Re: The feminist capitalist complex

On Jul 15, 4:07 am, "Society" <Soci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Well, Andrew Usher, you've taken on quite a challenge.
Let's have a look at the ur-socialists and what they had
to say on this subject:

Marx and Engels were not the first socialists by any standard.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare-up
at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what
foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family,
based? On capital, on private gain. ... The bourgeois
family will vanish... with the vanishing of capital.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The Communist Manifesto

That's out of context. In the original context, the only specific
proposal they make is universal public education (not too radical).
Even if they did want to 'abolish the family' in the true sense,
I am not a Marxist and have said already that most of their
philosophy was nonsense.

After you explain away the linkage by socialists (of
all parties) of capitalism and the traditional family,
the nuclear family so hated by true believer feminists,
you can then move on to refuting the arguments of
Friedrich Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State_. This is the most complete
exposition of arguments by Marx and Engels that
capitalism oppresses women and that socialism is
the proper vehicle for women's liberation, i.e. feminism.

I do not need to refute arguments that you do not believe, nor
read an entire book!

You'll also have to explain why by the mid-20th century
feminists had fully adopted socialist, not capitalist,
ideology as feminism's theoretical basis and argue
that this step by feminists was in error.

The problem is that you think there is a 'theoretical basis'
for feminism. Feminism is not logical, is is emotional and
any philosophical basis is just a rationalisation. On the
other hand, it is a fact that feminism only developed under
capitalism, and no example of socialist feminism has ever
existed in the world.

Rather, as the collapse of the Soviet Socialist
empire has left socialism in the name of the proletariat
in the dustbin of history, feminists have been busy
refurbishing socialism into a theory of political economy
in the name of women's class interests.

And I reject that sort of 'socialism'.

Andrew Usher
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush Lies Again
    ... >>ideals and words of Marx, the critique of Capitalism of Engels, and the ... > to establish real socialism. ... > capitalism to keep America as a friend. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: OT to the extreme [Was Re: Im working on yet another license]
    ... At least German companies now have most of their shareholders, their employees, and their earnings outside Germany, so for instance that means that Germany has to build its own new economy without those big fish. ... The second choice is just further pseudo-reforms that we are seeing for decades now and that don't lead anywhere (well, towards Socialism, but that can't help in a global economy that IS based on trade (i.e. capitalism), even for China). ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Bush proves he is a wanker once again:
    ... >> billions in taxes to pay for a free education. ... Capitalism is all about motivation: ... Socialism usually empowers the worst capitalists ... can't cash ourselves AND honest enough to share the money with us. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: The United States is actually more dependent on rich people to pay taxes than even many of the m
    ... Socialism is not just slavery but thievery. ... you can hide your belief that socialism is your God, and capitalism is ... are caused by money or lack of it, ... Robert Ley's words -- "we must ensure that the young grow up under National Socialism, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Bush proves he is a wanker once again:
    ... > You are assuming who's money it is. ... Capitalism makes money, ... >> socialism requires taxation to raise funds. ... That their are barbarians worse than our own ...
    (soc.men)