.
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.
although I disagree that that is what the Chinese comments have in mind. Although, granted, I can’t actually read Chinese, so I need to go off of what the English translation says. But the English translation seems naive and passive, as if all women’s liberation requires is for women to be a part of the workforce. While it’s likely just an offhand comment, language like “There’s really no need to worry…”, “All it takes…”, “They’ll soon realize…”, “no one can stop…” does not make me think they had some deeper idea that they didn’t spell out but that they have a simplified idea about how political change occurs and the necessity of political struggle. The “basic message” you note is nowhere present in what’s written, it’s just your own takeaway because you understand political struggle. But in terms of what’s actually written there’s no language in there that hints at something deeper. Maybe the Chinese is different.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I’m thinking of societies that became matriarchal through some means long long before any sort of European-centric (probably not the right way to but it, but my words are failing me here, apologies) resemblance to economic systems came about. I’m thinking of areas like Mexico, Central America, and South America maybe about 1500 years ago.
Anyways, it’s a really good book, and I’d absolutely recommend it! It’s just…a LOT. Hard to really remember specific things from it off the top of my head, especially when I’m sleep deprived, but it is well cited if you download an ebook version.
Feels like I’m rambling now
counterpoint: its not racist if you call the imperialist nations the barbaric ones
deleted by creator
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.
Fair. There are several steps that follow but some must occur before others out of necessity.
The development of capitalism coincided with a massive decrease in status of women in the west, and as pointed out waves if feminism have been required to recover that status and then some. The original take is economistic claptrap, we aren’t victims of material circumstance we are agents shaped by it.
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.
that’s what I’m arguing.
although I disagree that that is what the Chinese comments have in mind. Although, granted, I can’t actually read Chinese, so I need to go off of what the English translation says. But the English translation seems naive and passive, as if all women’s liberation requires is for women to be a part of the workforce. While it’s likely just an offhand comment, language like “There’s really no need to worry…”, “All it takes…”, “They’ll soon realize…”, “no one can stop…” does not make me think they had some deeper idea that they didn’t spell out but that they have a simplified idea about how political change occurs and the necessity of political struggle. The “basic message” you note is nowhere present in what’s written, it’s just your own takeaway because you understand political struggle. But in terms of what’s actually written there’s no language in there that hints at something deeper. Maybe the Chinese is different.