China’s gonna be a phenomenal world leader.
deleted by creator
Idk if Bangladeshi women are very liberated. (obviously better than Afghanistan but still)
there still needs to be a transition from capitalism.
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.
when youre turnt up on dialectical materialism
When you hit 200 hours in Victoria 3.
I much prefer the western strategy where we bomb the shit out of them until they realize how superior our western valuestm are.
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
He put it very vulgarly but that’s more or less a point I’ve read from other marxists, that proletarianization MAY bring about mass politics
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.
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.
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.
property relationship under capital
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
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.
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.
I could imagine China using policy demands (similar to what the IMF does, but not evil) in exchange for financing, economic development, but IDK if turning Afghanistan into 18th century England will do much good.
I could imagine China using policy demands, similar to what the IMF does, still evil. That’s basically what the Belt and Road initiative is.
This is like accelerationism but for creating capitalism
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.
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.
Mixed feelings on foreign capital investment. I’d want to see the economic proposals laid out first before coming to any conclusions.
“howdy, what’s going on in this thread?”“Come with plows, tractors, and fertilizer…”
