Here

```So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction: not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) seizure of control of human fertility—the new population biology as well as all the social institutions of childbearing and childrearing. And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of .the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between '' human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality—Freud’s “polymorphous perversity”—would probably supersede hetero/ homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would be bora to both sexes equally, or independently of either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally. The division of labor would be ended by the elimination of labor altogether (cybernation). The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.```

From "The Dialectic of Sex: the Case for Feminist Revolution" by Shulamith Firestone

Well this is Radical Feminism

Which is different from Liberal Feminism

If I said I was Aryan would you believe me?

I'm kidding anyways, I'm a Gaul

French and Celtic

Anyways Draco, I'm sorry you feel like I was just posting stuff to shift the goal posts, I genuinely was just presenting my position as an ally to radical feminism

Which I support due to it's relationship to Marxism

Yeah, I also say this. Equality makes a nice slogan

Seems like you're trying to find ways to call us disengenuous more than you are trying to meet me where I'm at

Which is uncool bro

Like I was having a normal conversation

You said it yourself, equality in some respect will be a result of Marxism

Er, of communism

Hold up

I see the source of the miscommunication

I have stubbornly said equality in all circumstances when I should have made clear that I meant the accusation of absolute equality was what I was arguing against, the argument people like JBP present as the stance of Marxism

This is my bad

😩

I did not come to this conclusion from Cuck Philosophy's video, I do watch Jordan himself by himself

What is your position on philosophical idealism?

Ah

I see

Well, why don't you tell me about your politics?

Okay, so why idealism?

Originally I was stating that Marxism is not about equality, or rather communism. Because as you said, at most equality can only be gained in *some* respect or inequality can only be reduced to some minimums

Materialism in terms of physicalism can explain mind, I would actually say idealism just shifts the question of the mind

No, to be clear equality in some respects can be a result of communism, but Marxism is first and foremost a analytical method, and communism is the result, to which communism seeks to abolish class

You mean shouldn't be?

And I want to be clear, class in this sense is not defined by the amount of money one makes, or whether or not a boss exists, bosses are not an issue

I meant the person above said

"CEO's should be making..."

But the context made it sound like they meant to say shouldn't

Is cool, I gotcha dude

I think on this we have common ground

My issue is not people being richer, nor the existence of a boss, but the relationships to production

In some form or fashion working people should have democratic control of their work place and receive in full the value of their labour

You can elect a boss

Someone's job can be a manager

A boss who is accountable to the workers is ideal

Likely he would be replaced

Management is obviously necessary

Yes it is like a direct democratic system

Well what is the role of a "boss" so to speak?

Primarily in management and communication of departments

I wouldn't say that

Perhaps in some respects this is also a character under the current system

But managerial work is obviously necessary, is it not?

Yes, as things exist today

Well let's look at co-operatives

These exist today

And still bosses exist

Co-Operatives are in some respects a model for a socialist work place

All members of a co-operative own the co-operative

Aren't you a NatSoc? Isn't it ideologically inconsistent to parrot the voluntarist positions of the AnCaps?

Yes but the idea of voluntarism in regards to "voluntarily choosing who you associate with" is what I am taking about

@Bogatyr Bogumir Yeah in marxist terms we call this the sublation of labour to capital

Where labour power become a commodity

Or more accurately the ability to labour is a commodity

Well labour power isn't what is bought and sold, the ability to use your labour power is what is commodified, it may seem pedantic but it's an important distinction when you go deeper into the analysis

Labour power is not your ability to labour

Okay

Yes, as in I corrected myself

Yes, the ability to labour is sold on the market

Sold for a wage

Problem with what?

Many things

Well there is how the tendency for the rate of profit to fall leads to cyclical economic crisis

There is also the poor distribution of goods

The prioritization of profitable things over the best or most practical things

For example the tendency towards less durable products so that new one need be purchased

Well considering the USSR's last famine was a result of WW2 and then didn't have recessions after, I would say you've kind of made up an argument for something that didn't happen

Are you denying the economic growth of the USSR?

The second fastest growing economy in history?

@Deleted User Do you believe in the Holocaust?

I rest my case

You're simply projecting

I could come up with proof of the same for communist countries, plain and simple you're projecting

Alright

Anyways

Not really

I actually agree they grew too fast

And that this had other reprocussions

I could get the CIA website numbers on that if you'd like

They documented the growth and calorie consumption

Okay well then idk, if you don't believe the number 1 enemy of the USSR who has a vested interest in making it look bad, then I really can't help you

Actually calorie consumption was normal in the USSR

Obviously under Gorbachev there was a food shortage and there was the 33 famine

Well it's not about trusting the CIA it's that I find it weird in this circumstance you choose to think the CIA would try and make the USSR look good

Oh, Jewish conspiracy stuff?

Nope

Sure the bankers are shit, but it's hardly some 6D chess

They're simply capitalists acting in their interests

Yeah, On the Jewish Question

This isn't a grand conspiracy however, just a critique of a cultural mindset

Frost that's On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx

Oh nevermind

You got it